Talk:Jo Phoenix

Notability

Is this person notable? This seems like a vanity article. 92.1.226.16 (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I can't see any notable achievements listed. Seems to be an academic who has had some sort of dispute with her employer.--Ruthrendellmysteries (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Based on discussion coverage, it seems this person's notability is largely due to winning an employment tribunal? Does not meet suggested criteria being a notable academic (see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics))

Page could be changed to one on 'Phoenix v. OU' as this seems to be the real subject of this entry, rather than the claimant whose notability falls short of the threshold for having her own Wikipedia page. Ruthrendellmysteries (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

There are likely to be reviews of her books, so she almost certainly meets WP:NAUTHOR. Haven't looked at whether she meets WP:NPROF. I'll see if I can add reviews. Tacyarg (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Having had a book reviewed is not sufficient to meet the threshold for author on wikipedia, there would need to be at least multiple periodical articles.

From the guidelines you posted: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);"

I was able to find a single review (by L Gelsthorpe) of a book from 2010 called 'Regulating sex for sale", this would not mark the author's works out as particularly notable. The work itself is academic, neither a trade publication for wider public consumption nor an academic text that has passed into wide public consciousness. I think the subject can only be assessed as an academic and, as stated above, not sufficiently notable as an academic to warrant their own wikipedia page.

Moreover, the article itself is primarily taken up with the events leading up to a single employment tribunal, which has many sources. (As per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:CRIME&redirect=no) "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." This seems to be the most appropriate advice. I would suggest deletion and including materials related to 'Phoenix v OU' to another page (perhaps the OU one). Ruthrendellmysteries (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I've added a notability tag Ruthrendellmysteries (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I don’t agree. The article also covers books she has written, the Essex University freedom of speech dispute, and the founding of the Gender Critical Research Network. I am baffled as to how such a long, well-referenced article, can be written about a supposedly non-notable person. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Please address the points from my post and the established norms for establishing notability of academics WP:ACADEMIC

The subject of this article has written two academic books, I cannot see that they are widely reviewed nor well-known, certainly not close to the threshold of point 1 ("The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.") Please see the linked article to understand this. Her public profile as an academic seems fairly ordinary for senior academic in a UK institution. Other than her employment tribunal, there is no indication that this is a well-known person. I have done some searching and as far as I can see she has been interviewed and made media appearances only in relation to this. This would seem appropriate, according to Scopus she has 546 citations across 37 articles, this is quite low. Together this would indicate that the subject is primarily known for court proceedings and the subsequent media attention. Almost all the cited sources are around the subjects various disputes with universities, primarily the Open University.

Given these additional points, I reiterate my argument above that this content would probably be more well suited to another page, for instance the section on 'Academic Freedom' in Gender-critical_feminism, which covers similar events. Ruthrendellmysteries (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

As I have already said, Phoenix is known for the dispute over freedom of speech at Essex University, and for founding the Gender Critical Research Network, as is set out in the article, as well as for being an author and for the employment tribunal. It would not be possible to create such a long and well-referenced article if she was not a notable person. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Also see WP:BIO: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the coverage of her dispute with the Open University is high profile and should be covered in wikipedia, however I dispute that a dedicated page is required. The sources covering e.g. The Gender Critical Research Network do not indicate any academic impact. There is an article in The Critic announcing its launch by someone who was a member at the time (something like a press release, not sufficiently 'independent of the subject', as well as a link to the University Page for the Network. Again there are thousands of academics who launch similar types of initiatives that are not covered by wikipedia nor should they be. The emphasis in the article, reflects the reality more broadly that interest in the Network seems to be primarily as the background to the dispute which dominates this article. This is why I suggest merging with another article. Ruthrendellmysteries (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I wonder whether you are confusing the requirements for notability solely as an academic with notability in general. There are 32 references for the article. I really don’t see how you can persist in saying that Phoenix is not notable. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I think you have overlooked my initial comments above. I have looked at notability broadly, it is clear that the subject's notability is in relation to an employment tribunal. As WP:CRIME indicates (not ideal, but the closest to relevant guidance on the subject) "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a Wikipedia Article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person."

The current article attributes notability to her career as an academic, but this is plainly untrue. It leads to a false understanding of the notability of the subject. As I have demonstrated, her career as an academic includes nothing that would warrant her inclusion in wikipedia on this basis.

