![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Some weird baby-boomer philosophers made a living condemning the 'metaphysical implications' of transgenderism for 'conceptual feminism.' But most modern feminists don't read this tosh. Today, anti-trans sentiment is on the fringe of feminism. If you poll self-described feminists, you will find that they overwhelmingly support TLGB rights. Steeletrap ( talk) 05:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Notable feminist Gloria Steinem used to hold anti-trans views. Now she has repudiated and apologized for them, and identifies as a trans ally. I can't see the rationale for deleting her change of heart from the article. Memo to Boomers: You're not living in the 1970s anymore, and much of what was relevant and topical back then seems stupid, arbitrary, and perverse to modern feminists. Steeletrap ( talk) 15:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
You'd really have to have some sources that show feminists use that phrase to keep that name. Add it, and the problem is solved. Otherwise it's original research. Thanks. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 18:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not a "neologism". https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22trans+people%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=js0QVNHiBOrH8gfRh4HACw I've never heard anything so ridiculous in all my life. Don't try that one on me. Alyxr ( talk) 22:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Certainly the editor who moved the article should have used the requested moves process and gotten a consensus before moving the article. I personally have no objection to the current title, but if a significant number of editors object, it should be moved back and then proper process followed. Yworo ( talk) 23:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I've moved the page back to the original title until we come to a consensus. The original mover re-moved the page after a revert. Per WP:MOVE, controversial moves should not be make again. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 04:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Third wave views of gender continuum and sex-positive feminist views of choice are extremely underrepresented in the Support section. WP:UNDUE focus is put on the criticism, which was dominant in earlier years, but now is more fringe. The article should be tagged for this reason. 97.85.173.38 ( talk) 04:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
This article only mentions binary transgendered folks. What about non-binary individuals? Do non-binary individuals serve only to reinforce gender and gender roles, or is there a validity to being non-binary outside of socially constructed gender roles and expressions? Would non-binary basically affirm that males and females really are completely different mentally, rather than merely physically? Does gender really exist? Are there really more genders than 2, or does this just prove that gender doesn't exist and only sex exists? 71.161.254.147 ( talk) 03:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I spend a certain amount of time on Wikipedia pointing out issues of bias.
So it's only fair that I give praise where praise is due.
It is articles like this that make Wikipedia an extremely valuable resource, more than just a distillation of information already available on the web- which in itself is useful, but not groundbreaking.
This article really taught me something I did not know, and did so in a very balanced way, not taking one side or the other, but merely presenting both sides of the argument in an unbiased way. This is the real power of an encyclopedia- the unbiased presentation of arguments. 116.55.65.71 ( talk) 05:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I still see quite a bit of NPOV. Example: using the word *evolved* vs *changed*. Evolved implies progressive because the gone conclusion is that accepting trans women into the feminist movement is implied solely as progress. That's extreme NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.33.132 ( talk) 23:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I am a student taking a feminist economics course at the University of Chicago Law School and I am interested in revising and updating the article.
Specifically, I would like to:
I am interested in any feedback on these proposed changes and suggestions for scholarly sources on the topic that could strengthen its presentation of it. Cmhofley ( talk) 02:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Feminist views on transgender and transsexual people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Feminist views on transgender and transsexual people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Feminist views on transgender and transsexual people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
See image: https://i.imgur.com/2abROTp.jpg
This is just plain depressing and I barely have the energy to get angry at this point so I'll just keep going on with my zombie tone. These screenshots (that I merged together and censored for now) apparently popped up a few days ago. Person 1 says "TERFs are just a hate group so we should remove them from the page." Person 2 and 3 are clearly discussing manipulation strategies on how to gradually achieve this. Person 4 says something that I suppose is acceptable (implies but doesn't explicitly suggest giving undue weight to one position). Person 5 says they are a very longstanding Wikipedia author and is unfazed by these people; instead they give the others advice on what sort of manipulation is and isn't realistically possible on Wikipedia.
It's unclear where the screenshots originate from. It seems that the original uploader shut down their Twitter account, which might be to escape the wrath of the depicted people assuming they were part of a private circle.
I'm guessing that people will scrutinize the reality of these screenshots. I don't know how we might go forth to weight their reality, but I'll tell you one thing: this sort of behavior is 100% compatible with how I've come to know SOME (only SOME, but some) trans activists over the years. Also part of the reason I'm not particularly shocked to be honest. I have little doubt that these screenshots are genuine.
For now, I have no concrete suggestion as to which editors these people may be. I also don't know how to deal with the bureaucratic aspects of this situation. I wish these people would just stop. TaylanUB ( talk) 19:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
References
I agree that this needs to be watched and handled carefully and thoughtfully. One problem I see with the current structure is that it starts with the section on opposition, broken down by person. "Prominent feminist A said X in 1970-something. Then decades later she revised her opinion, saying Y." X and Y do not both fit under "opposition", and it flows badly. I'm not sure of the best way forward. Is there a way to structure the article to be less about individual activists and theorists, and more about ideas and policy proposals? Sort of an intellectual history of how movements within feminism have developed over time? An area that is lacking is that of feminist analysis of trans men: a summary of what has been written about this would be a useful addition to the article. Carbon Caryatid ( talk) 15:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
=== Section foo ===
) a couple of headings, like, "Support", and "Criticism" or "Opposition", and under that, either just a chronological narrative of how the criticism developed (or the support, or changes of mind) without a Level 4 for each person? Or possibly, by theme of support or opposition? I feel that somehow the article is crying out for a brief resumé of the essentialist versus social constructionist views of gender, the latter of which sprang out of second-wave feminism and whose implications are the locus of support for both oppositional radical feminist theory, as well as supportive feminist arguments, including radical feminists as well.
