Talk:Gender-critical feminism/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-03

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gabiangiuli (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jesstrada.

— Assignment last updated by Momlife5 (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jiselle04 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jlopez04.

— Assignment last updated by Bbalicia (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Bias

One would be hard-pressed to find an article more spectacularly tilted than this one. It's an ideological broadside, not an encyclopedia entry. Naturally, then, it is "currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment." Perfect. Nicmart (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nicmart There has already been a requested move, and the result was no consensus. And keep in mind WP:NOTFORUM. —Panamitsu (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Getting consensus for cutting down on quotes

I recently made this series of edits aimed at reducing the number of long quotations (and, frankly, getting rid of some pretty badly phrased sentences like "Gender-critical feminists promote the idea that sex is important" without any definition of what that means when a better definition is present in the previous paragraph).

Many of these changes were reverted in this series of edits by Void and Swood Sweet. I suspect, based on the way talk page discussions have gone in the past, that the majority of people watching this page would prefer my version, and so I'm bringing it here to ask. Loki (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you mean me, not Swood. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC) And please explain why you think most people would prefer your version – surely edits are judged on their own merits, not on who makes them? Sweet6970 (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

They are, but I was hoping to just let people see the edits for themselves. But since you asked:

I think that it's obviously an improvement to the article to reduce the number of long quotes. Long quotes are often used to smuggle a POV into an article by putting it in the mouth of an advocate, and one of my major goals in removing the quotes was to maintain WP:NPOV. They're also often just bad stylistically: quotes aren't in Wikipedia's style and so swapping frequently between long quotes and our text can be jarring.

I also frankly think quoting sources at length is somewhat of an abdication of our duty to write an encyclopedia. The source isn't writing an encyclopedia, we are, and that includes a duty to summarize what the sources say. We would never include a long jargon-filled quote from a paper in the hard sciences, but for some reason when it comes to gender studies we have lots of similar jargon-filled quotes. Loki (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Long quotes are often used to smuggle a POV into an article by putting it in the mouth of an advocate: I think your reasoning is back-to-front. This article is about g-c feminism, and we need to tell readers what g-c feminists’ views are. Therefore, we should not be putting their views in wikivoice – we should give quotes to make clear that these are the views of g-c feminists, and not the views of Wikipedia. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Is the length of the quotes really that problematic? Quotes seem like a good solution to the difficulty of putting anything in wikivoice. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this, the problem is most of these are WP:RSOPINION in a highly polarised area.

Extensive quotes are about the only way through the issue of wikivoice, when practically every single aspect of this is hotly disputed by oppositional scholars. Void if removed (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Excessive quotes are a problem for the reasons described in WP:QUOTEFARM: Quotations embody the breezy, emotive style common in fiction and some journalism, which is generally not suited to encyclopedic writing. and Quotations that present rhetorical language in place of the neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias can be an underhanded method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia articles; be very careful. It's always important to ask why we're using a particular quote - is the precise perspective of the speaker important? If it's being used to introduce an argument or idea, is that argument WP:DUE? And if we have many quotes, are we really introducing a bunch of distinct ideas that are all worth their own quotes on an encyclopedic, or is it just trying to present arguments to convince the reader? My opinion is that quote-bloated sections are often the result of editors with differing perspectives on an issue rushing to add as many views supporting their preferred interpretation as possible, and especially adding more to "balance out" opposing views when they should be removing or paraphrasing those quotes instead. There's also a risk of nose-counting, where people add a bunch of quotes to just have the view of a lot of people agreeing; or situations where people effectively WP:SYNTH up what the major arguments are and what the broad strands of thought are on a topic by pulling a bunch of quotes out of either opinion-pieces or from news pieces that don't really present those quotes in that context. Situations like that are better-handled by summarizing the views of a bunch of people in one sentence (eg. "X, Y, and Z disagreed, saying this is wrong" rather than individual quotes for each.) The ideal way to summarize broad views is via a secondary source that discusses overarching opinions anyway, which both helps establish due weight and lets us characterize the strands of thought without having to try and assemble it ourselves out of quotes. --Aquillion (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of quotes from those opposed to g-c feminism – I see that these have not been challenged. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant when I said that people ought to be more aggressive about removing quotes rather than adding ones to "balance them out" (which leads to a quote-farm.) Obviously we can't remove quotes in a one-sided manner, not unless there's actually significant differences in WP:RS coverage or something. But editors by their nature are more likely to go "that looks wrong" and notice problems that go against their own personal understanding of a topic, which means that in a controversial topic area it works best if people with different views on the topic work together to cut down on or paraphrase unnecessary quotes. --Aquillion (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Luckily these quotes are in the Views section, where the objective is to explain what the subject’s views are, and quotes direct from the horse’s mouth are often the best way of illustrating this. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

While I agree that a Views section is better than normal for quotes, that's not a reason to go nuts with them. Wikipedia policy doesn't stop applying because a section is titled "Views". We still need to represent their views proportionally to the rest of the sources, and in the manner the sources say they should be represented.

In the article on anarchism, a good article about a political ideology, we do explain what anarchists believe, and even quote some of them, but we never quote anyone for a whole paragraph. The longest quote there is only 12 words long. Feminism (another good article) has some longer quotes, but not that many, and not that much longer. There's still never a whole paragraph quoting anyone. Loki (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Which of the current quotes is going nuts? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-03

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gabiangiuli (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jesstrada.

— Assignment last updated by Momlife5 (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Terminology

This article is about "gender-critical feminism". Having a terminology section titled "gender-critical feminism" seems completely redundant, seeing as that is the scope of the page. Having that section devoted entirely to criticism of "gender-critical feminism" is merely duplicating content from later in the article, and prioritising this opinionated criticism above the "views" section which explains what gender-critical feminism actually is. The content belongs in the scholarly analysis where Thurlow's views in particular are already represented. Void if removed (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the article reads very oddly with the paragraph on Terminology where it is – this is just a duplicate of material in the Scholarly analysis section. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. The group of people this article describes did not come into existence in the late 2010s when the term "gender-critical" was first used, nor did they come into existence in circa 2008 when Viv Smythe came up with TERF. The group pre-existed those terms, and those terms simply reflect names by which the group were known at various points in time. The purpose of the terminology section therefore is to document the various notable names this group has been known by, hence why we cite Thurlow and Grinspan et al. for the late-2010s rebranding from TERF to gender-critical. And if the group rebrands again as was noted as potentially occurring during the recent RM, and that rebranding is noted in reliable sources like Thurlow, then we would naturally document that subsequent rebranding in the terminology section.

I also don't agree with Sweet's point that the current paragraph for the gender-critical feminism subsection is entirely duplicative of content elsewhere in the article. Thurlow's work is quoted and summarised in several sections, but the content we include is unique within each of those sections. Grinspan et al. is duplicative, though I think the fix here is to remove the brief paragraph from the scholarly analysis section, as it seems to me to be more out of place there than the terminology section is given what Grinspan are saying in that sentence of their editorial. That said, whether or not the editorial for a special issue of DiGeSt is more due than the other twelve papers within the issue itself is perhaps a better question to be asking. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The group pre-existed those terms

That is of course the opinion of some, but it is not universally shared. That is, it is the opinion of critics that this is so, and the opinion of those who call themselves "gender-critical feminists" that it is not.

The idea that there is some coherent "group" that moves from lesbian separatism in the US in the 60s, to organising on Mumsnet against the GRA reforms in the UK circa 2015 is of course absurd.

The only unifying factor is that all of those disparate people are (either contemporaneously or retrospectively by historical revisionists like Cristan Williams) being called "TERFs", most commonly as a term of abuse. Void if removed (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

[...] That is, it is the opinion of critics that this is so, and the opinion of those who call themselves "gender-critical feminists" that it is not. This only further warrants a "Terminology" section.

The idea that there is some coherent "group" that moves from lesbian separatism in the US in the 60s, to organising on Mumsnet against the GRA reforms in the UK circa 2015 is of course absurd. It is not, that is how all ideologies work. They develop and spread (or don't).

The only unifying factor is that all of those disparate people are (either contemporaneously or retrospectively by historical revisionists like Cristan Williams) being called "TERFs", most commonly as a term of abuse. That is your view of the subject. One might also argue that a unifying factor is anti-trans activism and advocacy. TucanHolmes (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The topic of this article is the ideology or movement known variously in reliable sources as gender-critical feminism (including abbreviated forms) or trans-exclusionary radical feminism (including abbreviated forms). Unlike TERF (acronym), the focus here is on the ideology/movement itself and not on a specific term, but a terminology section is clearly warranted as a facet of the broader topic, and to document the various prominent terms that have been used. Gender-critical feminism is a term that only gained traction a few years ago (from around 2020), many years after the movement (i.e. the topic of the article) emerged under different names, and it's important to document the history of that term as well. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

What?

What on earth is this article about. Is TERF an expression of XX and XY sex determination? If it is then please say so in a more elegant manner. 92.18.249.104 (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Gender-critical feminism, as its title says. Sorry, I don’t understand your query. Do you have a suggestion for improving the wording of the article? Sweet6970 (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This article reads as a collage essay.

This article feels un-fit for Wikipedia standards Five pillars of Wikipedia. The article is confusing, overly wordy, and spends more words pointing holes in the ideology than explaining what the ideology is. Criticism should go in the criticism section, not in every sentence of the article. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, not a collage essay.

The disambiguation notice at top links to Anti-gender movement which is significantly clearer article both in explaining its topic, and in doing so in a neutral and direct manner. There is also significant overlap which could be a good resource look to.

I get that this is a very loaded topic, and these kinds of subjects of Wikipedia tends to need a lot of people looking at them until they converge to a good point. But this article needs a serious overhaul. 91.130.50.13 (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is written from a neutral perspective, and this includes pointing [sic] holes in the ideology. We don't do uncritical exposition for ideologies, since Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, and an ideology includes a point of view. That's what an ideology is, a point of view is part of its essence. Wikipedia is also based on reliable sources and, where applicable, facts as established by reliable sources. While we might quote adherents to an ideology and explain its structure and basic premises, we also point out where these premises or structures are (obviously) wrong, if applicable. That is not criticism, more encyclopedic evaluation with respect to what reliable sources have to say. If a point is contentious, we attribute it. If it is not contentious, or represents a fringe position in a discussion, we treat it as such. This is to avoid giving false balance to various aspects of a topic. We do this precisely because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Criticism should go in the criticism section. No, please see this essay about criticism on Wikipedia.