Of the 32 references, around half are coverage of her dispute with the Open University and the others are primarily ordinary web presence for any acadaemic (links to articles published by her and profiles on University websites). It would be easy to find links to many published articles by almost any academic, but it would not signal notability. Therefore the number of references here does not alone create a convincing argument for inclusion. That the bulk of those included are in relation to an employment tribunal rather than academic endeavour merely underscores my main point. Ruthrendellmysteries (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I've added references to three reviews; diff. Honestly, the coverage of this book (there are more reviews than these three) made me consider boldly removing the notability tag, as it seems clear to me that she does meet WP:NPROF point 1. I will leave that for other editors to review, however. I've considered the point you make about criminal trials and the guidance at WP:PERPETRATOR, but this doesn't appear to me to apply to this tribunal. You could of course take the article to AfD if you're after a wider consensus. Tacyarg (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you could construe that having a few reviews of one book in a journal would meet the threshold for point one. The closes subpoint is 1.a. "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account." To demonstrate this would involve showing that several works are highly cited and this involves looking at citation metrics.

As I have shown already, the number of citations that Prof. Phoenix work has received is low. Google Scholar shows 924 citations across 82 items, only one has received more than 100 citations. Compare this to the page for Richard Layte at Trinity College Dublin (who has a much shorter wikipedia page) and who has 14,696 citations. I have chosen Google scholar to be generous, the guidance in fact explicitly states that the either Scopus or Web of Science should be used. I do not have access to Web of Science but have already explained that Scopus captures only 546 citations. On Scopus an academic who works in a similar vein (Sara Ahmed) has 7,241 citations. This may be a more appropriate comparator as there are certain discipline conventions (a greater preponderance of single author works) that make this comparison more valid. When I look for third sources on this academic I can also find that the focus is on this person's work and writings, rather than previous dispute with their institution (again this is a useful comparison as this academic also left their institution following a complaint). I tried doing a google search for Phoenix prior to 2020 and could find nothing that would not be standard for a senior academic in a mid-level academic institution. All public focus on this individual is in relation to their subsequent employment tribunal and the press attention it attracted.

Other appropriate measures are also lacking, as there is no evidence of having "pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question." Nor has "an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person" been published.

Together these measurements show the real purpose of the first criteria, which is to demonstrate "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" which is not demonstrated simply by showing there were multiple reviews in several books. This is certainly not demonstrated in the selected quotes you have chosen, which argue that it has made "an important contribution to the body of empirical evidence on prostitution", speculates that it will be "valuable to teachers and researchers in the field" and that it is "well-researched."

Very plainly the remaining criteria (2-8) are not reached either.

I'm concerned that the approach taken to including this academic sets a very low standard for 'notability' that would include most professors in the UK. Academic staff already have University profile pages to assert their publication history etc., Wikipedia articles should be reserved for those who have attracted real notability in this area. As I have said, I do think the events of her Employment tribunal are sufficiently notable to warrant their own page, which should replace this one. This would have the advantage of including subsequent actions not focussed on the subject (such as the independent report subsequently commissioned by the university). Ruthrendellmysteries (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

POV and BLP

The portrayal of her (named) colleagues' criticism as "sustained harassment and bullying" in Wikipedia's voice is a clear-cut example of WP:POV, and is not an objective fact. Furthermore, it's a BLP violation because it accuses Professor Louise Westmarland and other academics who are named here of wrongdoing ("sustained harassment and bullying"). In reality, this is merely a claim made by TERFs, not a fact. Her employment tribunal case (in a country with a very dubious LGBT+ record) was against her employer, not against the colleagues who criticized her, who have certainly not been convicted of any kind of "harassment and bullying" as they were not even party to this case. It's not appropriate to accuse Professor Louise Westmarland or any others in Wikipedia's voice of "harassment and bullying" merely for disagreeing with transphobia. Her colleagues have the right to express their political views too and criticize transphobia. The neutral way to phrase this is "her colleagues' criticism of her views" or something like that. An allegation that Westmarland or any others engaged in wrongdoing would have to be attributed to the person making the claim, in this case Phoenix. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The question is easily resolved by reference to the Guardian report and the Tribunal decision, which pointed explicitly to the term "racist uncle". As far as I can see, there is nothing in the article that exceeds the sources or gives any opinion on the merits or otherwise of the case. If you disagree, please point it out. When you make an assertion like "a claim made by TERFs", it is difficult to take you seriously as an arbiter on WP:NPOV. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's difficult to take you seriously here. It literally is an allegation that has been made by TERFs – which is a descriptive term for a certain movement – against Westmarland and other Open University academics who critized transphobia by an anti-trans fringe group based at Open University. It's not appropriate to make such a claim in Wikipedia's voice, when it expresses a fringe sentiment and is just an allegation against someone else who had nothing to do with the employment tribunal. Criticizing transphobia is certainly not commonly considered "sustained harassment and bullying", and the fact that 368 of her colleagues were among her critics just shows how this is really a fringe position, also at Open University. We can quote the racist uncle comment and her response to it, but we cannot accuse Westmarland or hundreds of academics who criticized transphobia of "sustained harassment and bullying", a grave allegation they have not been convicted of, in Wikipedia's voice. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

to AAB

1) Your comment about named people being accused in our article baffles me: it is the source which names Prof Westmarland, not our article. Westmarland is also mentioned in the judgment itself .