Foggymaize please stop edit warring and study'sdiscuss your changes. I'll find a citation if you like.
EvergreenFir
(talk)
05:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
with the position of acceptance having become more common through the years.This is not supported in the article and if anything the opposite is presented. Given this Foggymaizes change was pretty mild. Information should be presented in the article before it is even thought about being discussed in the lead. Saying "acceptance having become more common through the years" in Wikipedias voice definitely requires some pretty strong sources and per WP:Burden there should be no issues removing it if there are no sources. AIRcorn (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I suggest this page be titled 'feminist views on aspects of transgender and transsexual politics' instead of people. This is more accurate.
The disagreement is ideological. Feminists argue that gendered dress and behaviour is not innate, trans activists believe it is. Feminists believe that gender is an unnecessary social construct, and that people should dress/present however they like. This is different to having a unified view about individual transgender people, who may well themselves disagree with trans activists. Many feminists strongly support trans people such as Miranda Yardley who have questioned a number of transactivist positions. As Claire Heuchan argues re: the innateness of gender in the Guardian,
"The tension between radical feminists and queer activists stems from two contradictory ways of defining gender. Queer politics positions gender as an innately held identity. The radical feminist understanding is that gender exists as a political system, not an identity. Recognising gender as innately held, a factor that should be enshrined as a protected characteristic, totally contradicts radical feminist principles. The politics of gender is deeply personal, but that isn’t a reason to shy away from exploring it – quite the opposite."
Heuchan goes on to say that the feminist movement strongly supports human rights for trans people. They just disagree with the ideology that gender is innate and that any person who "identifies" as female be granted access to female safe spaces such as hospital wards and prisons.
"There are women within the movement who have seriously overstepped the mark by directing cruelty towards trans people, which I condemn without hesitation. But, like every other radical feminist I know, I want trans people to live lives that are free from abuse, discrimination, and persecution. Irrespective of the difference in how we conceptualise gender, radical feminists want all trans people to be safe from male violence." — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Foggymaize (
talk •
contribs)
04:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
[T]rans activists believe it is" and "
ideology that gender is innate"... what nonsense is this now? Rab V is correct that there is no unified "transgender politics". Further discussion (and TERFism) has largely been around trans people themselves, their very being, not their ideologies. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
In the talk page of the article "Transphobia" it was claimed that the YouTube video of the Speaker's Corner assault goes against some Wikipedia rules, but no rules were clearly named or linked. I looked around for a second time today and still couldn't tell what rules said video would break, so I'm adding it back for now. Please tell me / link clearly which exact rules it breaks before removing it again. And please be careful not to fall to personal bias in your interpretation of the rules; I had to observe this at least 2-3 times recently in relation to edits made to the page about the assault. Thank you. TaylanUB ( talk) 12:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
(I wasn't sure where else to respond to Mathglot after the addition of the above subsection. I hope I'm not messing up the page structure.)
Hi Mathglot, thank you so much for going through the trouble to resolve this question with the experts. While it's a bit mind-boggling at first to hear that "there is no way to verify that this video is really of the assault in question" (because that's just obvious to people who know about the incident), I think I understand that this is just one of those strange things about Wikipedia's method of operating. No matter how "obvious" something is, it can still be ruled out as "original research" or something like that... On the meanwhile, I've found out that there is a Feminist Current article on the incident itself (not the subsequent article on "TERF" being hate speech), and that article contains the video in question. I'll see whether I find a suitable way to link to this article instead of directly to the YT video. Maybe just as an additional citation at the end of an existing sentence... TaylanUB ( talk) 18:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
While adding content is great, this article is getting lopsided in my opinion. TaylanUB is doing a good job of adding content in a neutral way, but I'm concerned some entries are UNDUE in the overall scope of the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Trying to cast this as (1) opposition by trans people, (2) the acts of "transgender activists", or (3) a list for conflicts is disruptive and pov-pushing, TaylanUB. You know by now CounterPunch is not a reliable source. Your insistence on trying to making these articles about trans women attacking rad fems is disruptive to say the least. Please stop. I cannot tell if you simply don't understand how Wikipedia works or if you're trying to push your POV/ WP: RIGHTGREATWRONGS. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
The problem with the TERF section, is that it doesn't adhere to the topic of this article, which is, lest we forget, "Feminist views on transgender and transsexual people." Per WP:AT, the discussion in this section (as in every section) should be couched in terms of the article topic. So, we should lead off with the feminist views first, if necessary placing it in context of some event where the term was used, or providing that info via a link if possible, or a ref. It's also rather lengthy, and that can be improved somewhat, by moving some quotations into the refs. I'd suggest something more along these lines (Note: footnote links work only when collapsed refs section is expanded.):
The term "TERF", short for trans exclusionary radical feminist, is considered a slur by those at whom it is directed. [1] [2] [3] Radical feminist journalist Sarah Ditum, who writes for The Guardian and the New Statesman, said that the term is used to silence feminists through guilt by association. [4] Julie Bindel, writing for The Guardian, opined that her exclusion from university platforms for alleged transphobia, even when it was planned for her to talk on unrelated issues such as male violence, was indicative of an anti-feminist crusade and linked the term "TERF" to this. [5]In February 2017, Meghan Murphy, founder of Canadian website Feminist Current, said after an assault on a participant at a feminist gathering in London by transgender activists [6] that "TERF" is not only a slur but a form of hate speech, pointing at the number of transgender activists and sympathizers who were defending or even celebrating the physical assault against attendee Maria MacLachlan on the grounds that she was allegedly a "TERF". [7]
Sarah Ditum, writing for the New Statesman, noted how "TERF" became a mainstream slur after initially starting out as what was mostly an Internet buzzword. [8]
Claire Heuchan, criticizing the deplatforming of Linda Bellos from Cambridge University on grounds of her perceived transphobia, said that "TERF" is often used alongside violent rhetoric, and used to dehumanize women who are critical of gender. She also added that the term obscures the fact that it is men who are responsible for violence against transgender people. [9]
Show references
|
---|
References:
|
I'm not addressing any other issues that might relate to improving the section text above, other than keeping the focus on the topic of the article, and leading with feminist views; there might be other changes needed once that is settled. For example, since the topic is "feminist views," it's not clear to me whether we need to present information that might contrast with those views, such as, for example, the fact that the term was created by radical feminists. Since that's not part of a "feminist view of transgender people," does it need to be stated here? Not sure. Mathglot ( talk) 10:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Suggest the whole TERF section belongs in an article about slurs, not about feminists. What does name calling have to do with these issues? Foggymaize ( talk) 23:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
The following sentence appears in the first paragraph of the Lead:
The neologism "TERF" (an acronym for "Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists") [1] is used against, but not by, certain feminists.