If you see problems with the article, please feel free to be bold and correct them yourself. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Need to remove disinformation section.

After the release of the Cass Review, it turns out the gender critical side was actually right all along when it comes to puberty blockers and youth transition, so I expect the politicized disinformation smear in the intro paragraph will be coming down soon? Gsm54321 (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see Confirmation bias. Nothing in the Cass Review refutes the info in the first two paragraphs. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

What paragraph are you referring to? I don't think the lead of this article references either of those two topics. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 15:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

It is unclear what changes you want to propose. The intro paragraph doesn't mention either puberty blockers or youth transition. Please be more specific. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

No, we don't write this article based on the opinions of the government of the UK, Russia or any other country known for their attacks on LGBT+ people. The "Cass Review" has been roundly criticized, like everything else the UK does in regard to trans rights.[1][2] Anyway, this isn't an article on trans health, but an article on a specific anti-LGBT+ movement, part of the wider far-right or right-wing populist anti-gender movement. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

AAB – you are surely aware of WP:NOTFORUM …. article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article….. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how you think NOTFORUM applies here, Sweet6970. Would you be willing to clarify (either here, or if you feel it's too far off topic, perhaps on either my or your user talkpage)? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Alpha3031: Try asking yourself how Amanda A. Brant’s comment contributes/does not contribute to the improvement of this article. It is an expression of personal views about the subject of the article, which does not address the point of the discussion, which is about the prominence in the article of comments about supposed disinformation. This is a Contentious Topic, both in Wikipedia’s terms, and in the real world. A blanket statement that the gender-critical feminism is an anti-LGBT+ movement, part of the wider far-right or right-wing populist anti-gender movement. serves no purpose, and is likely to arouse emotion. Further emotion on this subject is surplus to requirements. In addition, there are named g-c feminists mentioned in the article. The comment in effect smears these individuals as being far-right, so there is a WP:BLP problem as well. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a minimal part of the comment, the sentence of which primarily focuses on stating that the two topics are different. It is still incredibly surprising to me anyone would suggests it implicates TPG but I will drop the matter on my end. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you can use Cass to make that argument without substantial WP:OR. For example, one citation is Billard, who says:

To support my argument, it is first necessary to evidence the claim that gender-critical discourse constitutes a coordinated disinformation campaign that is part of a broader political strategy to oppose transgender rights. As I have written elsewhere (Billard, 2022), there are various types of anti-transgender misinformation: (1) definitional misinformation, which is misinformation about what transition-related health care actually is and what it does; (2) misinformation about the accessibility of trans care; (3) misinformation about the safety of trans care; (4) misinformation about the cost of trans care; (5) misinformation about “desistance,”or the frequency with which people “cease to be trans”or“detransition”; and (6) misinformation about the etiology or “cause”of trans identity;

Now someone could argue that several of those points are potentially addressed by the Cass Review, with high quality evidence (notably, points 1, 3, 5 and 6). But that requires a lot of speculation about what it even is that Billard is talking about here as it is spectacularly vague, and in any case that's WP:OR so until a WP:RS wants to actually make that argument, Billard's handwavey assertions aren't likely to go anywhere.

A better criticism IMO is that one source just uses "disinformation" in passing in a fairly hyperbolic way that really just comes across as "opinions I disagree with", one isn't actually talking about "disinformation" at all and asserts statements are misinformation (eg. about trans inclusion in sports on basis of self-id, in the specific context of Spanish legislation) without justifying it or explaining why it isn't true AFAICT, and Billard's paper has no actual detail, and is hardly notable or significant for such a serious accusation. There's very little substance here, and it really doesn't belong in the lede given how sparse this is. Void if removed (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

We do not base Wikipedia articles on reports that have been seriously criticized by a significant number of scientists who are specialists in the subject. We can also consider sources that have received recognition only in some regions as fringe if they contradict the international mainstream in the relevant discipline. TERFism is disproportionately popular in British academia and clearly unpopular outside of it. Wikipedia:MONDIAL Reprarina (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The Cass Review and the systematic reviews it is based on are absolutely high quality sources. They aren't relevant for this purpose, but the idea that it's been "seriously criticised" is basically nonsense. Hyperbolic chaff in popular media is not serious criticism of MEDRS. Void if removed (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Is International Journal of Transgender Health a popular media? Reprarina (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's not compare apples with oranges. The systematic reviews commissioned by the Cass Review and published in the most reputable of journals don't get dismissed because of some out-of-date social-science opinion pieces in WPATH's house journal. WPATH is welcome to publish systematic reviews that come to different conclusions, for example. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, despite what anyone's personal echo chamber may be saying, the Cass Review is as relevant as any NICE guideline and remains highly regarded as a thorough work in this field. Specific aspects, as one might expect from any 400-page wide-ranging review that took four years, are of course open to medical dispute and differing of opinion, and editors should supply reliable sources when making such remarks. Editors dismissing these publications as though a puppet document of a transphobic government really need to stop that now. I hope that's really clear.

Despite what writers, on both extremes of this culture war, have said, the Cass Review neither proves that the gender-critical side were right all along, nor is an attack on transgender identity or the importance of affirmative care. Come on, this isn't twitter, we can do better than this. I don't really see what the Cass Review has to do with "Gender-critical feminism" at all. That some GCFs have been banging on about puberty blockers and social contagions is really a matter for individual biographical articles on those people. -- Colin°^Talk 11:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This article should be renamed to Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism, because that is the most common term for this

"Gender critical feminism" is a less used term; these people are called "terfs" not "gender critical feminists" Lados75 (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The failed attempt to move this page is less than 6 months old, nothing has changed since that interminable argument, please don't reopen this unless you have substantial new evidence. A personal dislike of "TERFs" is not enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gender-critical_feminism/Archive_6#Requested_move_31_January_2024 Void if removed (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, the closer has said in their closing statement explanation (emphasis mine):

An editor involved in this page move discussion asked me on my talk page to expand my brief closing statement.
My response is repeated here for your convenience.

Thank you, editor Sideswipe9th, for coming to my talk page! And apologies for my usual terse closing statement. That was an interesting read with strong arguments on both sides of the article-title issue. Frankly I thought that overall the arguments in favor of the proposed page move were somewhat stronger, and yet there was interesting rebuttal to the nom's COMMONNAME and NPOV rationale, which strengthened the opposition a bit. At the end of my read I found that neither supporters nor opposers had been able to build a consensus either for the current title or for proposed titles. At first I very nearly relisted the request; however, I then considered the lengthy arguments by several concerned editors and decided to close the request instead. I suggest for editors to wait two or three months and then open a fresh move request with strongest possible arguments. History has shown that the longer the wait and the stronger the rationales, the more likely a follow-up move request will succeed. Thanks again!

This request opens with the nom's strong, policy-based rationale to rename this article. In very short order there ensued both support and opposition with strong arguments both for keeping the current title and for changing it. A good read of this survey yields fairly strong rebuttal to the nom's opening statement. So this is inarguably a contentious issue. I suggest that editors discuss this title issue informally to build consensus before opening a fresh RM. Thank you all for your welcome participation to search for the highest and best title for this article!
— User:Paine Ellsworth

So a future move request is not off the table, and if people feel that a more definitive case can be made after a discussion, the move request may be reopened. PBZE (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not see any purpose in opening a new discussion at this time. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Someone needs to come with some really strong arguments that weren't already dismissed. Btw, Void, I think you mean "A personal dislike of "gender-critical feminism" is not enough". I think actually the claim 'these people are called "terfs"' is itself a first class indication that that is an othering slur used by one side in this culture war. -- Colin°^Talk 11:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The term "Gender-critical feminism" is not very widely used in that exact form but the most commonly used term is "Gender Critical" (with or without a hyphen) and many (not myself!) would claim that "feminism" is implied even when it is not explicitly stated, making "Gender-critical feminism" the full form of the term. I feel that a move to "Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism" is definitely not a good idea as it would tie this subject even more closely to feminism, a link which exists but which is often overstated. Besides, it seems unfair to drag the Radical Feminists into this, any more than they already are, when most of the GCs are not RadFem and most of the RadFems are not GC. Personally, I favour a move to "Gender-critical movement" (with or without a hyphen) because the GC movement is a mixture of all sorts of people with little in common except for animus against trans people, which is the sole defining aspect of the movement. Only some of them have any connection to feminism at all and some are explicitly anti-feminist. However, given that getting agreement on anything in this subject area is all but impossible, I'm not going to propose it as it would probably get absolutely nowhere and just waste a load more of everybody's time. DanielRigal (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think your argument in favour of "Gender-critical movement" holds (a) "is a mixture of all sorts of people with little in common" is a really bad topic for an article and "except for animus against trans people" is literally the definition of transphobia which have an article on. -- Colin°^Talk 12:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

A movement is a movement even if it is a single issue movement that attracts support from people with little else in common. The fact that this article exists is proof that there is a subject here. I don't think that anybody is arguing otherwise. I guess that a merge and redirect to transphobia would be a theoretical possibility, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose that myself, but we all know that there is no realistic prospect of that actually happening and that it would be a waste of everybody's time to propose it. DanielRigal (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

You said:

animus against trans people, which is the sole defining aspect

The sole defining aspect is a shared belief that sex is binary, immutable, and important. That is how it is defined in WP:RS. That some also have animus towards trans people does not make that a defining factor in the belief, which is protected in the UK in those precise terms, while "animus towards trans people" blatantly is not, and could not be.

The problem is that there are a whole lot of sources that take the position that the belief that sex is binary, immutable and important is animus to trans people. Accurately representing this difference of perspective neutrally and fairly is hard, and approaching it from the standpoint that the subjects of the article are inherently bigoted or suggesting a redirect to transphobia when some WP:RS disagree is not ideal, to put it mildly.