2) The tribunal determined that Phoenix’s claims for constructive dismissal, direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation were well founded. These decisions involve findings of fact by the tribunal relating to her colleagues’ behaviour. You seem to have misunderstood the tribunal process.

3) I accept the deletion of the textsubjected her to sustained harassment and bullying. because this is a partly a repetition of the previous text, and because the source does not mention bullying as such. (I had merely reinstated the previous wording in this respect.)

4) I would accept the deletion of the text fter it refused to act in response to her colleagues' criticism of her views.Alternatively, her colleagues’ criticism of her views should be changed to her colleagues’ behaviour towards her.

5) Regarding the quotes around ‘transphobic’: these are not ‘scare quotes’, but merely quotes around the word which was used. Our article on Scare quotes says these are quotation marks that writers place around a word or phrase to signal that they are using it in an ironic, referential, or otherwise non-standard sense. That is not the way I used the quote marks, and I don’t see how my use of the quotes could be interpreted in that way.

Sweet6970 (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

On the scare quotes issue, the Manual of Style guidance for this is MOS:SCAREQUOTES. While there's some overlap there, I can see how someone could in good faith interpret it as a scare quote. It's important to remember that while you may not have intended it to be a scare quote, readers and other editors won't ordinarily have insight into why an editor chose to use the punctuation that they did. They only have their perceptions of what has been written.

As it's factually true, and undisputed that the signatories of the open letter described the GCRN as transphobic, I really don't think we need quotation marks there. In that sentence of the lead, we're summarising what happened, but we're quite clearly attributing that label to the signatories of the open letter. It's not something that's in wikivoice, we are not saying that the GCRN is transphobic, we're simply stating that a large group of her colleagues did, so I think we're fine without the marks.

I'm still considering the rest of what's been said here though, just in case it looks odd as to why I'm replying to this one specific bit. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I've just copyedited this part and have re-added the quotes to distance us from what the colleagues said. I tried to make it better sound as it is what they said, not that the group truly is transphobic (which we cannot decide). But if you want the quotes removed I am happy to let you do that without dispute. —Panamitsu (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Criticizing transphobia is certainly not commonly considered "sustained harassment and bullying",; yet another sheer absurdity. You are personally inferring that all her colleagues were doing were merely criticizing transphobia, and nothing else, which is incorrect, considering we have evidence of personal attacks as described in the article. Basically suggesting that her colleagues were scolded for just "critizing"; demonstrably false. Zilch-nada (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This comment is nothing but a shallow, inflammatory personal opinion. You say egregiously that this is merely a claim made by TERFs, not a fact in an article talk page about an incident were the tribunal ruled in her favour. Is the tribunal TERF? That assertion is completely unnecesary. "merely for disagreeing with transphobia"; likewise, this is entirely your own personal view; whether or not Phoenix's views are transphobic are entirely subjected to opinion, and you are using your own to basically say that treatment of her was justified. Zilch-nada (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

"Academic author" and description as gender-critical

"Academic author" is completely unncessary when someone is already described in an academic capacity—as a criminologist—as all academics are by definition "academic authors", it's really what academics do. The description "academic author" just sounds odd, and would sound odd in the biography of any academic. No academic would describe themselves or other academics in such a way. She is known for having founded the Gender Critical Research Network and describes her own research as gender-critical. The article on gender-critical feminism is clear that this tradition considers itself as a feminist tradition, but the word "feminism" alone is so vague that it can refer to many, opposing traditions—something GC's don't dispute—so gender-critical is simply more specific, and in line with how she describes her research and the Gender Critical Research Network she is known for having founded herself. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

She is precisely sourced as an "academic". Your removal is unwarranted. Zilch-nada (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It is better to specify that she is an academic author – there are many different kinds of authors, and being an academic does not prevent her, for instance, from writing detective stories. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue really is that the majority of her output - eg. decades of feminist criminology - is nothing whatsoever to do with "gender critical", which is a comparatively recent development. I think she's known for two things here: feminist research in criminology and, latterly, setting up the gender critical research network. Simply replacing "feminist research in criminology" with "gender critical research in criminology" is I think a revisionist conflation of the two. Void if removed (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the ‘known for’ wording – I support Void’s wording: Academic author and feminist researcher in criminology. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

yes, that reads well to me too. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Zilch-nada (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I have now made this alteration. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Transgender Women in Women’s spaces.