Is this term really important enough to appear in the lead? Even if so, per WP:LEAD and WP:AT the Lead should be summarizing the article, and talking about "feminist views," and how does pointing out how feminists are being name-called by some other group have anything to do with "feminist views"? Also, it seems to me to be undue weight this high up. But if we do keep something about it in the lead, then the focus should be about "feminist views" about something, and not about what some other group does to feminists. Also, "used against, but not by,..." is very clunky. Mathglot ( talk) 11:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
It ought to go. No one would consider it appropriate to say 'the term boy is used against, but not by, certain people of African background?' in an article about the range of views expressed by African writers about colonialism, for example. TERF is a slur. It has nothing to do with what feminists have stated about transgender ideology. (Foggymaize) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foggymaize ( talk • contribs) 23:31, January 30, 2018 (UTC)
References
I temporarily rolled back a series of six edits by Ehipassiko2 while a discussion into a possible malware link is underway at ANI. My assumption is that the user is editing in good faith, and that this will blow over. The edits will likely be restored once the ANI investigation has run its course. Mathglot ( talk) 06:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
The following two articles aren't perfect, but they have settled into relatively stable forms.
Feminist views on pornography begins:
Feminist views on prostitution begins:
I think this article could learn from them. In particular, neither lead focuses on named individuals, but on a summary of positions. The lead is, after all, supposed to summarise the body. Carbon Caryatid ( talk) 16:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I think it'd make sense for the title to be "Feminist views on gender," for reasons To editor Foggymaize: stated in the last discussion. Transgenderism may be problematic, and transgender and transsexual people is an WP:AND so I understand why they're being contested. Changing the name to "on gender" would allow editors to flesh out the actual differing views, instead of just listing feminists who have publicly opposed certain trans individuals, or feminists who have generally supported trans individuals. Claire Heuchan's article, as quoted in the discussion before this one, makes the distinction clear on the ideological differences between how feminists view gender. Woodsy lesfem ( talk) 17:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Meta-discussion: This section is getting pretty long, and could use some subsections as breaks. Perhaps, "Names vs views in the lead", "Body subsections named after individuals", "Proposed move" (or, "Change of title", etc.). If no objection, I may do so.
Mathglot (
talk)
03:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't see the article being focused on criticism of transgender individuals at all. I think Feminist views on transgender topics is a good idea and could be applied right now. Taylan ( talk) 09:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I support Feminist views on transgender topics, or Feminist views on transgender issues. This article is about politics, not individuals. Foggymaize ( talk) 23:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Now that the title change has been decided and done, I propose that we shift back to CC's original proposal. At the top of this section, Carbon Caryatid proposed that the lead be refocused "on a summary of positions" rather than on "named individuals". (C.C., please correct me if I've misrepresented you.) Let's continue that discussion now. Mathglot ( talk) 11:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Reading the lead, the sentence "Some feminists object to the acronym 'TERF' (short for trans-exclusionary radical feminist)" is a bit of a stumbling block; it's awkward to say "some people dislike X" without having mentioned X before, or how X is relevant to the topic. Readers are left to infer from what it's said to be short for that it is probably used to describe feminists who hold trans-excluding views. It would flow better to introduce the existence of the term before the dislike of it; something like "Feminists holding trans-exclusionary views are sometimes referred to as 'TERFs' [...], an acronym which some feminists object to [...]" or "[...] sometimes refer to trans-exclusionary feminists as 'TERFs' [...], which some object to [...]". Even just spelling out the use of the term within the parentheses could be an improvement, like "Some feminists object to the acronym 'TERF' (which is sometimes used to describe trans-exclusionary radical feminists) [...]". Tenemoc ( talk) 21:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I have moved the content into headings as the first step in restructuring the article. The content was not changed significantly with this edit, just rearranged. I will wait a day or two for feedback on this restructuring, before I start getting into editing the content itself. AIRcorn (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Currently, Dworkin's ideas are mentioned simply below a title that reads "feminist support," which paints kind of a black and white picture where some feminists "support" transgender ideals and some feminists "oppose" them. The situation is a lot more complicated, in particular when talking about Dworkin's passages from Woman Hating, as she stated that transsexuality might be a function of coercive gender roles, and disappear as a phenomenon in a post-patriarchal society where people are freed from the gender boxes. I'm not sure if I can find any citation for this right now, but I know from personal correspondence that this goes contrary to the positions of many transgender thinkers, who instead argue that transgender identity is natural and not the result of socialization, and would continue to exist no matter the surrounding culture.
