Talk:Motion on transgender women in sports defeated in Queensland Parliament

Reporter's notes
Some of these quotes are taken directly from Hansard, specifically pages 77-81 where the debate was recorded. While the motion appears to have been defeated yesterday, I don't think it was reported until today. Also I was quite perplexed with the title and staying with WN:NPOV — something like "Women's sports motion defeated in Queensland Parliament" is pretty vague, and potentially a violation given a number of MPs said the debate wasn't about women's sport. Given the motion does not mention transgender women by name, I am not super pleased with the current title, but the alternative — something like "Motion on biological men in women's sports defeated in Queensland Parliament" — would be pretty explicitly siding with one POV. Given both KAP members drew the connection with transgender individuals, and both the ABC and the Times identified it as referring to transgender women, I think the current title is the best way to go, but if anyone disagrees, please do suggest alternatives. --LivelyRatification (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Similarly, I was a bit unsure about the bit from the article that said "the motion, which referred to transgender women as "biological men"". Initially I thought it would be good to avoid going from saying "this motion discusses transgender women" to saying "this motion discusses biological men" to avoid implying that those two are one and the same, but the implication there could also be that they are not the same, which of course raises the same issue in the other direction. I've opted to just say that the motion refers to biological men, but again, if someone has a better idea, let me know. LivelyRatification (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Review of revision 4676822 [Not ready]

 * There are a few other sources on the issue that I can find, but most only address the LNP voting for this motion. (The Guardian, Courier Mail (paywalled), The Advertiser (paywalled)). The only one I can find that focuses on the vote itself is from the (article here), an LGBTI-focused newspaper. Do you think they'd be a reliable source? --LivelyRatification (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The situation is not ideal, but I will substitute the need for a secondary source in place for the record of proceedings by the Qld Parliament for a well-covered event otherwise. This is a well-written article and I want to see it pass. Re the Star Observer, I don't think so: its use of charged language, rightful or otherwise ("harmful debates"; "transphobic comments, which might be distressing"). Please resubmit for review. --JJLiu112 (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ready for review! LivelyRatification (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)