JMF you reverted my edit and reinstated the previous language which was taken from the primary source, which states that she "lobbied for continued provision of women-only, single sex spaces for women". This language is inaccurate on several counts. Firstly, it grossly mischaracterizes the views of her detractors, since it was never suggested that women-only spaces should be shuttered or desegregated. Second, it implies that women who are transgender were, at that point, not allowed to access women only spaces. This was not the case. Finally, the language is vague. The dispute was surrounding the ability of transgender people to access women's spaces, but the prior language made no reference to transgender people.

I propose to re-instate my edit, with language compliant with MOS:GIDINFO, instead of Phoenix' own words. HenrikHolen (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

With this diff, @HenrikHolen boldly changed

• In relation to community-based punishments and services, she lobbied for continued provision of women-only, single sex spaces for women

to

• In relation to community-based punishments and services, she lobbied for transgender women to be denied access to women-only services.

I reverted that edit as being loaded language that misreports the words she used. (The closest she comes to it is when she writes: "I argue that catering for criminalised trans and gender-diverse people through women-only services will not necessarily ensure that they have adequate protections (from transphobia) or services appropriate to their needs."

@HenrikHolen responded by attaching an npov tag to the reinstated text. But here's the problem: HH may well believe that Professor Phoenix's views are not neutral or sufficiently detached. But that is irrelevant. For the purposes of Wikipedia, the only question that is relevant is whether, when we report her has having expressed a view, we have accurately, honestly and neutrally summarised that view. So for the npov to stand, HH needs to show in what respect we have failed in that summary – and they should have used this talk page at least at the same time to make that case. As they have failed to do so, I have removed it pending consensus arising from this BRD debate.

(To be fair to HH, the original citation was to the committee minutes and the link to her submission was not obvious. I have now found it and cited it.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

And I can't for the life of me see how MOS:GIDINFO is remotely relevant: Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. Do not use gendered noun forms (e.g. mailman, waitress) that do not match the most recent self-identification. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise. The question of her self-identification simply does not arise. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

It might help explain why we can't use your form of wording if I create a theoretical opposite example.

Suppose a person or group were recorded in Wikipedia as

• In relation to community-based punishments and services, they lobbied for transgender convict women to be placed in women's prisons.

but an editor wanted to change that to

• In relation to community-based punishments and services, they lobbied for women who themselves had been victim to sexual and physical assault to be locked in a cell for 20 hours a day with a biological male who may have convictions for those crimes."

Would you consider that acceptable? Because it would amount to exactly the same thing: editorialising their words. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

It is my contention that the original language was loaded , and I attempted to remedy that. The MOS issue, as I see it, occurs because Phoenix' language is laden with an implication that transgender women are men, and hence that a women's service provision which includes transgender women is not "women-only". Fairly representing a person's view does not always mean mirroring the language of primary sources when that language is loaded, and if if we are mirroring their language it would be best to attribute quotes. Her testimony says:

"an individual’s right to identify as trans, gender queer, gender non-binary, lesbian, gay, bisexual, or whatever cannot possibly be *the* organising principle in the provision and administration of criminal justice"

I believe it is fair to characterize this as arguing that prisons should be organized on the basis of natal sex and not acquired sex.

Moreover there is the issue of vagueness. With the original language, I do not believe an unfamiliar reader would infer that her argument had anything to do with the placement of transgender people inside the prison service.

I still believe the current language has issues, but I won't press the issue any further and will allow third party editors to opine.

HenrikHolen (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reasoned reply. I hope we can find a way to reconcile the two seemingly irreconcilable world views (your view that trans women are women -v- her view that trans women are not women, but that is a topic for other articles). Would you accept this as a compromise text?

• In relation to community-based punishments and services, she lobbied for continued provision of women-only, single sex spaces for women (and thus to exclude trans-women from women's prisons). In her view, "catering for criminalised trans and gender-diverse people through women-only services will not necessarily ensure that they have adequate protections (from transphobia) or services appropriate to their needs".

Would that work?

Or do we have to be very unequivocal and simply report verbatim her two summarising statements:

3.1 I urge the Committee to provide explicit guidance on the importance of single-sex women-only provision and spaces in the criminal justice system (including prison and community rehabilitation centres) in its report and recommendations.
3.2 I also urge the Committee the provide explicit guidance on the need to further develop policy, practice and services based on respect and dignity for justice-involved trans and gender-diverse people’s needs and requirements viz-a-viz rehabilitation and resettlement but to do so in a way that does not impinge on the provision of single sex women-only services and spaces.

