Talk:Cotton ceiling

Do we need this?

It's cited enough to be notable, but does it need its own page? 2603:7081:B940:10:B896:631C:4EEE:CCAA (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Trash concept advocated by a

smattering of highly biased sources that seem to be advocating coercive rape. SinoDevonian (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC) SinoDevonian (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead neutrality

I have reverted LauraRichards1981's additions (e.g., [1]) because they are not sourced and not neutral, and appear to just be an addition of their own opinion on the article topic rather than a summary of reliable secondary sources. I am starting this section for discussion, per WP:BRD. DanCherek (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Whereas claiming the "cotton ceiling" somehow marginalises trans women is neutral? Claiming they are the victims is neutral?

And what about "securing" women? That is acceptanle?

The cotton ceiling IS seen as a barrier by trans people who think they have the ultimate right to smash through it and as said above "advocating coercive rape"

But you consider saying trans people are marginalised by this to be neutral? Read this https://medium.com/@mirandayardley/girl-dick-the-cotton-ceiling-and-the-cultural-war-on-lesbians-and-women-c323b4789368

watch this https://www.filia.org.uk/latest-news/2019/11/9/what-is-the-cotton-ceiling

And then tell me claiming they are the poor "marginalised" victims is in any way neutral. It is full on bias. LauraRichards1981 (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Articles are built upon reliable sources; the Medium article is self-published (see also WP:MEDIUM) and the second link (FiLiA) is a blog post. DanCherek (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

So you agree that the poor transwomen are being marginalised and thwarted in their coercive rape.

Try this

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cotton%20Ceiling

or this

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cotton_ceiling

The cotton ceiling is a direct reference to coercive rape. It does NOT make trans women marginalised simply because lesbians who are same sex attracted do not wish to be sexual witht hem.

That is incredible bias. LauraRichards1981 (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, you're not going to get very far without citing some reliable sources that support your proposed additions. Urban Dictionary, really? DanCherek (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Interesting how you ignored wiktionary, isnt it? That was to be expected. WIll you deem that unreliable too? A sister of wikipedia.

In their definition, they do not claim the transgender people are marginalised by this. They do not condone coercive rape in that definition. You ignored it. Now will you tell me wiktionary is unreliable? LauraRichards1981 (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

O also regret to say that urban dictionary is fast becoming a far more reliable source than wikipedia these days. LauraRichards1981 (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@LauraRichards1981: Wiktionary is very definitely to be considered unreliable, as is Wikipedia itself; they are both self-published sources meaning anyone can edit them without peer review or fact-checking; this makes both of them ipso facto unreliable. Please do not use either one as a source for verifying content at Wikipedia; only reliable sources should be used for that purpose. Neither should you use Urban dictionary, which is also self-published and unreliable. Please have a look at WP:Verifiability policy and the guideline on reliable sourcing for more on this point. If you have doubts on whether something is a reliable source or not, you can ask a question at the Reliable sources noticeboard and experienced editors familiar with the topic will get back to you. Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with article in its current state

The concept of the “cotton ceiling” being a barrier to trans women accessing lesbian women as sexual partners is hate speech at best, on par with promoting the idea of “autogynephilia” in that it portrays trans women such as myself as sexual predators and perverts. I will be watching this article and quickly restore it against anyone else who tries to promote similar transphobic hate speech. Knitesmire (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Replied at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

“Sexual spaces”

The wording here is very odd. Peoples sexual spaces are singular and unique to them, not part of some "shared resource". For example, healthcare is by many - myself included - seen as a "resource" that everyone should have access to aka access to health care spaces. I do not feel the same way concerning sex and relationships. SinoDevonian (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

criticism section

At the moment in the criticism section we have Allison Bailey who's section reads a lot more like a coatrack than due. The only mention of the term in the sources is when they quoted her tweets. The sources do not discuss the term, they do not say anything about the term. They are focused on her dismissal and court case(s). At the very least the paragraph reads more as "history of a critic" than any actual criticism ". LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. The "criticisms" are not well explained at all and the Bailey bit goes way off-topic. If there is a good source for what her criticism actually is then I guess she can be included but the current text is just at attempt to shoehorn in a defamatory quotation about a named individual (possibly a BLP violation) without actually telling our readers anything about the criticism itself. If we are going to steelman these "criticisms" then we need to say what they actually are. Only the Swayne bit comes close to doing that and even then it doesn't quite get there. DanielRigal (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The Bailey section is notable specifically because in UK law, her criticism of the cotton ceiling was ruled as a legitimately protected expression of her protected beliefs. Would agree with removing or trimming the over-long quote esp. to remove reference to the named individual. Void if removed (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The tweet in question is not a "criticism" of a term, rather an unfounded rape allegation against a specific person—the term only comes up as the name of a workshop, quoted by Bailey quoted by The Guardian. It says nothing about the topic, unless we quote the accusation of coaching heterosexual men who identify as lesbians on how they can coerce young lesbians into having sex with them, which might be a bad idea for BLP reasons, and because it's a boldfaced lie. The paragraph is wildly undue; I recommend deleting rather than trimming it. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 13:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