The main paragraph talking about her positions could, I suppose, be moved under the section "sex reassignment surgery," but the part about Stoltenberg, Jensen, and Craft would not fit well there. And then the paragraph about Butler would be the only thing under the section "feminist support," which might look weird. (More content re. feminist support would certainly help there.)
Anyone have ideas on how to better integrate the current content of "feminist support" into the rest of the article? Taylan ( talk) 20:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Is it worth adding any articles on the groups 'we need to talk' and 'a woman's place' since they identify as feminist but have often been described as 'terfs' and have attracted controversy and media coverage etc. Fourdots2 ( talk) 19:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Is this talking about the individual trans people being criticised or the writer making the criticisms? I can't tell. If there are no objections I will rewrite it to focus on the writer Spacepine ( talk) 00:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
If we were to very simplistically and broadly divide attitudes on this topic as "trans ideology supportive" and "trans ideology critical", it has become increasingly clear to me that supportive positions often get a pass within this and other trans-related articles even when they're uncited (sometimes plain wrong), rely on highly unreliable sources, etc., whereas critical positions are upheld to an almost impossibly high standard.
For instance, someone recently undid changes by me on the grounds that they supposedly go against WP:RS even though the sources used were all from major publications: The New Yorker, Times, Feminist Current, Bitch (Magazine), CounterPunch, The New Statesman, and Morning Star. As another example, previously an edit was undone claiming that Sarah Ditum is not "notable", after which I had to clarify that she's a journalist/columnist for The Guardian and New Statesman. People never seem to give me the benefit of doubt and check for themselves how notable something is, or inquire me to make sure; they just flat-out undo my changes.
On the other hand, I recently found an uncited claim on a trans-related article that Andrea Dworkin supposedly wrote in Woman Hating that transwomen are women. I was 99% sure that this is wrong (it's one of my favorite books, if not my favorite book; I'd know) so I put a citation needed on it, removing it after a few days where I found the time to scroll to the trans-related parts of Woman Hating and re-read them, as well as do a full-text search on "trans" to make sure I wasn't missing something. Then today I noticed the External Links section of this article linking to some random blogspot blog providing a subjective interpretation of Woman Hating... Come on. The book is available for download for no cost.
These are just anecdotes from the last week or so. When I tried to edit trans-related articles several months ago I had the same experience, but not enough time and energy to dwell on the phenomenon much.
So please, for the love of Wikipedia: try to be more neutral on this topic. I have strong opinions too, but you won't ever see me remove parts of articles because I deem The TransAdvocate to be an "unreliable source" just because it's not a super-famous publication like, I dunno, Slate or something. In terms of "notability" I would intuit that it's on the same level as Feminist Current (which is probably the least notable of the sources I tend to use); correct me if I'm wrong.
Let's not get into ideological edit wars or try to erase out notable positions because they make some people uncomfortable. If you really believe that it is true that certain positions on this topic are abhorrent, then a cold and scholarly representation of them will do just fine to reveal that. (I do not, of course, believe that this is the case, which is why I have zero problems with cold and scholarly representation of said positions, and in fact try to provide them.) TaylanUB ( talk) 18:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
It's also not an anti trans blog Taylan. I also do not consider Meghan Murphy a reliable or useful source on trans politics. Factsnotfeelings 23:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
It seems astonishing that so much on this page seems to be about feminist opposition to trans rights, and very little on feminist support or neutral views. I know there has been a lot of controversy on this issue, but I hardly feel that the weight given to criticism here is fair and a little undue. Confrontation between these two communities may sell papers but Wikipedia is not a newspaper; it is an encyclopedia. -- Bangalamania ( talk) 23:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I have a concern regarding the subcategory "TERF", I hope I'm in the right place. I came to ask a second opinion about adding it to the 'Category:Radical feminist organizations'. But to do that, I don't know if I should go about making a wikipedia page especially for the TERF, since the category doesn't apply to anything else said in the article. And also, I say second opinion because I'm not even sure if it's correct to add this cathegory to the term. Though I could mention TERFs having a "radical" viewpoint, it's not an organization but a category itself of feminism, I believe? If the latter is right, then disregard this. -- Featheredhat ( talk) 07:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Currently being edit warred over again. Discuss here. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
(Insert arrow) As has been argued extensively above by TaylanUB, TERF is not a neutral term but rather a label applied, broadly speaking, by Trans-positive to Trans-exclusionary feminists. The WP article must therefore define the term according to the ways it is actually used and defined by sources, not devise some OR "objective" definition. For you to suggest that because Cameron is an academic, she is therefore a RS outside of her field of specialty is simply contrary to policy. For you to argue successfully that her comments on Trans-inclusion and -exclusion are within her specialty, you would have to produce actual citations demonstrating peer-reviewed work in this area, which you have not done. And for you to assume that I am making this argument for any reason other than that I am heretofore unconvinced of her credentials in this area - that my argument is not made in good faith and according to policy - is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL and generally a bad idea. Finally, if you want to demonstrate that Cameron's work on this topic is "more evidence-based than polemic" all you have to do is produce, on Talk, citations demonstrating this. I would be happy to read them, but nothing I have seen on the blog you cited, or in her recent papers, suggests that her comments on this subject are either DUE for this article or, indeed, that they are in any sense "non-polemical". They read as one woman's observation and opinion. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
" Some might argue that the ideas that get one called "TERF" are actually core ideals of radical feminism itself, which would make "TERF" merely a derogatory synonym for "radical feminist." - um, except for the bit where a Radical Feminist who was trans-inclusive coined the term to differentiate herself and her cohort from trans exclusionary feminists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.206.196 ( talk) 23:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Some weird baby-boomer philosophers made a living condemning the 'metaphysical implications' of transgenderism for 'conceptual feminism.' But most modern feminists don't read this tosh. Today, anti-trans sentiment is on the fringe of feminism. If you poll self-described feminists, you will find that they overwhelmingly support TLGB rights. Steeletrap ( talk) 05:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Notable feminist Gloria Steinem used to hold anti-trans views. Now she has repudiated and apologized for them, and identifies as a trans ally. I can't see the rationale for deleting her change of heart from the article. Memo to Boomers: You're not living in the 1970s anymore, and much of what was relevant and topical back then seems stupid, arbitrary, and perverse to modern feminists. Steeletrap ( talk) 15:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