(without WP:OR or WP:SYNTH commentary). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

My opinion has no relevance, but it is the general policy of Wikipedia to refer to people based on their preferred gender identity. I was trying to impartially translate Phoenix' language into less loaded language, which does not take a position on whether trans people are women or not. HenrikHolen (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

The MOS:GIDINFO policy is specific to WP:BLP: in this article we must refer to Phoenix using her preferred description of herself, which is 'she', 'her'. (The same rule or courtesy applies to any other individuals identified in the article.) There is no policy that I can see which requires us to attribute a form of words to her (or to her opponents) that not only did they not use but would not use because it is contrary to their beliefs. That is true all over Wikipedia.

In her evidence to the Parliamentary Committee, she makes it very clear that her focus is on protecting biological women. She also explicitly advises the Committee that trans people need protection too – but that is for others to make the case for resource allocation. You cannot deliberately misrepresent that position as being intended consciously to deny the rights of trans people, because that is WP:SYNTH (at best). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

References

NPOV, Promotional

This article is promotional and very POV. I've taken some time to clean it up a bit, but the clear copywriting and POV framing. Things like "she had to" take legal action. It's very iffy and needs serious work or delete. RvnRaven (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

There's a whole quote from book reviews in here. Genuinely one of the worst articles, however I disagree with her views, so I may leave it up to people more impartial to sort out the WP:NPOV of it all. RvnRaven (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it is very clear that you disagree with her views but that does not give you license to make extensive changes to the article to promote your views instead.

Per the policy Biography of living persons, any statements made must be supported by wp:reliable sources and accurately reflect their content. The wording changes you tried to make do not pass that test, so I have reverted them. Your WP:AFD proposal stands for now. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree that RvnRaven's changes were not an overall improvement, but I also agree that she had to is not neutral. I've changed it to she took, and also deleted "significant", as needless in the context. If anyone thinks the wording I've changed was in fact supported by sources in the main body of the article, I've no problems with them being reverted. Tacyarg (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I concur. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that my changes were to promote my views, the changes were very clearly to balance the article and remove promotional framing. RvnRaven (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

That is hardly surprising but there is no consensus that favours the changes that you wanted to make. Your [unanimously rejected] proposal that the article be deleted brought many disinterested reviewers to the article so, if your complaints had merit, it is reasonable to suppose that others would have concurred.

It is a difficult topic with irreconcilable viewpoints. So, as far as is humanly possible, the text summarises the reports of reliable third parties without any wp:editorial comment. That the RS happens to have used a book review as its vehicle in incidental. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

second paragraph of the lead

I know this overlaps a little with the discussion above but I want to keep this narrow and focused on just the paragraph mentioned.

At the moment we say in the lead that Phoenix took legal action against the university of Essex, this is different to the body where we say Phoenix welcomed legal action against the university of Essex, which is almost one to one with what the citation provided says.

We also say that the Open University case was more serious than the University of Essex case. This is just original research and should be removed unless we can find a reliable source making this comparison.

Also is the idea that Phoenix "won" against the university of Essex, given there was no actual legal case these seems like a fabrication that should be removed.

We also state that she took the legal action (or that she won, it's slightly unclear) " for their failure to take action against those responsible". This also seems like OR and at odds with what we say in the article, that she bought a claim "for not protecting her against harassment".

At the moment it seems like a full rewrite with Lead follows body in mind should be done, and I'll start coming up with a draft paragraph with (hopefully) less issues. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

May I make some suggestions?

That second para begins,

She is known for her gender critical views, in particular for asserting the right of women prisoners not to be incarcerated with biological males. She was subjected to criticism and harassment for expressing these views as part of her academic work

These are valid, are well supported by citations in the body and should stand. As for the rest:

as a consequence, took (and won) legal actions against two former employers

is inaccurate: it was not she who took the action against Essex, so that does need rewriting.

which she won

is technically untrue in the case of Essex (it was the Free Speech Union that won and their action was not on her behalf) but surely there is no doubt that the Employment Tribunal found in her favour in the OU case? So yes, needs rewriting. It won't be easy to be as succinct.

the Open University case was more serious than the University of Essex case

is surely true and per WP:the sky is blue doesn't a citation. But as it is that obvious, it doesn't need saying and we can let readers draw their own conclusion. Delete.

for their failure to take action against those responsible

is maybe overstating "not protecting her against harassment in the workplace" but 'words to that effect' will still be needed in your rewrite.

I hope you find these comments helpful. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The comment is helpful and will be taking into account.

With the university of Essex there seems to be some confusion but as far as I can see there was never actual a case. As I understand it what happened was Phoenix was due to have her talk in December 2019. The University than got Reindorf to do her report and then issued an apology to Phoenix in may 2021, the free speech Union then issued a letter before action in November 2021. The letter did not seem to be on behalf of Phoenix or representing Phoenix. The letter seemed to be the extent of the "legal action" between the free speech union and the University of Essex so no case ever happened.