I would propose:

• Rename TERF (acronym) back to TERF and remove the redirect that presently points here (and delete TERF Lesbians while we're at it)
• Create a page "gender critical" to cover just gender critical beliefs and the history of their legal protection, forstater etc and wider controversy using sources that only talk about "gender critical" (not "movement", that's overbroad, people who might share such beliefs are not part of the same "movement" by any stretch).
• Leave this page for "gender critical feminism" and link it from there as a historically important subset of those beliefs, ie those who coined the term and why, and its relationship to the term TERF, sourced only and specifically to material that talks about "gender critical feminism"
• Move all the "TERF ideology" stuff from here to "TERF".

But again, I can't see people going for that. But personally I think this is a legitimate POV split, per WP:SUBPOV. Void if removed (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"Gender critical" isn't great as an article title per WP:NOUN. I'm not sure how much material there would be to cover that isn't rooted in some way in a feminist perspective? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Gender critical beliefs maybe? The issue for me is that the result of Forstater was the protection of "gender-critical" as a belief distinct from any feminist analysis, and the term has come to have a broader usage. The belief that "sex is biological, binary and immutable" is not an inherently feminist one, and one held by (I would suggest) the vast majority of people, and those are the terms it is classed as a protected belief in the UK.

Gender critical feminists - as the originators of the term - additionally maintain a critique of gender as a system of oppression. But they are a tiny minority, and plenty of people who are not feminists can now be classed as "gender-critical" in UK law. For example, Sharhar Ali won a tribunal ruling on this basis - but he is not a gender critical feminist. Kevin Lister lost a tribunal ruling on the basis of gender-critical beliefs, and he is not a gender-critical feminist.

In much the same way some people who are called TERFs are neither trans-exclusionary nor radical feminists, many people called gender critical are not critical of gender and some are even explicitly antifeminist, so including them in a page titled "gender critical feminism" is a little perverse. Void if removed (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I have to say taking your definition of gender critical from purely UK court cases isn't the best. As well as this the definition above definitely seems like one that some gender critical people would say is their believe. The thing is getting a strict definition is difficult because it's a mainly social movement and some people have a tendency to misrepresent their beliefs. LunaHasArrived (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

As I may have said before, one way is for someone to sandbox some ideas on split/merged articles. It's a bit of work, though, and I can see why someone might think they have better things to do.

Btw, Sharhar Ali's tribunal ruling was over a procedural failing surrounding his dismissal. It actually reminded everyone that "Political parties can remove spokespeople for holding "beliefs that were inconsistent with party policy", if done through fair procedures". Sharhar Ali could have been found to be procedurally wrongly dismissed due to a dispute over the party logo or some aspect of economic policy. That this tribunal is held up as an example of how GC beliefs are protected in law, is a good example of GC misinformation. Anyone in the Alba Party expressing the view that trans women are women, something equally protected in UK law, is likely to find themselves required to publicly apologise and repent in order to remain in the job. And if Helen Joyce, director at Sex Matters, suddenly announced they wanted to be called "Hugo" and identified as a man, something anyone might hope one could do and keep one's job in most circumstances, they might find Sex Matters had appointed a different Director of Advocacy.

But I agree that "feminism" is not necessarily a useful component, and many who are described as GCF or TERFs are not feminists by any reasonable measure. -- Colin°^Talk 14:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I have started over here by taking this article and stripping out all of the feminist theory/history and "academic criticism of TERFs" stuff, to try and boil it down to the essentials of "gender critical", the history of the terminology and the legal situation in the UK. Its a work in progress, might go nowhere, might not get consensus for it, was just idly curious to see roughly what would be left and approximately how long that hypothetical article would be. Void if removed (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I think these things can be worthwhile even if it isn't adopted. Just thinking about a subject from a different angle. -- Colin°^Talk 18:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there a plan to move this content somewhere else (i.e. a corresponding Trans-exclusionary radical feminism? Although they are divergent movements, the origins of GC/TERF ideology among white RadFems seem like a very notable aspect of this topic; I don't think omitting that or trying to treat them as separate concepts is an improvement. The History section in the current article isn't very long anyway and could stand to be expanded. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That text shouldn't be moved anywhere. It's not appropriate as an article, it seems to just remove most other opinions than the movement's own opinions, like a WP:POVFORK of this article. It's also completely meaningless to separate "gender-critical" from gender-critical feminism (or movement)/trans-exclusionary radical feminism (TERF). They refer to the same thing, gender-critical (and GC) is really just shorthand for it. Others would describe gender-critical as a problematic newer "self-definition by some individuals and groups labelled TERFs" that serves to rebrand anti-trans activism (per the article). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to rename TERF (acronym) as TERF or remove the redirect. The term primarily refers to the actual movement and ideology. The article on the history of the acronym is a sub topic. This article is the main article on the TERF movement and ideology, and the vast majority of readers are clearly interested in the ideology itself, not the history of the word. The history of the would should be summarized here (like we do) per Wikipedia:Summary style and discussed in detail in the in-depth article on the acronym. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 06:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

We have indeed established that Gender-critical feminism is not the most common term. Daniel Rigal is also correct that even when the term gender-critical is used, is it typically without the word feminism. Even supporters usually just call themselves gender-critical or its abbreviation GC. Critics on the other hand often dispute that this movement is even feminist. Therefore, Gender-critical movement would be more in line with WP:COMMONNAME. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

We have not established that at all. We've been though this all before and "gender critical movement" is nowhere. Really we are comparing apples and oranges here. Gender-critical feminism is a thing. There are scholarly works on it, written by people who hold these views. There are multiple groups and countless individuals who claim this term to describe themselves. It is certainly a topic worthy of an article on Wikipedia.

TERF and its expansion "trans exclusionary radical feminist" is a label used by writers to talk about people they hate. It isn't a well defined set of beliefs. Often, such people don't even have to hold gender critical or feminist views at all. It covers anyone perceived as transphobic in the modern age, though mostly women, whereas men more often get called plainly transphobic. Well have an article on this slur: TERF (acronym) and we have a topic on transphobic beliefs: transphobia. Advocates that this article be renamed all loudly equate GCF with transphobia (and racism and Nazis typically) so go write at the article "transphobia" about it if you have the sources. You lose the argument when you say GCF==transphobic people. I might as well argue that the current Tory party is hatefully transphobic and so we should redirect Conservative Party (UK) to a new "transphobic Tory scum" article to express my feelings about them. I can find plenty material about transphobic Tory politicians to fill it with. That's the intellectual level being advanced here. That one simply wants ones advocacy position of hate to be spelled out in article titles.

There are a set of beliefs held by gender-critical feminists, just as there are sets of beliefs held by conservative politicians. To the extent that those beliefs tend one towards transphobia, typically in the minds of others, that can be documented if we have the sources. But let's please not make the mistake of saying that because you or your favourite writers think all GCF are transphobes that the words are synonyms. That isn't how an encyclopaedia works. Colin°^Talk 11:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"we have a topic on transphobic beliefs: transphobia" Yes. And what is classified as transphobia by academic sources = what "gender-critical" feminists do, according to academic sources. Reprarina (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

You've just said it yourself "classified as", not "is and is entirely equivalent to". An iPhone is "classified as" a smartphone" by all reliable sources. While Wingnut (politics) is an informal term (though widely used if you search Google News), the relationship between that word and the less intelligent right-wing politicians isn't really any different to the relationship between TERF (and its expansion) with GCF. Arguments that TERF isn't a slur are frankly about as embarrassing as trying to justify Tory scum on the grounds, that, well, they really are the scum of the earth. An encyclopaedia shouldn't be lowering itself to using partisan terms-of-abuse, regardless of how much many of us here think that abuse is merited. -- Colin°^Talk 13:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Give me academic sources at the level of The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies and Encyclopedia of Queer Studies in Education, which titles articles about the UK Conservative Party as Tory scum, and avoid the term UK Conservative Party.--Reprarina (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I say "classified as... by academic sources" instead of "is" because I do not want to violate WP:NOTAFORUM. Reprarina (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Colin, what part of terf includes a pejorative word like Tory scum. On a different note whilst terf in common parlance has become synonymous with transphobia, is that the case in academia and is there any academia that says terfism and gender critical feminism is different. There are many a group that are labelled from outside rather than inside, especially groups associated with bigotry as few people like being associated with bigotry. I would also really like to know what groups gender critical feminists together but transphobia, afaik they only ever promote 2 ideas: freedom to say their gender critical views, and being transphobic. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Colin, what part of terf includes a pejorative word like Tory scum.

It is more like "scab", in that use and context has rendered it a pejorative. There is no serious disagreement that it is a pejorative. The only disagreement is whether it is technically a slur. Void if removed (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Etymologically, scab was used as a prejorative (1580s) before it was used to describe strike breakers (c. 1800s according to RS) not the other way around, so that example might not work either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"what part of terf includes a pejorative word like Tory scum" this is the kind of typical analysis of "TERF" that fails to understand how words work. As I may have mentioned before, if I shorten the word "Pakistani" to the first four letters, I get the second most offensive word in British English. If I do similar with "Australian" to "Aussie" I get a friendly shorthand. Most of the analysis of TERF by activists falls into that trap. Dictionaries don't make that mistake as they focus on usage. So Oxford will tell us that the word nowadays means "a person whose views on gender identity are (or are considered) hostile to transgender people, or who opposes social and political policies designed to be inclusive of transgender people" and "TERF is now often used with derogatory or dismissive intent". So we have a dictionary telling us it is a vague term of abuse, no longer connected to its original meaning, and used towards people who's views are being hatefully dismissed.

Yes there are lots of labels for people "from the outside rather than inside". You know what most of them have in common: they are derogatory and dismissive and over-simplify what defines that group or what qualities it may have.