You'd really have to have some sources that show feminists use that phrase to keep that name. Add it, and the problem is solved. Otherwise it's original research. Thanks. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 18:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not a "neologism". https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22trans+people%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=js0QVNHiBOrH8gfRh4HACw I've never heard anything so ridiculous in all my life. Don't try that one on me. Alyxr ( talk) 22:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Certainly the editor who moved the article should have used the requested moves process and gotten a consensus before moving the article. I personally have no objection to the current title, but if a significant number of editors object, it should be moved back and then proper process followed. Yworo ( talk) 23:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I've moved the page back to the original title until we come to a consensus. The original mover re-moved the page after a revert. Per WP:MOVE, controversial moves should not be make again. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 04:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Third wave views of gender continuum and sex-positive feminist views of choice are extremely underrepresented in the Support section. WP:UNDUE focus is put on the criticism, which was dominant in earlier years, but now is more fringe. The article should be tagged for this reason. 97.85.173.38 ( talk) 04:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
This article only mentions binary transgendered folks. What about non-binary individuals? Do non-binary individuals serve only to reinforce gender and gender roles, or is there a validity to being non-binary outside of socially constructed gender roles and expressions? Would non-binary basically affirm that males and females really are completely different mentally, rather than merely physically? Does gender really exist? Are there really more genders than 2, or does this just prove that gender doesn't exist and only sex exists? 71.161.254.147 ( talk) 03:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I spend a certain amount of time on Wikipedia pointing out issues of bias.
So it's only fair that I give praise where praise is due.
It is articles like this that make Wikipedia an extremely valuable resource, more than just a distillation of information already available on the web- which in itself is useful, but not groundbreaking.
This article really taught me something I did not know, and did so in a very balanced way, not taking one side or the other, but merely presenting both sides of the argument in an unbiased way. This is the real power of an encyclopedia- the unbiased presentation of arguments. 116.55.65.71 ( talk) 05:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I still see quite a bit of NPOV. Example: using the word *evolved* vs *changed*. Evolved implies progressive because the gone conclusion is that accepting trans women into the feminist movement is implied solely as progress. That's extreme NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.33.132 ( talk) 23:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I am a student taking a feminist economics course at the University of Chicago Law School and I am interested in revising and updating the article.
Specifically, I would like to:
I am interested in any feedback on these proposed changes and suggestions for scholarly sources on the topic that could strengthen its presentation of it. Cmhofley ( talk) 02:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Feminist views on transgender and transsexual people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Feminist views on transgender and transsexual people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Feminist views on transgender and transsexual people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
See image: https://i.imgur.com/2abROTp.jpg
This is just plain depressing and I barely have the energy to get angry at this point so I'll just keep going on with my zombie tone. These screenshots (that I merged together and censored for now) apparently popped up a few days ago. Person 1 says "TERFs are just a hate group so we should remove them from the page." Person 2 and 3 are clearly discussing manipulation strategies on how to gradually achieve this. Person 4 says something that I suppose is acceptable (implies but doesn't explicitly suggest giving undue weight to one position). Person 5 says they are a very longstanding Wikipedia author and is unfazed by these people; instead they give the others advice on what sort of manipulation is and isn't realistically possible on Wikipedia.
It's unclear where the screenshots originate from. It seems that the original uploader shut down their Twitter account, which might be to escape the wrath of the depicted people assuming they were part of a private circle.
I'm guessing that people will scrutinize the reality of these screenshots. I don't know how we might go forth to weight their reality, but I'll tell you one thing: this sort of behavior is 100% compatible with how I've come to know SOME (only SOME, but some) trans activists over the years. Also part of the reason I'm not particularly shocked to be honest. I have little doubt that these screenshots are genuine.
For now, I have no concrete suggestion as to which editors these people may be. I also don't know how to deal with the bureaucratic aspects of this situation. I wish these people would just stop. TaylanUB ( talk) 19:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
References
I agree that this needs to be watched and handled carefully and thoughtfully. One problem I see with the current structure is that it starts with the section on opposition, broken down by person. "Prominent feminist A said X in 1970-something. Then decades later she revised her opinion, saying Y." X and Y do not both fit under "opposition", and it flows badly. I'm not sure of the best way forward. Is there a way to structure the article to be less about individual activists and theorists, and more about ideas and policy proposals? Sort of an intellectual history of how movements within feminism have developed over time? An area that is lacking is that of feminist analysis of trans men: a summary of what has been written about this would be a useful addition to the article. Carbon Caryatid ( talk) 15:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
=== Section foo ===
) a couple of headings, like, "Support", and "Criticism" or "Opposition", and under that, either just a chronological narrative of how the criticism developed (or the support, or changes of mind) without a Level 4 for each person? Or possibly, by theme of support or opposition? I feel that somehow the article is crying out for a brief resumé of the essentialist versus social constructionist views of gender, the latter of which sprang out of second-wave feminism and whose implications are the locus of support for both oppositional radical feminist theory, as well as supportive feminist arguments, including radical feminists as well.