A theoretical paragraph should probably just separate the two Universities out as the two situations seem very different in terms of what happened and summarising them together would probably lead to innacuraccies. LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense and should make it easier to redraft. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@JMF sorry I've taken so long, been busy in real life. Here's the draft:

She is known for her gender critical views, in particular for campaigning for the right of cisgender women prisoners not to be incarcerated with transgender women prisoners. She was subjected to criticism and harassment for expressing these views whilst working as an academic. In 2021 the University of Essex apologised to her for cancelling a speech she was due to make. In January 2024 an employment tribunal found she had suffered victimisation, harassment and discrimination by the Open University.

Obviously any comments are welcome. LunaHasArrived (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

That looks good to me except by the Open U, as I think it overstates the facts - I don't think there was a finding of institutional vh&d. Would "by senior academic colleagues at the OU" work?

Anyone else have a view? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Good spot, maybe "whilst working at the Open University" would be best as I'm not certain who each element of the suffering was done by. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

It looks to me that the reference to Essex misses the mark too because it implies that it was the University as an institution that cancelled the speech, How about "apologised to her for the cancellation of a speech she was due to make" and leave it to the body text to elaborate. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

That's a good adjustment as well. LunaHasArrived (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Gone ahead and was BOLD and implemented the new paragraph. I might also have a go at changing the paragraph to do with the University of Essex in the body as at the moment it's at least not in chronological order. LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

With regret, I had to revert your edit because it was significantly different from the text we hammered out above. Professor Phoenix chose her words carefully when giving evidence to parliament and your cis-/trasn- phrasing just reads as WP:JARGON and arguably even WP:SOAPBOX. I see no reason to change that part of the current lead as it is has been accepted for a very long time as the most WP:NPOV. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

That part wasn't changed at all though and was therefore in the part hashed out above. Notably Phoenix does use the cis/trans phrasing in her parliament submission as well. (edit) I see the confusion it wasn't in the text on the 23rd when you made your initial comments about what parts about the paragraph needed to be changed and was introduced on the 24th and when I made my draft was in that version of the text. In regards of what to do Honestly I'm not sure that statement about her being particularly know for that is true, in the body of the article the only source talking about is the primary parliament submission, if this statement were true we would have a secondary source to back it up. Most of the sources used in the article say she was due to give a talk on the subject but don't actually say her views on it. LunaHasArrived (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

My apologies, it was another editor who changed She is known for her gender critical views, in particular for asserting the right of women prisoners not to be incarcerated with biological males. to the jargon wording. Specifically, Phoenix wrote

Recent research on the implementation of a prison placement policy based on self-identification demonstrates this. Prison officers noted the tensions that were created, for them, of maintaining security and safety for all those incarcerated when male-bodied people who identify as women were placed in female prisons, often with women with long histories of violence and abuse from men. They also noted the problems created by placing female bodied people who identify as men in men’s prisons (Ricciardelli, Phoenix and Gacek 2019)

and in particular concludes

3.2 I also urge the Committee the provide explicit guidance on the need to further develop policy, practice and services based on respect and dignity for justice-involved trans and gender-diverse people’s needs and requirements viz-a-viz rehabilitation and resettlement but to do so in a way that does not impinge on the provision of single sex women-only services and spaces.

We really must be careful (per WP:BLP) to be true to sources and avoid WP:SYNTH. As you are already aware, this is a WP:Contentious topic. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC) Revised to fix repetition. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Why is using "cisgender/transgender" unacceptable, and using "biological males" instead? I don't really see how "biological males" is a clear term at all. It's pretty clear that transgender women is what is meant and this is just a euphemism for them. "Biological male" is a jargon/euphemism term, we should use the correct terminology here. By saying Phoenix advocates for "the right of women prisoners not to be incarcerated with biological males." we're explicitly saying in wikivoice that the people Phoenix is advocating to exclude from female prisons, aka transgender women, are not women. Maybe if we put quotation marks around "biological males" then it's clearer we're using her terminology, but we could also just be direct and use the clear terminology which is to say cisgender and transgender. GraziePrego (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The term she used is "male-bodied", which is also awkward and in general scare quotes is a sloppy practice.. "Transgender women" is ambiguous: is it a man who is now a woman or a woman who is now a man? (Rhetorical question on behalf of the Person on the Clapham Omnibus). For a woman who has been raped, the prospect of being trapped in a prison cell with an intact male is intolerable. In that context, we have to avoid euphemisms. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