Use of that word or its expansion is the preserve of activist literature preaching to their congregation. If you examine neutral sources you won't find it outside of quoting someone or referring to it. Even groups that support trans people in the UK like Stonewall and Mermaids do not use that language. They know that one can't hope to win hearts and minds when one comes across as a hateful fundamentalist. -- Colin°^Talk 11:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok so you agree that it has to be the way that terf is used that makes it derogatory and dismissive, i do have to say your analysis that terf is a slur is a matter of opinion. Some people consider cis a slur (in fact some of the same people that say terf is a slur say this), this does not mean it is and I have to say that transphobe fits in oxford dictionaries definition above, should we just rename this article transphobia deemed acceptable in the UK, because is there any difference to that and gender critical feminism. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree, no. Words can become unusable (outside of attribution). Look, you can always find someone who thinks X is a perfectly ok word, typically because they use it or they grew up using it. Just because some people have a different opinion doesn't mean that serious neutral writers don't avoid it. Like we are required to by policy. There isn't a single article on Wikipedia that says "X is a TERF" in Wikivoice. The "cis is a slur" is Twitter nonsense, at a "you smell too" intellectual level.

Editors who can't find a difference between "transphobia" or "transphobia deemed acceptable in the UK" and "gender-critical feminism" maybe shouldn't be editing this article or using this page as a forum to express their opinions. -- Colin°^Talk 17:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem with the above has to be what one considers serious neutral writers has a huge impact on their conclusion. I do agree though at the moment something gender critical seems to be the most reasonable but I haven't done a heavy analysis of academic sources at the moment and I (unfortunately) live in the UK so exposure to UK media might bias me on this. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

But even leaving the "slur" debate aside, another problem with "TERF" is the fact that (as I've pointed out in talk more than once) there are academics who consider it not a neutral term, and use it because it isn't neutral (Hines, Williams). And there are even those academics who insist on using it but also simultaneously argue it is a misnomer because "they aren't feminists" or somesuch. And there are academics who note its controversy and avoid it because other, less inflammatory terms are available.

As a thought experiment, it is frankly inconceivable that in an interview the BBC would introduce, say, Kathleen Stock as a TERF. That should give a pretty clear hint that whatever the strong opinions of a handful of academics, it is actually a clearly non-neutral term. Void if removed (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes the BBC, the most neutral news source on trans people. On a more serious note, does Wikipedia follow newspapers or the academic sources. As well as this there should be a note of TERF Vs trans exclusionary radical feminist, I don't think anybody could accurately say the later is a slur despite the former starting as a abbreviation and their usage is very different. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The BBC have their flaws but they, and ITV and Sky News are legally required to be neutral in their reporting and language. They wouldn't dream of calling anyone a TERF. Nor would any serious newspaper reporting. I'm not so familiar with US TV/Radio/Newspapers but pick your favourite and imagine a news reporter talking about some matter, and describing Stock or Rowling as TERFs in editorial voice.

But let's take this thought experiment to Wikipedia. @Amanda A. Brant, et al, if you are so so confident that the term is both neutral and accurate and fair description then I challenge you to get the lead paragraph of the bio of anyone on "TERF Island" to say that these people are TERFs. Or even that they are trans-exclusionary radical feminists. I'm not asking you to edit war. Persuade editors on those articles. You might have enough "friends" to feel bold making that point on this page, but you don't have a WP:SNOWBALL chance elsewhere. And this matters, because editors don't like linking to redirects and don't like linking to incorrect terms. You'd swiftly find people objecting to linking biographical articles to a hate term or misleading term and rightly insisting that reliable neutral sources don't actually do that.

The fact is that if this article was called "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism", writers would get tired of writing that expansion after a sentence or two (and realise how misleading it is when used to describe certain people) and resort to saying TERFs or the ridiculous TERFology/TERFism. And then we get unstuck, because TERF means "hateful middle aged woman who holds views I consider transphobic" and before we know it, the article no longer describes a branch of feminism at all, but becomes a dumping ground for whoever half of Twitter hates.

Counting word usage, as happened in the last discussion, is a deeply flawed process. It doesn't tell you why people are using a word. They might well be using it to criticise its use, for example, or include it in parenthesis to indicate it is an alternative. It doesn't tell us that people who use one term are writing opinion pieces about how much they hate some other people, mainly in the US, whereas people who use the other term are a far more mixed bunch. It might tell you about US dominance in English speaking publications. Or about which magazines or newspapers get sucked into a Google Scholar search. It isn't particularly useful for our purposes here as both terms are widely used.

I think some US academics have dug a hole for themselves. Rather than write about important feminist points, they have wasted time arguing that their term is great and "not a slur" and that other term is a euphemism invented by Bad People. And now they find they can't back down. So we end up with a silo term, that can only be used by people preaching to their (mainly US) congregation, or as a signifier about which camp one is in on Twitter. -- Colin°^Talk 07:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking through a few of the pages on Wikipedia devoted to people on this page who have been called transphobic. There seems to be basically no mention of gender critical feminism or terf anywhere. Gender critical (no feminism) seems to be almost a UK legal term not a wider view and certainly not a historic one. Terf is only mentioned on Magadalen Berns' page (in the lead not in wikivoice) but rad fems who have been called transphobic seems to be a pretty common camp. This was just individuals Wikipedia pages though, no groups whatsoever. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

With a few exceptions, pages on individuals invariably hit WP:BLP issues using terms like TERF and anti-trans and transphobia. Pages on groups are far more free with this language, see eg. the lede of Women's Declaration International. Void if removed (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes of course, but that's why it was interesting to see no link to gender critical (apart from in a legal sense) LunaHasArrived (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Which people have you looked at that don't link it? Have you opened up the source to look for links? There will be links back to here and to TERF (acronym) but they won't use that language in wiki voice. The things is, you read some of the advocacy on this page where being GCF is equated with being a white supremacist, or child offender, in terms of supposedly universal agreement that these people are so bad we don't even cite their works, only the works of those who hate them, and yet when it hits reality, we find these people very much not cancelled and very much not called TERFs by any respectable source that values neutrality. -- Colin°^Talk 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that it was lead paragraph with my above statement (as was yours about getting TERF into lead paragraphs). I looked through Kathleen stock, Holly Lawford-smith, Germaine Greer, Janice Raymond, Sheila Jeffereys, Helen Joyce, Julie Bindel, Magadalen Berns', Robin Morgan, Maya Forstater and Jo Phoenix. Of these Helen Joyce, Maya Forstater and Jo Phoenix use Gender Critical (no feminist), Magadalen Berns' has TERF (linking to here) and the rest have no mention in the lead. This list was gathered from reading through this article, it is possible I may have missed some but I did also search for people mentioned who had no Wikipedia page just in case. Some of the people on the above list do have both feminism and mentions of transphobia in the lead but no label to this movement. LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

So for example, the page on Helen Lewis (journalist) links both here and to TERF (acronym) as follows:

Lewis said "I've had two tedious years of being abused online as a transphobe and a 'TERF' or 'trans-exclusionary radical feminist'—despite my belief that trans women are women, and trans men are men—because I have expressed concerns about self-ID and its impact on single-sex spaces"

Now it makes sense to link TERF to the page which explains it is an insult and what it means.

But it makes no sense to link "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" to this page, because "gender critical feminist" is not a term of abuse.

This is the whole problem with this pretense all these terms are interchangable. Everyone knows TERF is a derogatory term used to pretty much like "witch" these days, and that is what she's referring to. It is clear in context she is expanding that term for clarity for the unfamiliar, but per MOS:NOLINKQUOTE there is no way that the expansion should link here, because there's no way that Helen Lewis would agree - in the context she is listing terms she has been abused with - that "gender critical feminist" is one of those. Void if removed (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

In the same vain Transphobe shouldn't link to transphobia then. I think that both this and Trans exclusionary radical feminism are linked so people learn about those movements and can judge Helen Lewis for themselves. Perhaps neither should link whatsoever but I'm not an editor truly experienced with MOS guidelines. LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we have thoroughly established that and it's all in the archives. We have also established, from the very beginning, that trans-exclusionary radical feminism and gender-critical feminism are to be treated as synonymous terms for the purposes of this article. Gender-critical feminism is merely (yet another) attempt at rebranding this specific form of transphobia (nobody says it's synonymous with transphobia in general, i.e. all forms of it). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Amanda, you write "we have established" so many times on these pages, as though the many people who disagree with you, writing in the very same sections, simply don't exist. As for "nobody says", well Daniel did, just further up this page, when they said this could be a merge and redirect to transphobia.

Go look in any serious newspaper that is doing serious reporting (not opinion pieces) that reports on the controversy surrounding Kathleen Stock or Maya Forstater, for example. Or even JK Rowling for that matter. Does the journalist call them TERFs in editorial voice? No. I doubt you'd find any calling them trans-exclusionary radical feminists either. Does anyone seriously claim Forstater or Rowling have a radical feminist position?

It is perfectly possible to write in an academic journal without lowering oneself to Twitter-level hate-words: This is hate, not debate is a thoughtful academic piece by a trans person arguing that others are writing and saying things that make their life less safe. Their point would be lost if they used hateful language themselves. On Wikipedia, we don't copy the language of biased sources, or the language of hate. This is so well established, we have a policy, which requires us to be neutral. -- Colin°^Talk 16:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

We have established it. Whether you agree or not is immaterial, especially since you don't cite any sources to back up your claims, unlike me and others who researched this quite thoroughly when we discussed it. I haven't seen any editor besides you dispute the fact that the specific phrase "Gender-critical feminism" is not the most common term. It would be surprising, especially given the solid evidence cited in earlier discussions that demonstrated other terms or specific phrases to be more widely used than "Gender-critical feminism", which is a fairly new term. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

this source currently used on the page is interesting for containing this line:

many (not all) gender-critical feminists are also radical feminists

Which means that gender critical feminist and trans exclusionary radical feminist cannot be equivalent.

Note that this paper uses "gender critical feminist" throughout. Neither TERF nor trans-exclusionary radical feminist appear. There is no unanimity here and taking a couple of more anti-TERF sources as authorities on this is going to end up advancing one specific POV.

And in any case, some of the positions are more nuanced. Eg. Thurlow give their opinion that this is in part a rebranding, but that the terms are not precisely equivalent, as I've stated before, several times. Void if removed (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

That's like saying that Pluto must be a planet because it's a dwarf planet. No, "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" as a full phrase just can't be split into its individual parts. Some TERFs are not radical feminists, and while that's a contradiction in language, it's not a contradiction in meaning. Loki (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Some TERFs are not radical feminists, and while that's a contradiction in language, it's not a contradiction in meaning.