Foggymaize please stop edit warring and study'sdiscuss your changes. I'll find a citation if you like.
EvergreenFir
(talk)
05:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
with the position of acceptance having become more common through the years.This is not supported in the article and if anything the opposite is presented. Given this Foggymaizes change was pretty mild. Information should be presented in the article before it is even thought about being discussed in the lead. Saying "acceptance having become more common through the years" in Wikipedias voice definitely requires some pretty strong sources and per WP:Burden there should be no issues removing it if there are no sources. AIRcorn (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I suggest this page be titled 'feminist views on aspects of transgender and transsexual politics' instead of people. This is more accurate.
The disagreement is ideological. Feminists argue that gendered dress and behaviour is not innate, trans activists believe it is. Feminists believe that gender is an unnecessary social construct, and that people should dress/present however they like. This is different to having a unified view about individual transgender people, who may well themselves disagree with trans activists. Many feminists strongly support trans people such as Miranda Yardley who have questioned a number of transactivist positions. As Claire Heuchan argues re: the innateness of gender in the Guardian,
"The tension between radical feminists and queer activists stems from two contradictory ways of defining gender. Queer politics positions gender as an innately held identity. The radical feminist understanding is that gender exists as a political system, not an identity. Recognising gender as innately held, a factor that should be enshrined as a protected characteristic, totally contradicts radical feminist principles. The politics of gender is deeply personal, but that isn’t a reason to shy away from exploring it – quite the opposite."
Heuchan goes on to say that the feminist movement strongly supports human rights for trans people. They just disagree with the ideology that gender is innate and that any person who "identifies" as female be granted access to female safe spaces such as hospital wards and prisons.
"There are women within the movement who have seriously overstepped the mark by directing cruelty towards trans people, which I condemn without hesitation. But, like every other radical feminist I know, I want trans people to live lives that are free from abuse, discrimination, and persecution. Irrespective of the difference in how we conceptualise gender, radical feminists want all trans people to be safe from male violence." — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Foggymaize (
talk •
contribs)
04:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
[T]rans activists believe it is" and "
ideology that gender is innate"... what nonsense is this now? Rab V is correct that there is no unified "transgender politics". Further discussion (and TERFism) has largely been around trans people themselves, their very being, not their ideologies. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
In the talk page of the article "Transphobia" it was claimed that the YouTube video of the Speaker's Corner assault goes against some Wikipedia rules, but no rules were clearly named or linked. I looked around for a second time today and still couldn't tell what rules said video would break, so I'm adding it back for now. Please tell me / link clearly which exact rules it breaks before removing it again. And please be careful not to fall to personal bias in your interpretation of the rules; I had to observe this at least 2-3 times recently in relation to edits made to the page about the assault. Thank you. TaylanUB ( talk) 12:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
(I wasn't sure where else to respond to Mathglot after the addition of the above subsection. I hope I'm not messing up the page structure.)
Hi Mathglot, thank you so much for going through the trouble to resolve this question with the experts. While it's a bit mind-boggling at first to hear that "there is no way to verify that this video is really of the assault in question" (because that's just obvious to people who know about the incident), I think I understand that this is just one of those strange things about Wikipedia's method of operating. No matter how "obvious" something is, it can still be ruled out as "original research" or something like that... On the meanwhile, I've found out that there is a Feminist Current article on the incident itself (not the subsequent article on "TERF" being hate speech), and that article contains the video in question. I'll see whether I find a suitable way to link to this article instead of directly to the YT video. Maybe just as an additional citation at the end of an existing sentence... TaylanUB ( talk) 18:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
While adding content is great, this article is getting lopsided in my opinion. TaylanUB is doing a good job of adding content in a neutral way, but I'm concerned some entries are UNDUE in the overall scope of the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Trying to cast this as (1) opposition by trans people, (2) the acts of "transgender activists", or (3) a list for conflicts is disruptive and pov-pushing, TaylanUB. You know by now CounterPunch is not a reliable source. Your insistence on trying to making these articles about trans women attacking rad fems is disruptive to say the least. Please stop. I cannot tell if you simply don't understand how Wikipedia works or if you're trying to push your POV/ WP: RIGHTGREATWRONGS. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
The problem with the TERF section, is that it doesn't adhere to the topic of this article, which is, lest we forget, "Feminist views on transgender and transsexual people." Per WP:AT, the discussion in this section (as in every section) should be couched in terms of the article topic. So, we should lead off with the feminist views first, if necessary placing it in context of some event where the term was used, or providing that info via a link if possible, or a ref. It's also rather lengthy, and that can be improved somewhat, by moving some quotations into the refs. I'd suggest something more along these lines (Note: footnote links work only when collapsed refs section is expanded.):
The term "TERF", short for trans exclusionary radical feminist, is considered a slur by those at whom it is directed. [1] [2] [3] Radical feminist journalist Sarah Ditum, who writes for The Guardian and the New Statesman, said that the term is used to silence feminists through guilt by association. [4] Julie Bindel, writing for The Guardian, opined that her exclusion from university platforms for alleged transphobia, even when it was planned for her to talk on unrelated issues such as male violence, was indicative of an anti-feminist crusade and linked the term "TERF" to this. [5]In February 2017, Meghan Murphy, founder of Canadian website Feminist Current, said after an assault on a participant at a feminist gathering in London by transgender activists [6] that "TERF" is not only a slur but a form of hate speech, pointing at the number of transgender activists and sympathizers who were defending or even celebrating the physical assault against attendee Maria MacLachlan on the grounds that she was allegedly a "TERF". [7]
Sarah Ditum, writing for the New Statesman, noted how "TERF" became a mainstream slur after initially starting out as what was mostly an Internet buzzword. [8]
Claire Heuchan, criticizing the deplatforming of Linda Bellos from Cambridge University on grounds of her perceived transphobia, said that "TERF" is often used alongside violent rhetoric, and used to dehumanize women who are critical of gender. She also added that the term obscures the fact that it is men who are responsible for violence against transgender people. [9]
Show references
|
---|
References:
|
I'm not addressing any other issues that might relate to improving the section text above, other than keeping the focus on the topic of the article, and leading with feminist views; there might be other changes needed once that is settled. For example, since the topic is "feminist views," it's not clear to me whether we need to present information that might contrast with those views, such as, for example, the fact that the term was created by radical feminists. Since that's not part of a "feminist view of transgender people," does it need to be stated here? Not sure. Mathglot ( talk) 10:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Suggest the whole TERF section belongs in an article about slurs, not about feminists. What does name calling have to do with these issues? Foggymaize ( talk) 23:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
The following sentence appears in the first paragraph of the Lead:
The neologism "TERF" (an acronym for "Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists") [1] is used against, but not by, certain feminists.