What do you think of removing the phrase "in particular for asserting the right of women prisoners not to be incarcerated with biological males" As mentioned before the only source used for this (in body or in lede) is this primary parliament source and if this is a view she is particularly known for (what we are saying) there should be a secondary source to that effect. The idea that Phoenix is particularly known for this view is not stated in any source used on this page and is therefore a bigger synth issue then what language we use to summarise her views. LunaHasArrived (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

There are some secondary sources which discuss this, Transgender and Non-Binary Prisoners’ Experiences in England and Wales and Defending Women's Spaces. Tacyarg (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, came back to clarify myself. Neither source explicitly says she is known for. Both give examples of her stating those views. We could consider She holds ... and asserts instead of "known for". Tacyarg (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for finding those. The first doesn't seem to be of much help (it doesn't say anything.) The second seems to be highly biased so we should be careful using it's language.

However I do have a proposal that we change the sentence to "she is known for her gender critical views, including the belief that transgender women should not be housed in women's prisons". I don't believe transgender by itself would count for WP:jargon and Phoenix does use the term consistently throughout both the parliament submission and the quoted section of defending women's spaces. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that "transgender" certainly has common usage, is uncontroversial and no longer jargon. That is not true of "Cisgender" - its usage seems limited to gender studies in academia and to the trans community and is a very recent coinage. See google Ngram, speaks for itself.

A secondary source that says that she is noted for her position on single-sex prisons would be gopd. Right now the "she is moted..." is an open invitation to tag it with {{by whom}} 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

As cis(anything) isn't used in that draft I see there's no problems with that. Would you have any problems with "she holds gender critical views, including the belief that transgender women shouldn't be housed in women's prisons." as a replacement for the first sentence of the second paragraph. LunaHasArrived (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

As for your proposed revision (which I should have addressed first, sorry), I'm concerned about the ambiguity of the term "transgender woman": does it mean a man who has become a woman or a woman who has become a man. In the trans community, it is the first of course but not for a general readership. I really cannot see how we can evade terms like "male bodied" or "biologically male". 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

edit conflict, as I hope you appreciate. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully I fully disagree, transgender women is a well recognised term and I see very little confusion about it generally. I'd be happy to link to the article on transgender women so if someone doesn't know what it means they can easily find out. LunaHasArrived (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

As I said, the term and distinction are well recognised by people who use it regularly. In public life, the distinction is not obvious but has no significance (ignoring the trumped-up nonsense about who may use which toilet). However, in a prison, biological sex distinction matters a great deal: it is not an erudite semantic argument. The issue here is whether a [biological] woman feels a very deep-seated threat by the presence of a [biological] man in a situation from which she cannot escape. We have to be unambiguous about terminology: in this context, physiology, anatomy and endocrinology matter. So what exactly is the issue here? Is it just conservative prejudice or is it a deep challenge to the psyche of women with a history of abuse by men? I believe, but have no source, that it is only the latter that concerns Phoenix. Therefore we should use the words that she herself used (in 3.2 of her submission to Parliament, quoted above.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

On that basis we shouldn't be using "biologically male" either (also looking at google ngram for biological sex + gives an interesting result). Maybe say "she holds gender critical views and holds the belief that women's prisons should be single sex and exclude transgender people". would that work? LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Almost, but (despite the wild TERF allegations) she was careful not to say that. How about "she holds gender critical views and advocates that women's prisons should be single sex with separate provision being made for transgender people. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Using "cisgender" and "transgender" is being unambiguous about terminology, because that's exactly what those terms were created to describe. I think you're venturing into POV by talking about deep-seated threats, that's more talking about the validity of Phoenix's argument rather than what terminology we should use.

I think the best wording is she holds gender critical views, and has advocated for transgender women not to be housed in women's prisons. GraziePrego (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

That would be a false statement of her position as she has said no such thing.

She advocated separate provision for transgender and gender-diverse people - indeed in her submission to the Parliamentary enquiry she makes particular reference to the challenges faced by T&GD people in conventional prisons.

(We have moved beyond the issue of terminology in the latest draft, let's not go back over old ground.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

That would be an entirely accurate statement of her position. She argues that women's prisons need to be single sex, and that therefore transgender women should not be incarcerated in them. What is wrong about my wording? Also I note that she does use the terminology "trans women" and "trans men" and "cis" frequently, so that's even more evidence that it's not obscure jargon we need to avoid. GraziePrego (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Because you are putting your interpretation on what she wrote and that is WP:EDITORIALising. Let her words stand for themselves, let the readers decide.