I'm sorry, I absolutely don't follow what you're saying here. Either "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" is a neutral, accurate descriptor, or it isn't.

As is abundantly clear TERF is not applied only to radical feminists, or even feminists, but actually to denigrate basically anyone deemed transphobic on the grounds of believing there are two human sexes and you cannot literally change sex. If the full expansion "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" also applies to people who aren't radical feminists, or even feminists, it isn't actually a neutral, accurate descriptor either. If these terms just mean whatever shibboleth the author is railing against in a given context, and not a coherent set of beliefs, how is this different to, say, US Republicans calling everything they dislike "Marxist" or "Critical theory" or "Woke" or some such?

All this is why neutral sources don't use it - because it is both inaccurate and inflammatory.

And yet another employment tribunal today ruled in a damning verdict that this sort of discriminatory attitude is unacceptable in UK civil society. Void if removed (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe Loki is saying that TERF cannot be read as a simple wikt:WT:Sum of parts. Hope that clarifies things. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

But the claim is also made that it is a simple, accurate sum of its parts and that's why it is ok to use when specifically referring to the branch of radical feminism (encompassing most notably Raymond and Jeffries) who are trans-exclusionary.

Gender-critical feminism is clearly not exactly the same thing, rather it is a superset for wider feminist beliefs, encompassing different kinds of feminism (eg. radical, socialist, marxist, and even liberal) who happen to agree that sex is binary and immutable, and gender is oppressive.

Using "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" for all of these views is patently inaccurate and this is borne out by the sources which make it clear there is a distinction. Some sources are invested in using "TERF" as a synonym for "transphobe" and not a specific accurate descriptor of any particular branch of feminist thought, and expanding the acronym doesn't make it any more accurate or neutral once you start saying "well, it doesn't apply to radical feminists, or even feminists, its more than the sum of its parts". Frankly it is incoherent to argue that "trans exclusionary radical feminism" is both a neutral accurate descriptor and also means people who aren't radical feminists or even feminists.

Returning to the Pluto analogy, it is like saying that "dwarf planet" applies to non-planetary objects. No - you can't just call a moon a "dwarf planet" any more than you can call Graham Linehan a "trans exclusionary radical feminist" and then claim its accurate because its not just the sum of its parts. Void if removed (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"woke" is a good example. Apparently diswashers and scones can be woke. The word is now mainly used by people who don't care what it originally meant, don't care to come up with a rigid definition, but use it in a "I know it when I see it" mindset against things or people they hate. "TERF" and "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" have fallen into that bucket and are used by a siloed group just like the pejorative "woke" is used by a siloed group. The meaning and usage is accepted within that group but to everyone else outside, eyes roll. -- 12:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Colin°^Talk 12:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe the comparison made by LunaHasArrived was strictly in response to Colin raising "Tory scum" as a point of comparison. Thank you for understanding. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

If one wants to play the "don't look at what each word means" game then that pretty much rules out all the criticism of "gender critical". If all we are left with are opaque terms composed of multiple words, and those words are not to be examined, then why are trans activists so determined to avoid using "gender critical feminist" as a term?

The "TERF/trans-exclusionary radical feminist" naming has this problem. Abbreviated it is an offensive term of abuse. Expanded it is utterly meaningless to our readers, and trying to explain the meaning ends up demonstrating how unconnected it is with any actual modern usage. Plus it is way too many syllables. -- Colin°^Talk 14:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Dunno, why are race activists so determined to avoid race realist? I don't really care, I think gender critical is shorter and I doubt it'll avoid the treadmill in the long run. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I suppose, going back to the topic of the actual title, I would probably oppose TERF because it's clearly not WP:NCACRO, which makes it a decision between the two longer forms, and honestly the other one is just too much of a mouthful. Hell, I wish this section head was shorter. Already trans-exclusionary radical feminism PRIMARYREDIRECTs here anyway. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Classifying the movement as cisnormative

I looked it up and saw that the article did not use the word “cisnormativity” at all. Meanwhile, academic sources clearly classify the movement as cisnormative.

In recent years, a form of feminism known as trans exclusionary radical feminism (TERF) has contained cisnormative arguments similar to those of social conservatives, promoting the vilification of people with a trans lived experience in the guise of “gender-critical” feminism. Berger, Israel; Ansara, Y. Gavriel. Cisnormativity. In: Goldberg, Abbie; Beemyn, Genny. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies.

Scholars spanning educational contexts, including K-12 (e.g., Carrera-Fernández & DePalma, 2020; Schmidt, 2017) and higher education (e.g., Chang & Leets, Jr., 2018; Nicolazzo, 2017), have identified educational institutions as cisheteronormative spaces whose structures, classrooms, and curricula often- times perpetuate trans-exclusionary ideologies. In many instances, TERFs oppose LGBTQ+ inclusive school policies and educational advancements (Pearce et al., 2020), contributing to understandings of cisnormativity in educational spaces and rendering such heteronormativity inextricable from the discussion of TERFs. In: Encyclopedia of Queer Studies in Education.

We have at least two encyclopedias which focus attention on cisnormativity in TERF movement, so I should we should add it in the acticle.--Reprarina (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

This was added recently to the Scholarly Analysis section. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

views - gay rights

Is there any reason this section solely quotes GC people and makes no mention that most gay people disagree with them. At the moment someone who reads the section would have no idea about the disagreement involved. Perhaps this would be best served linking to an appropriate article but it does strike me as a problem. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I would love to add a popular opinion section if you could get good sources on it. Loki (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

From a very very quick search

this source says only 8% of cisgender gay, lesbian and bisexual Britain's have a negative view of trans people. (No mention of gender critical)

this 2nd source Has the juicy quote "The findings seem to disprove claims by groups such as the LGB Alliance and The Lesbian Project, as well as several “gender-critical” pundits, that including the “T” somehow erases the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people." And goes more into people saying there is no divide.

I'm sure there's more and not from pinknews alone, but as I said this was a quick search (searching "yougov" on pinknews) LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Those could go on a more general page about the relationship between LGB people and trans people, but you're gonna have to get us specifically opinions on gender-critical feminism (or trans-exclusionary radical feminism) for this page.

(See why this is hard?) Loki (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Why is it a problem for a section on the views of gender critical feminists about a specific subject being based on quotes of gender critical feminists giving their views on that subject? Void if removed (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Basic WP:Due weight (emphasis added):

However, these pages should still appropriately reference the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the minority view's perspective. [...] In addition, the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.

This section should put minority viewpoints on the relationship between LGB rights and trans rights within the context of the broader gay rights movement. Some of the sources and material at Lesbian erasure § In relation to transgender people is probably relevant here. It's especially concerning to directly cite "We're being pressured into sex by some trans women" as a source without mentioning any of the widely covered reactions to it. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 20:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not an article about gay rights falsely emphasising the minority opinions of gender-critical feminists about gay rights.

This is an article about gender-critical feminism, describing their views. The best sources for those views are not people who hate them saying why they hate their views and think they're wrong, even if those views are in the majority, any more than the page on Christianity should heavily feature the views of the global Muslim majority. Void if removed (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

It is currently heavily one sided, look at the above section on intersex conditions and compare the 2. It reads like a press release from sex matters or get the L out, if we shouldn't have criticism sections we shouldn't have sections that only show one side of the argument either. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't know what Wikipedia you've been reading, but the encyclopedia I know loves to point out when religious or spiritual groups believe in things that contrast with a mainstream (i.e. scientific) consensus; see especially List of topics characterized as pseudoscience § Religious and spiritual beliefs.

Terves Reiki practitioners are perfectly fine sources for the things Reiki practitioners believe, but to achieve NPOV and DUE, we are obliged to at least make note of the fact that their beliefs are not mainstream, and have been criticized by numerous feminists, lesbians, trans men, and scholars who consider their beliefs about... er... the efficacy of Reiki, to be faux-concern, scaremongering,[3] demeaning and wrong.[4], or as part of a right-wing effort to falsely equate their transphobic ideology with Left movements, drive a wedge between trans people and the rest of the LGBTQ community.[5] Some amount of criticism content is absolutely due in this section, and its omission is glaring. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 00:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

(As a note: these were the sources most convenient to me, primarily to demonstrate the existence of substantial sourced critique of gendercrit narratives purporting transbian invasion, butch genocide, etc. They're not the result of an exhaustive search or necessarily the ones that should be included alongside the current content. I hope an interested editor finds the time to do that work.) –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 00:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

last sentence of the lede

The "in some countries" seems very out of place, looking at the article at the moment the by country section contains 3, the United Kingdom (seems to be about 90% of the section), the United states and south Korea. The only organisation mentioned in either of the latter 2 is Wolf (which looking at their page has been criticised for allying itself with the right wing). Looking at the UK ones there are definitely organisations that are criticised for allying with far right organisations.

I suggest removing the "In some countries" part but want to feel out what consensus would be on the swap. I personally think "some major Gender critical feminist groups" but I'm very happy to compromise with "some gender critical" or other suggestions. LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

What exactly in the body of the article is the last sentence of the lead ‘In some countries, gender-critical feminist groups have formed alliances with right-wing, far-right, and anti-feminist organisations’ based on? Sweet6970 (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

First section of controversies covers it pretty fully. LunaHasArrived (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The citations for the line in the lede are two pieces that don't explicitly say this AFAICT, a piece in Der Freitag that we quote attributed text from in the body, because it is arguably opinion, and a piece that seems to be WP:RSOPINION and makes the claim with no citations (so again, this should really be attributed). I don't think that's enough to construct this definitive claim in wikivoice. What that source says is:

To this end, a key issue in the current political and scholarly landscape is the growing convergence, and sometimes conscious alliances, between “gender-critical” feminists (sometimes known as TERFs - Trans- Exclusionary Radical Feminists), religious and social conservatives, as well as right-wing politics and even neo-Nazi and fascist movements. Their target are transgender people, queer activism and theorising that support an expansive approach to gender identity. An example from the USA is the colloquium, “The Inequality of the Equality Act: Concerns from the Left,” sponsored by the conservative Heritage Foundation (2019), a think tank that is promoting tough immigration politics, traditional marriage laws (keeping it heterosexual), and stricter abortion legislation.