If you do a google news search for "cotton ceiling", 2 of the top 10 (and 6 of the top 20) results are the Allison Bailey case. She said it, was investigated for it, and won a discrimination claim over that investigation on the basis that as an expression of her opinion it was protected, and this all generated plenty of coverage in RSs.

All of which I think makes it due for this page. It is a notable, well-reported and long-running series of events that centres on a lesbian's objections to the term. In some form or another it belongs here, and IMO perhaps the most notable aspect is that it was specifically recognised not just as protected belief in the abstract (as with Forstater) but that her objections to the "cotton ceiling" were treated as a legitimate expression of them. Void if removed (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I've reduced the explanation to Bailey's tweets were later at the center of a 2020 discrimination action case against her barristers' chambers., which I think is sufficient for this context—where the discrimination case is largely if not completely irrelevant. Any tweaks are welcome but I really don't think the legal status warrants more than a sentence if that. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 20:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it entirely - your rewording made it completely unintelligible what the case was about, and that she was discriminated against. Either describe the relevant fact that she was unlawfully discriminated against for tweeting her opinions about the cotton ceiling, or omit it. Void if removed (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with omitting anything about the tribunal, but I think the quote itself is useful, as it actually relates to the topic of this article and succinctly describes anti-trans reactions to it. I'd be fine with restoring the previous 3-sentence explanation After her employer, Garden Court Chambers, upheld a complaint against her over this and other tweets, Bailey brought a discrimination case against them. In 2022, an employment tribunal ruled that Bailey had been victimised, and that her tweet about the cotton ceiling was a protected expression of her gender-critical views., but I'm struggling to fit it into the current version of the paragraph. It sounds like a meandering tangent which is sort-of-but-not-really relevant, and the article does not need to focus unduly on some random seminar just because some terves did so in 2012.

I assume that Garden Court's issue with the tweet had very little if anything to do with "cotton ceiling" and mostly related to her misgendering and framing trans women as sexual predators preying on "young lesbians". –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 22:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC) –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 22:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

"The Cotton Ceiling and the Ghost Penis"

@Gum2: It looks like a reference to this 2016 conference talk in Auckland has been present in the lede since the earliest version of this article. I'm assuming it's just there to bolster notability for the term; it's not clear what if anything is being referenced from the source, so I've deleted it (diff) to reduce WP:OVERCITE. Do you have access to this source (e.g. a recording/transcript)? I'd be interested if so. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 20:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Steinbeck quote

Here's the cited portion "Representing Trans Sexualities" (p. 32) from the Routledge book, explaining the etymology and a bit of biography on DeVeaux. I acquired the source (from my wonderful college library) to determine what labels to use to describe her. I don't currently have a use for it but I have access to the book and it could be potentially useful for reference or additions.

Clearly, trans women are not out of the woods yet. A major step forward came when Drew Deveaux, a model and porn actress, won the Feminist Porn Awards ‘Heartthrob of 2011’. Deveaux, an androgynous trans woman from Toronto, writes that ‘Through performing in porn, I’ve been able to take the world’s fucked up notions about trans women and fuck them into blissful oblivion’ (Deveaux, 2010). She nevertheless experienced feeling isolated in queer sex culture as a trans woman with a vagina. In 2012 she coined the term ‘the cotton ceiling’ to describe the feeling of being invisible as a sexual, queer woman. The cotton ceiling, like the glass ceiling for women in the workplace, is a barrier that limits access to power, recognition and respect. It refers literally to the panties of (cisgender) dykes, suggesting a social barrier to being recognised in queer sex cultures by cisdykes. As trans writer and activist Roz Kaveney sees it, this obstacle is present because, ‘however theoretically accepting of trans people a lot of progressives may be, when it comes to actually having sex with us, they vote with their . . . um . . . feet’ (2012)

DeVeaux 2010 is a profile about her on QueerPorn.tv. "I took it good for Queer Porn TV and I loved it". Not safe for work, obviously.

Kaveney 2012 is "Some Thoughts on the Cotton Ceiling", a contemporary source, yet again avowing that the term's actual intent. It also relates the concept to chasers fetishizing trans women, or lesbians fetishizing trans men, which is interesting but probably still WP:BLOGS. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 21:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)