Is this term really important enough to appear in the lead? Even if so, per WP:LEAD and WP:AT the Lead should be summarizing the article, and talking about "feminist views," and how does pointing out how feminists are being name-called by some other group have anything to do with "feminist views"? Also, it seems to me to be undue weight this high up. But if we do keep something about it in the lead, then the focus should be about "feminist views" about something, and not about what some other group does to feminists. Also, "used against, but not by,..." is very clunky. Mathglot ( talk) 11:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
It ought to go. No one would consider it appropriate to say 'the term boy is used against, but not by, certain people of African background?' in an article about the range of views expressed by African writers about colonialism, for example. TERF is a slur. It has nothing to do with what feminists have stated about transgender ideology. (Foggymaize) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foggymaize ( talk • contribs) 23:31, January 30, 2018 (UTC)
References
I temporarily rolled back a series of six edits by Ehipassiko2 while a discussion into a possible malware link is underway at ANI. My assumption is that the user is editing in good faith, and that this will blow over. The edits will likely be restored once the ANI investigation has run its course. Mathglot ( talk) 06:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
The following two articles aren't perfect, but they have settled into relatively stable forms.
Feminist views on pornography begins:
Feminist views on prostitution begins:
I think this article could learn from them. In particular, neither lead focuses on named individuals, but on a summary of positions. The lead is, after all, supposed to summarise the body. Carbon Caryatid ( talk) 16:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I think it'd make sense for the title to be "Feminist views on gender," for reasons To editor Foggymaize: stated in the last discussion. Transgenderism may be problematic, and transgender and transsexual people is an WP:AND so I understand why they're being contested. Changing the name to "on gender" would allow editors to flesh out the actual differing views, instead of just listing feminists who have publicly opposed certain trans individuals, or feminists who have generally supported trans individuals. Claire Heuchan's article, as quoted in the discussion before this one, makes the distinction clear on the ideological differences between how feminists view gender. Woodsy lesfem ( talk) 17:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Meta-discussion: This section is getting pretty long, and could use some subsections as breaks. Perhaps, "Names vs views in the lead", "Body subsections named after individuals", "Proposed move" (or, "Change of title", etc.). If no objection, I may do so.
Mathglot (
talk)
03:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't see the article being focused on criticism of transgender individuals at all. I think Feminist views on transgender topics is a good idea and could be applied right now. Taylan ( talk) 09:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I support Feminist views on transgender topics, or Feminist views on transgender issues. This article is about politics, not individuals. Foggymaize ( talk) 23:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Now that the title change has been decided and done, I propose that we shift back to CC's original proposal. At the top of this section, Carbon Caryatid proposed that the lead be refocused "on a summary of positions" rather than on "named individuals". (C.C., please correct me if I've misrepresented you.) Let's continue that discussion now. Mathglot ( talk) 11:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Reading the lead, the sentence "Some feminists object to the acronym 'TERF' (short for trans-exclusionary radical feminist)" is a bit of a stumbling block; it's awkward to say "some people dislike X" without having mentioned X before, or how X is relevant to the topic. Readers are left to infer from what it's said to be short for that it is probably used to describe feminists who hold trans-excluding views. It would flow better to introduce the existence of the term before the dislike of it; something like "Feminists holding trans-exclusionary views are sometimes referred to as 'TERFs' [...], an acronym which some feminists object to [...]" or "[...] sometimes refer to trans-exclusionary feminists as 'TERFs' [...], which some object to [...]". Even just spelling out the use of the term within the parentheses could be an improvement, like "Some feminists object to the acronym 'TERF' (which is sometimes used to describe trans-exclusionary radical feminists) [...]". Tenemoc ( talk) 21:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I have moved the content into headings as the first step in restructuring the article. The content was not changed significantly with this edit, just rearranged. I will wait a day or two for feedback on this restructuring, before I start getting into editing the content itself. AIRcorn (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Currently, Dworkin's ideas are mentioned simply below a title that reads "feminist support," which paints kind of a black and white picture where some feminists "support" transgender ideals and some feminists "oppose" them. The situation is a lot more complicated, in particular when talking about Dworkin's passages from Woman Hating, as she stated that transsexuality might be a function of coercive gender roles, and disappear as a phenomenon in a post-patriarchal society where people are freed from the gender boxes. I'm not sure if I can find any citation for this right now, but I know from personal correspondence that this goes contrary to the positions of many transgender thinkers, who instead argue that transgender identity is natural and not the result of socialization, and would continue to exist no matter the surrounding culture.