The citations for the first line in the "controversies" section of the body are about WoLF appearing on a Heritage-organised panel in 2019, and a citation that seems completely irrelevant (again, AFAICT).

A far lengthier and more detailed critique of WoLF appears on the WPUK site here. Part of that critique is:

The problem here is that alliances with the Christian right are being continually used as a stick to beat all gender-critical feminists with, including women who’ve taken a consistent and principled stand against them. The mud has been raked very successfully. A radical feminist critique of the political erasure of sex has been linked, perhaps terminally in the US context, with religious homophobes and racists.

Seems to me that - to avoid the weasel wording of "some groups" and vague "alliances" etc - there is the specific controversy of US-based radical feminist group WoLF appearing on a Heritage-sponsored panel in 2019, something that was criticised by left-wing gender-critical feminists in the UK. Rather than expanding this claim to ever increasing vagueness and implication it should be narrowed. Void if removed (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: These incidents are connected to Hands Across the Aisle Coalition, a group which explicitly wants to bring together "trans-exclusionary radical feminists" and "conservative Christian anti-LGBT" groups.

As far as I know, the connection goes deeper than that, though I would need time to dig up sources on this. Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull in particular seems to be a connecting hinge. Then again, she is also connected to WoLF. TucanHolmes (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

But she is explicitly neither gender-critical, nor a feminist. Void if removed (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is probably better off on kjks page, but Wikipedia currently describes kjk as gender critical. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The CTV source in the lede states

"The Canadian Anti-Hate Network is tracking anti-trans hate and TERF groups in the country, and one thing that’s come out of their work, is that despite labelling themselves as feminists, these groups often collaborate with conservative and far-right groups, and many of these groups are out of Vancouver."

This seems pretty explicit with reference to Canada. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

But the problem is the conflation of "TERF" with "gender-critical feminist".

We have so many reliable sources saying that TERF is a derogatory epithet for anyone deemed transphobic, and not straightforwardly the same thing as "gender-crtical feminist", especially outside of academia, that relying on this source for his claim is basically WP:SYNTH. Void if removed (talk) 09:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I would possibly agree however it's groups that self label as feminist, and in the article in general they make reference to anti-trans hate groups so TERF isn't claiming that role. In reference to TERF throughout the article they talk about these groups believing in conflict between women's rights and transgender people's rights, they talk about "sex based rights". They say these groups relate to the "Women's Human rights campaign". It is very clear that this source is not using TERF as a stand in for Transphobe and that the groups mentioned are gender critical (and especially use feminism) LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

But the problem is the conflation of "TERF" with "gender-critical feminist

The distinction between the two is muddied, the lines blurred. That's why this article states

Gender-critical feminism, also known as trans-exclusionary radical feminism or TERFism

That's also why this article acknowledges that some sources say that "gender-critical feminism" is merely a rebrand. TucanHolmes (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

views - sex based rights

In the United kingdom section the first bullet point (starting existing exceptions) whilst not saying anything wrong (I think it has to be proportional means of achieving a legitimate aim in certain circumstances or and some other stuff, but I am no legal scholar and haven't read the exact document for a while), seems badly sourced. The ehrc link fails verification for me and the wpuk page about suella braverman I was surprised to see linked at all. I tried doing a search but a quick look at gov UK and the ehrc but didn't find anything that would support the current text and it seems a shame to get rid of it.

Any help finding better sources for this bullet point would be appreciated. LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this is the updated link to the current EHRC page:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/separate-and-single-sex-service-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and Void if removed (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes this is what I was thinking of in terms of a source backing this up. Thank you LunaHasArrived (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

For a better cite for the other (ie, this is what is meant by GCFs in this context) how about page 135-6 of Sex and Gender: A contemporary reader:

This chapter has surveyed the history and current state of English and international laws on sex and gender. It has shown that, where laws relating to sex have been enacted, they have been intended to remedy the disadvantages suffered directly and indirectly by women. These disadvantages have always been based on women’s biology as females and on the social constructs built upon their biology. In consequence, the law has defined women as females and has provided rights and protections to counter the historical and continuing restrictions imposed by these.

Our conclusion is that there are just too many situations – those envisaged in the Equality Act exemptions being prime examples – where removal of the protected category of sex will reduce, and possibly remove, the very protections that were enacted to help natal women and redress their historical disadvantage. It is for this reason we argue that we need to retain the protected characteristic of sex in the EA, since its replacement by ‘gender identity’ would obliterate its historical and continuing basis in biology, cut women off from our heritage (women’s lives matter, just as black lives do) and blur the distinction between people who have been discriminated against because of their bodies and those discriminated against because of their identities.

And RE: WPUK, on page 99

Woman’s Place UK (WPUK), founded by socialists and trade unionists in 2017 to campaign for women’s sex-based rights. WPUK’s conscious debt to the second wave is evidenced by their ‘Five Demands’ (WPUK 2018), and their distinction between sex as biological – which underpins their emphasis on women’s bodily autonomy – and gender as a restrictive construction that feminists must challenge.

Void if removed (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong here but the top 2 show nothing about the phrase "sex based rights" (a very particular phrase used a lot) and the bottom is just wpuk was founded because people wanted to protect sex based rights. None show gcf's saying that sex being a protected characteristic is an existing sex based right. Also the middle paragraph seems to be interesting as it's arguing against people wanting to remove sex as a protected characteristic in the UK (something I don't think I've ever seen, ironically the only one I've seen people arguing to remove is gender reassignment). What we want is a source backing up that sex being a protected characteristic is a sex based right. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The description of this chapter (8) in the introduction says

The reasons why British and some international law safeguards sex-based rights are explained by Rosemary Auchmuty and Rosa Freedman in Chapter 8. In Chapter 9, Callie Burt examines the basis of challenges to sex-based legal rights in the US and the consequences of these. Together, these chapters argue that legal recognition of sex, and sex-based rights, is essential.

Void if removed (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Sarah Lamble source (provided by Void above, post at 18:40 9 June 2024)

Rather than arguing about the motives of the right-wing press, how about talking about our article?

Void, do you have any suggestions for specific wordings for adding to this article, based on this source? Sweet6970 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC) The source: [6] Sweet6970 (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how to trim it, but to start summarizing Lambe's thoughts on the differences between the anti-gender movement and the GC movement is:

Sarah Lamble argued that the gender critical movement in the UK is similar to the anti-gender movement but differs from it on four counts:

1. the UK GC movement focuses on transgender issues as opposed to the broader campaigns of the anti-gender movement
2. The UK GC movement emerged as a backlash to attempts to reform the Gender Recognition Act, though the GC movement was based on longstanding british transphobia
3. The GC movement in the UK initially emerged as a white feminist movement before gaining support from right-wing, Christian and neofascist groups. Additionally, while both oppose "gender ideology", the GC movement frames it as a threat to women’s equality and gay rights
4. The GC movement in the UK cross multiple constituencies as well as political and partisan lines

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Most obvious and least contentious place is the "relationship to Anti-Gender movement" section. I'd add something like:

Sarah Lamble described several key differences between gender-critical feminism and the anti-gender movement, noting a defiance of typical left/right divisions and concluding that "gender critical feminists see trans rights as a threat to women’s equality and gay rights, whereas conservatives generally oppose gender and sexual equality altogether".

But what I'd really like to do is resolve the issue of overreliance on critical academic sources that insist they're all hateful white supremacist TERFs, and the fact that this article draws a definitive path from mid-20th century US radfems to the emergence of British feminist resistance to GRA reform on Mumsnet in the 2010s, which makes basically no sense at all.

It is this latter that I think it truly supports, ie it supplies additional (critical) weight to the notion that the gender critical feminist phenomenon isn't a straight line from Janice Raymond, but something arising across multiple different feminist perspectives in response to a) legal reforms for self-id and b) getting abused as a TERF if they objected.

Anyway, this is pie in the sky. Simple changes. Void if removed (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Having quickly read this article, from my fairly ignorant position, this looks like a very useful source. As void notes, it is critical of GCF but importantly makes the point that such anti-trans viewpoints can only be argued against and defeated when one has "clarity on the divergent groups, perspectives, and motivations behind different strands of gender-critical and anti-gender politics." The author here seems to have made a good attempt at describing the UK groups and their positions, and reads as a relatively sane criticism of groups the author disagrees with, which makes a change from some of the sources posted here which are frankly embarrassing to read. -- Colin°^Talk 12:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I support Void’s proposed addition to the article, set out above.

Void, do you have specific proposals for resolving the issue of overreliance on critical academic sources that insist they're all hateful white supremacist TERFs, etc. ?

Sweet6970 (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's a rough outline of what I would personally aim for in the lede, and I believe all this can be sourced to the existing citations on the page. On the understanding there is absolutely no consensus for this, and the chances of getting wording like this are slim:

Gender-critical feminism is a term used by some feminists who consider sex to be biological and immutable, while believing gender, including both gender identity and gender roles, to be inherently oppressive.

Gender-critical feminism came to wider prominence primarily in the UK in the mid-2010s following government proposals to reform the Gender Recognition Act and the formation of several notable gender-critical feminist groups who campaigned against the changes, resulting in a number of high-profile controversies.

Although originally arising within a feminist context, "gender-critical views" more broadly are now classed as a protected belief under UK equality law, where they are defined as the belief that sex is biological and immutable, that people cannot change their sex and that sex is distinct from gender identity.

Attitudes to gender critical feminism and gender critical views vary widely, with some sections of civil society issuing strong statements of condemnation. Scholarly critics argue that the term "gender-critical feminism" is a rebranding of longstanding trans-exclusionary and transphobic views originating in some strands of radical feminism in the mid-20th century. Distinctions between gender-critical feminism, trans-exclusionary radical feminism, gender-critical movements more widely, as well as relationships and crossover with conservative anti-gender movements are a subject of debate and controversy.