Again, the discussion has moved past the terminology debate, it is no longer relevant because there is no proposed text that uses any of the words of concern. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I really don't think it's editorialising, I think it's pretty clear that's her argument from reading the material cited in the lead. I'm not really clear on what the difference is between the proposed wording by @LunaHasArrived (which I support as the wording) and your proposed wording, except that Luna's is more concise? GraziePrego (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Not only is it editorialising, it is a clear WP:BLP violation (because you are attributing to her a position that she has not expressed) and it is also a WP:SYNTH violation because you are making an inference from the cited source that is not contained in that source. That is not acceptable. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

What is the difference between:

"she holds gender critical views and advocates that women's prisons should be single sex with separate provision being made for transgender people."

and

"she holds gender critical views, and has advocated for transgender women not to be housed in women's prisons."

that makes one a BLP violation and the other one fine? They're saying the same thing, just one is more concise. GraziePrego (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I have already explained the distinction very clearly and I really don't believe that you still don't see it unless you have chosen not to do so. No doubt you are aware of the concept of framing in discourse. Your "concision" is a deliberate misrepresentation of her stated position and you know it. I really shouldn't have to give lessons to an administrator on the most basic principles of WP:npov and WP:soapbox. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I’m asking very genuinely and don’t appreciate you accusing me of discussing in bad faith. If I’ve missed the explanation from earlier then feel free to link it or restate it. But I’m asking for an explanation of why one wording is acceptable and one isn’t to try and constructively move the discussion along, and you’re accusing me of deliberately violating NPOV and soapboxing. Again, I’m not trying to be difficult, I genuinely have not seen an explanation of why those two wordings are so different. To me, they have the same meaning. Is it all of the changed words that are wrong? Or just some bits you think are a POV violation? I genuinely don’t know and I’m trying to find out. Please don’t attack me for that and accuse me of deliberately being deceptive or whatever. If it’s such a basic principle then maybe explain what exactly the problem is instead of attacking. GraziePrego (talk) 07:11, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I am genuinely baffled that you declare yourself unable to see any difference between these two sentences. The first says clearly and unambiguously what she did say. The second is a fiction because she did not say that T&GD people should be excluded from conventional prisons, full stop. (What she did say is that separate provision needs to be made for them and explained sympathetically in some detail why that is necessary. Please recall that she is a subject expert in crime and punishment, so her opinion has far higher standing than anything that you or I might think. wp:AGF applies to her too, if not more so.)

The primary effect of your version (which you say is not its primary purpose) is to frame her as transphobic. I am unable to understand why you would fail to see such a serious BLP violation. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

What do you think is 3.1 of the submission Phoenix means by "Single-sex women only provision and spaces in the criminal justice system (including prison and community rehabilitation centres)" or in 3.2 where she says that transgender people's rehabilitation and resettlement should not (in her opinion) "impinge on the provision of single sex women-only services and spaces. " The way I'd summarise that view to my friends would be " Phoenix believes that cis women should have the option to have spaces and services dedicated to cis women only". The previous is very much not an encyclopedic summary but it's how I'd summarise Phoenix's.

I do ask the question about whether we should have a sentence about her views on transgender people prisons in the lead at all, and if so whether this should be solely based on a parliament submission from over 5 years ago. I tried and the only other place I could find her voicing her opinion was from her substack 3 years ago were she argued heavily against a "case by case" view of transgender women in women's prisons (as well as misgendering them throughout the peice). In my view saying "Phoenix believes that trans women should not be housed in women's prisons" is verifiable, but I am unconvinced that anyone mention of her views on transgender people in prisons is due for the lead. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Dropping the prisons example from the lead might be the best solution because her position on prison and prisoners does not seem to merit the current "in particular" tag given that it has limited coverage in the body. The Gender Critical Network is probably a more obvious sequitur to She is known for her gender critical views, because that at least has a section in the article. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Laudatio

That paragraph reads like a laudatio:

Julia O'Connell Davidson, writing in The American Journal of Sociology, described Making Sense of Prostitution as "a study of outstanding depth and perspicacity that makes an important contribution to the body of empirical evidence on prostitution".[10] Merl Storr, writing in Feminist Review, had some criticisms of the book but concluded that "its solid refusal to flatten the contradictions of prostitution will certainly make the book valuable to teachers and researchers in the field".[11] Maggie O'Neill, writing in Work, Employment & Society, described the book as "a fascinating account of the author's research into the lives of twenty-one women working as prostitutes in 'mid-city' ... The section on violence is very thorough, well researched and argued and adds a great deal to the available literature on violence against women working as prostitutes".[12]

Worse, it doesn't describe her career at all. Selbstporträt (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Selbstporträt. I wrote that text - thanks for the feedback. Intended as a neutral account of reception to her work. I have now particularised the "some criticisms", which may help. Good point about how well the section heading applies; I've split "career" up now. Tacyarg (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2026 (UTC)