The main paragraph talking about her positions could, I suppose, be moved under the section "sex reassignment surgery," but the part about Stoltenberg, Jensen, and Craft would not fit well there. And then the paragraph about Butler would be the only thing under the section "feminist support," which might look weird. (More content re. feminist support would certainly help there.)
Anyone have ideas on how to better integrate the current content of "feminist support" into the rest of the article? Taylan ( talk) 20:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Is it worth adding any articles on the groups 'we need to talk' and 'a woman's place' since they identify as feminist but have often been described as 'terfs' and have attracted controversy and media coverage etc. Fourdots2 ( talk) 19:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Is this talking about the individual trans people being criticised or the writer making the criticisms? I can't tell. If there are no objections I will rewrite it to focus on the writer Spacepine ( talk) 00:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
If we were to very simplistically and broadly divide attitudes on this topic as "trans ideology supportive" and "trans ideology critical", it has become increasingly clear to me that supportive positions often get a pass within this and other trans-related articles even when they're uncited (sometimes plain wrong), rely on highly unreliable sources, etc., whereas critical positions are upheld to an almost impossibly high standard.
For instance, someone recently undid changes by me on the grounds that they supposedly go against WP:RS even though the sources used were all from major publications: The New Yorker, Times, Feminist Current, Bitch (Magazine), CounterPunch, The New Statesman, and Morning Star. As another example, previously an edit was undone claiming that Sarah Ditum is not "notable", after which I had to clarify that she's a journalist/columnist for The Guardian and New Statesman. People never seem to give me the benefit of doubt and check for themselves how notable something is, or inquire me to make sure; they just flat-out undo my changes.
On the other hand, I recently found an uncited claim on a trans-related article that Andrea Dworkin supposedly wrote in Woman Hating that transwomen are women. I was 99% sure that this is wrong (it's one of my favorite books, if not my favorite book; I'd know) so I put a citation needed on it, removing it after a few days where I found the time to scroll to the trans-related parts of Woman Hating and re-read them, as well as do a full-text search on "trans" to make sure I wasn't missing something. Then today I noticed the External Links section of this article linking to some random blogspot blog providing a subjective interpretation of Woman Hating... Come on. The book is available for download for no cost.
These are just anecdotes from the last week or so. When I tried to edit trans-related articles several months ago I had the same experience, but not enough time and energy to dwell on the phenomenon much.
So please, for the love of Wikipedia: try to be more neutral on this topic. I have strong opinions too, but you won't ever see me remove parts of articles because I deem The TransAdvocate to be an "unreliable source" just because it's not a super-famous publication like, I dunno, Slate or something. In terms of "notability" I would intuit that it's on the same level as Feminist Current (which is probably the least notable of the sources I tend to use); correct me if I'm wrong.
Let's not get into ideological edit wars or try to erase out notable positions because they make some people uncomfortable. If you really believe that it is true that certain positions on this topic are abhorrent, then a cold and scholarly representation of them will do just fine to reveal that. (I do not, of course, believe that this is the case, which is why I have zero problems with cold and scholarly representation of said positions, and in fact try to provide them.) TaylanUB ( talk) 18:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
It's also not an anti trans blog Taylan. I also do not consider Meghan Murphy a reliable or useful source on trans politics. Factsnotfeelings 23:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
It seems astonishing that so much on this page seems to be about feminist opposition to trans rights, and very little on feminist support or neutral views. I know there has been a lot of controversy on this issue, but I hardly feel that the weight given to criticism here is fair and a little undue. Confrontation between these two communities may sell papers but Wikipedia is not a newspaper; it is an encyclopedia. -- Bangalamania ( talk) 23:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I have a concern regarding the subcategory "TERF", I hope I'm in the right place. I came to ask a second opinion about adding it to the 'Category:Radical feminist organizations'. But to do that, I don't know if I should go about making a wikipedia page especially for the TERF, since the category doesn't apply to anything else said in the article. And also, I say second opinion because I'm not even sure if it's correct to add this cathegory to the term. Though I could mention TERFs having a "radical" viewpoint, it's not an organization but a category itself of feminism, I believe? If the latter is right, then disregard this. -- Featheredhat ( talk) 07:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Currently being edit warred over again. Discuss here. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
(Insert arrow) As has been argued extensively above by TaylanUB, TERF is not a neutral term but rather a label applied, broadly speaking, by Trans-positive to Trans-exclusionary feminists. The WP article must therefore define the term according to the ways it is actually used and defined by sources, not devise some OR "objective" definition. For you to suggest that because Cameron is an academic, she is therefore a RS outside of her field of specialty is simply contrary to policy. For you to argue successfully that her comments on Trans-inclusion and -exclusion are within her specialty, you would have to produce actual citations demonstrating peer-reviewed work in this area, which you have not done. And for you to assume that I am making this argument for any reason other than that I am heretofore unconvinced of her credentials in this area - that my argument is not made in good faith and according to policy - is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL and generally a bad idea. Finally, if you want to demonstrate that Cameron's work on this topic is "more evidence-based than polemic" all you have to do is produce, on Talk, citations demonstrating this. I would be happy to read them, but nothing I have seen on the blog you cited, or in her recent papers, suggests that her comments on this subject are either DUE for this article or, indeed, that they are in any sense "non-polemical". They read as one woman's observation and opinion. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
" Some might argue that the ideas that get one called "TERF" are actually core ideals of radical feminism itself, which would make "TERF" merely a derogatory synonym for "radical feminist." - um, except for the bit where a Radical Feminist who was trans-inclusive coined the term to differentiate herself and her cohort from trans exclusionary feminists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.206.196 ( talk) 23:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)