Of course the lede should follow the body, and it is hard to get anywhere even close to this without refocusing a lot of the article, but I think this is a brief summary of what is actually relevant to an uninformed reader, and there's plenty of scope for enumerating all of the various contradictory scholarly criticisms elsewhere. I think this can be supported by both the sources of gender critical feminists themselves (like Sex and Gender: A Contemporary Reader), as well as critical sources like Lamble and Thurlow. These are complex and disputed terms. I also do not think we should treat the lede as a coatrack for every new condemnation that comes along, and the TERF Ideology/TERFism stuff needs to be relegated to attributed opinionated critical commentary, not definitive in the opening line as it is now.

So much of the criticism needs to be attributed and placed in context, I think it needs to be summarised like this and expanded in greater narrative detail, picking out some common threads and allegations.

But none of this is likely to happen, so. Last time I was seriously discussing a rework of the lede last year, the whole ridiculous "TERF" redirect to this page happened and derailed everything for months. Void if removed (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I would roughly agree with the general trend of this draft for the lead, but I think more emphasis needs to be put on the gender-critical aspect. For instance, in Holly Lawford-Smith’s book gender critical feminism: p44 ‘…we should see current forms of masculinity and femininity as artefacts of patriarchy…’ , and on p50 quoting Rebecca Reilly-Cooper ‘ Gender is a set of norms that are applied to people on the basis of their sex….’ And in Sex and Gender, Selina Todd says at p90, of second-wave feminists: ‘Feminists believed that while sex is determined by biology, gender is socially and politically constructed.’ Also, mention should be made of the dispute over gender identity; Kathleen Stock’s book Material Girls is mostly a dismantling of the concept of gender-identity, from a philosophical viewpoint. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Gender-critical and anti-gender movements

The UN Women article is, per the first sentence, about people (and movements) "opposed to equal human rights for LGBTIQ+ people" that "have acted in social movements and governments to exploit social, economic, and political instability by attempting to bring reactionary beliefs into the mainstream and reverse gains for members of marginalized groups". It then mentions that "these movements use hateful propaganda and disinformation to target and attempt to delegitimize people with diverse sexual orientations, gender identities, gender expressions, and sex characteristics." It then cites "movements encompassing “anti-gender”, “gender-critical”, and “men’s rights”" as examples of the movements it discusses, indeed movements taking attempts to "frame equality for women and LGBTIQ+ people as a threat to so-called “traditional” family values" to "new extremes." The claim that the article is not discussing the anti-gender or gender-critical movements in the introduction is clearly without any merit whatsoever. Some further sources:

• The Times: UN Women says gender-critical activists are ‘anti-rights movement’
• The Attitude: UN Women post in support of LGBTQs and say ‘gender-critical’ people are ‘anti-rights’ (specifically links it to the quote about hateful propaganda and disinformation)

(I also noticed that TERF group Sex Matters specifically said the quote about hateful propaganda was about their movement) --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Amanda A. Brant:

1) The ‘Un Women’ piece mentions ‘gender-critical’ once. It does not even refer to gender-critical feminism, so it is questionable whether it is relevant to this article at all. I left part of your addition in the article in a spirit of compromise.

The piece also includes reference to movements which frame equality for women and LGBTIQ+ people as a threat to so-called “traditional” family values" i.e. these movements are opposed to g-c feminism, and indeed, opposed to feminism of any kind. There is no way that it is legitimate to have a statement which is not about g-c feminism in the lead.

2) You say: The UN Women article is, per the first sentence, about people (and movements) "opposed to equal human rights for LGBTIQ+ people" that "have acted in social movements and governments to exploit social, economic, and political instability by attempting to bring reactionary beliefs into the mainstream and reverse gains for members of marginalized groups”.

So obviously it does not make sense to include g-c feminism in this, since it is well-known that various prominent g-c feminists are lesbians. This damages the credibility of the whole piece.

3) You say:It then mentions that "these movements….

No, it does not. It says: State and non-state actors in many countries are attempting to roll back hard-won progress and further entrench stigma, endangering the rights and lives of LGBTIQ+ people. These movements use hateful propaganda and disinformation to target and attempt to delegitimize people with diverse sexual orientations, gender identities, gender expressions, and sex characteristics.

This is not referring to g-c feminism, and it is not reasonable to read it in this way.

4) You say: The claim that the article is not discussing the anti-gender or gender-critical movements in the introduction is clearly without any merit whatsoever. Amanda, you know very well that the anti-gender movement has nothing to do with g-c feminism, except, of course, that g-c feminism is the opposite of the anti-gender movement. You cannot use a reference to the anti-gender movement as an excuse to include reference to this piece in our article on g-c feminism.

5) Amanda, you should self-revert. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This UN peice says the various movements overlap in retaliation against 'gender ideology', our article describes gender critical feminism in this same way. Gender critical feminists have self identified as being a target of this article (see sex matters in the times). This peice is definitely about gender critical views and seems to apply very well to gender critical feminists.

Going point by point

1) the peice also mentions mens rights only once and anti-gender twice, who is this article about by the standard your supposing? There are people that argue that gender critical views (in their modern manifestation) are inherintly anti-feminist

2) this defence makes no sense, it is historic fact that there is usually a member of a minority who works alongside people stripping their rights away (especially if it's unlikely to effect this particular member in the near future)

3) Sex matters said themselves this part is related to "women's rights compaigners) some gender critical feminists obviously think this applies to them.

4) how is the anti -gender movement and gender critical feminism opposites, this article, the council of Europe and now UN women all say they are related.

I can see arguements about it not being necessary in the lede (at the moment anyway) but given it already was mentioned in the times, it seems odd to exclude it in the article. LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

1) Who is this piece about? Good question. The piece never specifies who it is talking about, and this is particularly problematic when it says State and non-state actors in many countries…. – these are the parties who are supposedly using hateful propaganda and disinformation etc, which our article wrongly attributes to g-c feminists. The piece is so vague that it is useless as a source for Wikipedia.

2) The piece asserts that g-c feminists campaign against rights for LGB people, and women. It does not specify who these feminists are, let alone provide any evidence for this. No-one has ever come up with evidence that g-c feminists campaign against rights for women, or against rights for lesbians and gays. Once again, the piece is so vague that it is useless as a source for Wikipedia.

3) Where does Sex Matters make this comment?

4) Anti-gender views and gender-critical feminism are opposites:

i) The anti-gender movement says:

a) Gender stereotypes are natural and derive from biological sex.

b) Everybody should conform to the gender stereotype of their biological sex.

ii) Gender-critical feminism says:

a) Gender stereotypes are not natural, they are social constructs whose function is to oppress women.

b) No-one should be obliged to conform to the gender stereotype associated with their biological sex. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

3) the times and their own twitter page.

The rest is non-policy based opinion and has nothing to do with improving the article LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I don’t have access to the Times. Please set out the exact wording you are referring to. I searched for Twitter, and all I got was: This #InternationalWomensDay will you sign the petition to make the Equality Act clear and protect women's rights in the UK?.

Regarding your comment: ‘The rest…' is actually about the source being used. It is necessary to use sources properly, according to what they actually say, and don’t say. I don’t understand your comment about 'non-policy based opinion' – are you saying that ensuring that Wikipedia articles are properly based on the content of sources is against Wikipedia policy?

Sweet6970 (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

For their twitter thread, search for the sex matters account and search UN women, it's a post from 3 days ago.

This is one quote from the times:

"Labelling the grassroots campaigners and groups who are defending women’s rights against a global tidal wave of gender-identity ideology as an ‘anti-rights movement’ is outrageous."

Said by Fiona Mcanena, director of campaigns for Sex Matters. Is just one quote from the times.

It's clear that the UN peice labels mens rights movements, the anti-gender movement and the Gender critical movement as anti-rights movements. It is also clear that gender critical feminists disagree with this grouping, but not that they are being grouped

For your point of 2) we don't on Wikipedia require our sources to cite their sources. This peice defacto says that the gender critical movement works against these rights, whilst gender critical feminists would disagree this is unfortunately a situation where Mandy applies. For the rest, gender critical feminists argue against conversion therapy bans in the UK, this is unlike every other feminist or gay rights organisation in the UK.

The entirity of 4 is your own opinion heavily OR and goes against what this source, the council of Europe and what our entire first section of controversies states.

LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

whilst gender critical feminists would disagree

Which is why basing this entire article so heavily on critical sources has ended up here. We need to say what gender-critical feminists say, clearly, in their own words, and then line up any criticism, and let the reader see if it makes any sense whatsoever.

The fact is that both positions see the opposing one as "anti-rights" because it is zero-sum. In order to demonstrate that to a casual reader, we need to have shown what gender critical feminists actually say about this.

Which we don't because the entire section on "sex-based rights" is really tenuously sourced to opponents who claim such a thing is ridiculous, rather than, say, the extensive and well-sourced chapters in "Sex and Gender" which tell you what their position actually is.

this is unfortunately a situation where Mandy applies

Given the polarizing and zero-sum nature of this, WP:MANDY goes both ways and does not help at all.

The entirity of 4 is your own opinion heavily OR

No, this is described accurately in eg. the Lamble source, above.Void if removed (talk) 08:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Lamble does not describe them as opposites, in fact based on lamble it would be quite difficult to do so. Lamble says the gender critical movement is a single issue project, and that the anti-gender movement agrees on that single issue. If your a single issue project, it's difficult to be the opposite of a group that's doing the same thing as you on a single issue. As with your specific example it seems ok, just weirdly layed out. Parts of the article (in layout at least) assume an international element that just doesn't seem to exist.

I want to say I did an edit on layout as well but apologise if I messed anything up, it was trying to fix where your signature was appearing. LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

We need to say what gender-critical feminists say, clearly, in their own words, and then line up any criticism, and let the reader see if it makes any sense whatsoever. - No, that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. The encyclopedia is not here to promote the WP:FRINGE theories of people.

We accurately summarize topics and represent the WP:MAINSTREAM view of people.

Since gender-critical views are a fringe “movement”, we thus have a lot of content that highlights it as such, to which criticism by the United Nations, being the largest worldwide socio-political body, that represents human rights, plays a large role and thus is also given a prominent view when they share criticism of groups that promote hate speech and discrimination of other humans, such as is the case with the gender-critical movement. Raladic (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

to Raladic: No, you have misunderstood WP:FRINGE. To repeat – WP:FRINGE says: Fringe theories in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. If an article is about subject A, then FRINGE views on that subject are not given much prominence. But, as has already been explained on this Talk page many times, an article on a subject which some may consider fringe – subject B - should be described as subject B. Some space should be given to criticism of it, but this should not predominate. An article on subject B should be about subject B. And, of course, there is in any event no agreement that gender-critical views are fringe, rather than mainstream.

I see you have not replied to my query about why you think that WP:NOTCENSORED is relevant to this matter. It isn’t.

And as regards discrimination – the evidence of the legal cases in the UK is that it is people with gender-critical views who have been subject to discrimination.

Sweet6970 (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The TERF or "gender-critical" movement is widely regarded in scholarship and by humans rights and UN bodies as an extremist hate movement. Holding anti-trans views is not being discriminated against, it's the other way round. It's a classic example of playing the victim ("the fabrication (...) of victimhood (...) to justify abuse to others"). Institutionalized transphobia in the UK or Russia is not the standard we go by here, we write about transphobia and a transphobic movement. The very claim by some anti-trans people or bodies in the UK that anti-trans activists are "discriminated" against despite no evidence of that is in itself an example of transphobia, in the UK. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

we write about transphobia and a transphobic movement

We are writing about gender-critical feminism.

despite no evidence

Half a dozen successful discrimination claims is not "no evidence". Void if removed (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

It is misusing WP:FRINGE to avoid actually describing what gender critical feminism is according to reliable sources, through the circular logic that any source which doesn't describe it in a sufficiently hostile way is WP:FRINGE and unreliable.

As has been said time and again When a textbook gets published by a respectable academic press, we are well out of fringe territory.

As you say, wikipedia is WP:NOTADVOCACY. The encyclopedia is not here to prevent people from reading the views of gender critical feminists by prioritising the views of their critics. Void if removed (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

To LHA: The search I did was for sex matters and UN women, and all I got was what I quoted in my post of 17:43 17 June above. So I still don’t know what the twitter post you are referring to says.

Thank you for providing an extract from the Times report. If we are to include the UN Women comments in body, we should also include the rebuttal from Sex Matters. But the extract you have given is very short and doesn’t mention UN Women, or Sex Matters. Can you please provide more text from the Times?

Sweet6970 (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

twitter

archive of the times article LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok the above twitter link is linking only to the one post, not the thread (I'll see if I can fix) LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

this should be the entire thread LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Luna: Thanks for the links – I am looking at this and will comment further. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I have now added comments by Sex Matters to the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

"No-one has ever come up with evidence that g-c feminists campaign against rights for women, or against rights for lesbians and gays." This is patently false. Gender critical feminists openly campaign against rights for transgender women, transgender lesbians, and transgender gays. Read the first sentence of the article. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@The Midnite Wolf: The first sentence of the article is Gender-critical feminism, also known as trans-exclusionary radical feminism or TERFism, is an ideology or movement that opposes what it refers to as "gender ideology": the concept of gender identity and transgender rights, especially gender self-identification. This says nothing about campaigning against rights for women, or lesbians and gays. Your comment that I should read the first sentence of the article is nonsensical. I suggest you strike it. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

If you oppose transgender rights and gender self-identification then that means you oppose rights for transgender women, transgender lesbians, and transgender gays. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

If we assume that transgender people are of all religions and none, then, according to your argument, if you oppose transgender rights, then you oppose rights for (in alphabetical order) agnostics, atheists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims. And that’s just silly. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes if you oppose transgender rights, you do oppose rights for (some) agnostics, atheists, Christians, Hindus, Jews and Muslims. I think you're starting to understand intersectionality. LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

What Luna said is correct, but the important distinction is that gender-critical people specifically target trans women and trans lesbians for "invading" certain spaces, hence the UN piece, as well as the council of Europe saying that gender-critical movements attack the rights of LGBTQI+ people. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, the content is well sourced and issued by a very reputable source, being the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women. The removal by the other user squarely fell afoul of WP:NOTCENSORED and is appropriate to be included in the article. Raladic (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Raladic:See my comments above. And please explain how WP:NOTCENSORED has anything to do with this. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This continual shoving of every new negative thing straight into the lede no matter how woolly or tenuous has to stop.

By all means add it to the body and discuss, but this new UN statement has nothing to do with "gender critical feminism" and is, at best, an expansion on the disputed territory of where gender critical feminism, gender critical, gender critical movements, anti-gender tendencies overlap (or don't). Void if removed (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree I was surprised to see it instantly in the lede, I disagree with this not being about gender critical feminism just as sex matters self identified this as about women's rights compaigners and the like. So at the very least some gender critical feminists think this is about them. LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, my "just as" was incorrect should have been only "as", the language also matches up at least with some primary views of gener critical feminism. LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It's specifically about the topic of this article (gender-critical), it a clear statement by a huge and influential UN body and it has also received significant coverage in RS. All the "GC" organizations are up in arms about the statement and say it is about them/their ideology, so it has clearly made a huge impact. It clearly belongs in the lead and the attempts to remove it are wholly inappropriate (WP:IDONTLIKEIT, basically). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Re "The ‘Un Women’ piece mentions ‘gender-critical’ once. It does not even refer to gender-critical feminism, so it is questionable whether it is relevant to this article at all. I left part of your addition in the article in a spirit of compromise": This is not really worthy of a response, it has been debated to death, and the bizarre claim that gender-critical (movement) doesn't refer to the topic of this article is entirely without any merit whatsoever – in fact we have frequently debated moving the article to gender-critical movement. This article is about the ideology or movement known variously as gender-critical feminism, gender-critical movement, GC, trans-exclusionary radical feminism, TERF, TERF movement, TERFism, and so forth. It has been this way since the article was created. "Gender-critical feminism" is not the most common term but was chosen as a compromise for other reasons. The fact that a source doesn't use that specific term is irrelevant. The UN Women article discusses three movements specifically, at length, and the entire article is about them, as also seen from RS coverage[7] The rest of your comment (e.g. "So obviously it does not make sense to include g-c feminism in this, since it is well-known that various prominent g-c feminists are lesbians. This damages the credibility of the whole piece." is not really comprehensible to me and seems to be based solely on personal opinions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) rather than Wikipedia policies relevant to our articles and how we assess sources. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This article is about gender-critical feminism. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The topic of this article is the ideology or movement known as gender-critical feminism, gender-critical movement, gender-critical, GC, GC feminism and related terms, or trans-exclusionary radical feminism, TERF ideology, TERFism, TERF and related terms. Gender-critical and gender-critical feminism refer to the same thing and very few sources use the full expression gender-critical feminism, which is not the most common title. Gender-critical is mentioned specifically in the sources, in fact it's the main take of the RS[8] and all the GC organizations are up in arms about it and saying the statement is about them. The idea that it isn't about them is laughable. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Please can you stop referring to a UK charity which campaigns on a non-feminist basis as a "TERF group". This is simply reinforcing that "TERF" is a meaningless and derogatory epithet. Unless you're seriously suggesting that Simon Briscoe is a "trans-exclusionary radical feminist"? Void if removed (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to do that. I'm an American living in Germany, in both countries TERF is the common term. It is the term used in scholarship (including many sources in this article) and by feminist activists to refer to this fringe anti-trans movement. I'm not going to use a UK-centric euphemism. Note that in this article the terms are equivalent, and editors may use either of them both in the article (often depending on which term that the sources use) and in the discussions. I don't understand your comment about "non-feminist" basis. Mainstream feminists don't view TERF ideology or the TERF movement as feminist at all; which is one of the reasons we are still debating whether the title should be gender-critical movement. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• The group is categorized as a TERF group in academic sources; see eg. [9]. --Aquillion (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@The Midnite Wolf: On this Talk page, the justification for including the UN Women’s comment in this article, which is about gender-critical feminism, was that the response by Sex Matters was an admission that the comments were about gender-critical organisations. If you think that the response from Sex Matters is not notable, then the whole paragraph should be deleted, because the material is not relevant to this article. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The UN piece directly states "Movements encompassing 'anti-gender', 'gender-critical', and 'men’s rights' have taken this to new extremes, tapping into wider fears about the future of society and accusing feminist and LGBTIQ+ movements of threatening civilization itself” (emphasis mine). I’m not sure how else you can read that other than as a condemnation of gender-critical movements. And I’d argue that the UN having any opinion about the movement would be worth including. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The comment by UN Women does not make sense if it refers to g-c feminism, since g-c feminism is a feminist movement, and the so UN Women would be claiming that g-c feminists were campaigning against themselves. As I have said, the whole comment by UN Women is so vague as to be useless as a source. The only justification for including it in the article is that Sex Matters, a g-c group, has complained about it. So the comments by Sex Matters should be included, because otherwise the Un Women comments have no place in this article. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Your top point almost sums this up in a nutshell, because people do argue that gender critical feminism is anti-feminist and not really a feminist movement. The term 'feminst' as a descriptor here seems more to be about someone's background and how they present their gender critical ideas, more than wether they actually do any feminist work. LunaHasArrived (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Feminism is a philosophical view point, not a job. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean one can clearly do Feminist work. I also just want one non gender critical but still feminist source, that describes gender critical feminism is a feminist movement. Because we have plenty saying that they aren't and are using feminism as a cover. That you then argue that because they appropriate feminism they can't campaign against feminism (despite sources clearly saying that they are) and we can't include sources that say this because it's illogical seems very misinformed. LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The justification was the UN said something about GC feminism, you argued they weren't talking about GC feminism, so GC "feminists" were quoted saying "this is about us" so you'd stop that line. The basis for including it was not "GC feminists said this is about them", it was "the UN said this about GC feminists". The sex matters quote was undue. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, Sex Matters is a fringe group, doesn't even have an article but just redirects to the anti-trans activist who founded it. It's completely undue in this context. Sex Matters commenting on it is not the justification for including this notable statement by UN Women, the statement doesn't mention Sex Matters and all the TERFs are up in arms about it. It was just mentioned on the talk page as an example. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)