![]() | 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 |
This is an MA thesis so it's probably not appropriate as a source in itself, but it contains a thorough literature review that may be of interest to editors working on this article: https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/fub188/32780/MASTERS%20THESIS_Simon%2c%20Braedyn%20Ezra.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y -- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 13:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
argue for the gender critical/TERF point of viewisn't really necessary, what is important is explaining what that point of view is - and I'm sure the draft will get there eventually. Newimpartial ( talk) 12:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps the article should explain early on (incl in the lead) how gender-critical feminism is related to the broader anti-gender movement? I'm thinking specifically of how TERFs and the conservative anti-gender movement have converged, how they increasingly cooperate, how TERFs/gender-criticals have embraced the worldview and terminology originally associated with the conservative anti-gender movement, as many sources have discussed. -- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 13:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I haven't checked whether enough Julie Bindel material has been added to the UK section - could someone do that?
Also, while I'm not a Telegraph fan, this piece might provide useful, non-Stock-dominated, "free speech" coverage from the UK. Newimpartial ( talk) 14:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
For reference: In Google Scholar there are
-- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 16:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
For statements like this, in the lead as well as body, we are going to need to provide immediate inline citations. There is no point painting huge citation-needed targets, even on a draft article.
(This kind of thing, by the way, is the rationale for the bare links I have occasionally inserted: before suggesting any names, I am making sure that reliable sources actually describe the person or org as feminist, and gender-critical or trans-exclusionary. So the LGB Alliance may not fit here, because I'm unaware of any reliable sources actually labelling them "feminist".) Newimpartial ( talk) 16:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
the key issue, then I don't think this article will be fit for purpose in an encyclopedia and will oppose its move to article space. I am not interested in a COATRACK or a catch-all, here.
is now the main figurehead of this movement, as though this should be reflected in the current article, reflects a profound misreading of what has actually happened. Rowling has been made into a symbol of "TERFism" by its opponents, and in response to that, people (typically celebrities) signal their attitudes towards trans rights by statements against, or in support of, Rowling. But Rowling has contributed nothing to "gender critical"ism, much less gender critical feminism, except her celebrity. This does not make her important - or even worth mentioning - in an article about gender-critical feminism unless the better sources say the opposite. I am profoundly uninterested in helping along yet another article about social media controversies, when we have an actual topic populated by theorists, activists and organizations that describe themselves as - and actually act as - gender-critical (that is, trans-exclusionary) feminists. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
believe the article should be primarily about social media controversies. But to me the statement,
Gender-critical feminism/TERF is to a large extent an Internet phenomenonis equally misleading. Of course gender-critical feminists, like other feminists, like trans activists, organize and promote their ideas mostly online. But what is of most encyclopaedic interest is their scholarship and activist interventions - including legal and legislative interventions, demonstrations and other actions. As far as I am aware, most of the higher-quality sources on gender-critical feminism, like most of the sources on inclusionary, intersectional feminism and most of the sources on trans activism, focuses primarily on these, rather than purely internet phenomena.
it would be odd not to mentionsomeone or something, experience tells me that they are usually suggesting that the thing is significant in some way, and not that they are noting a situation where reader expectations could be met through a passing mention. But clearly you meant something other than what experience led me to expect. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
"it is important to keep in mind that the TERF movement is above all an online movement. The few demonstrations or occupations of public space attempted by transphobic groups have mobilized very few people. The movement counts on an over-representation of TERF views in the British tabloid press, which is only too happy to fill its pages with scandalous headlines in order to divert attention from the Conservative government’s post-Brexit austerity policies. The TERF movement is an artificial movement that occupies space through a galaxy of Twitter accounts and shadow organizations representing very few real-life activists"I believe the article should somehow address the role the Internet has played in the movement and the promotion of their ideas more generally. -- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 02:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
And, as I keep saying, I don't think everything written about the TERF movement
(in The Atlantic or elsewhere) belongs in this article. Things may be true of "the TERF movement" that are not true of feminists who are gender-critical, because "the TERF movement" as loosely defined in American media and on social media, is not notably feminist. But "Gender-critical feminism", the object of this article, is supposed to be.
Newimpartial (
talk)
02:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
movementand I think it would be foolish to run ahead of the facts and turn them into one. Speaking pragmatically, I think an article about something that exists and can easily be shown to exist is much better for all concerned (readers and editors from varying perspectives) than an article the very reality of which has to be asserted and will be contested. There are reasons TERF is an article about a term, and this article ought to be essentially the opposite/complement of that one.
Rowling and Linehan and coare
prominent vehicles by which GC ideology is being disseminated and legitimisedis something that the article can only include based on RS, and we have to be careful with sources like the "philosophical problems" piece to observe a distinction between arguments against trans inclusion in general, and gender-critical feminist arguments in particular. Of course it is true that much gender-critical feminist discourse takes place outside of peer review, but that doesn't mean that all trans-exclusionary discourse on social media is therefore feminist. We have plenty of material to include in this article consisting of writings by feminists, campaigns by feminists, and critique and opposition to these by others in various forms, all of which is clearly within a clearly defined topic. I just don't want to loose the proverbial grub to the organic sludge, here.
movementor
ideologyin article space unless reliable sources use them, and can't use them without attribution unless reliable sources are nearly unanimous in using them. Now I know this doesn't apply to Talk pages, really, but it is an important thing to internalize IMO. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
The thing is, I don't think this article should aim to represent all gendercrits everywhere, because I'm not convinced that's a notable (or well-defined) topic. I think the sources, especially scholarly sources, are strong for gender-critical feminism, so that should be the focus. Stock is a much more important figure than Rowling, at least in this context. Low-quality sources and TERF figureheads
are less essential.
Newimpartial (
talk)
02:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:LEADCITE, it would definitely be best for any article on this topic to have citations in its lead. A pertinent quote (emphasis added):
The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.
I dare say that this topic is complex, current, and controversial. For the sake of the sanity of each of us, and to forestall present and future debates, the lead of any article on this topic should be fully cited. Crossroads -talk- 05:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
The gender essentialism and biological determinism eg. here One thing I've read but have trouble finding sources for is that TERFs tend to be those who believe the patriarchy is men oppressing women whereas their opponents tend to be people who promote the idea of more autonomy and choices for everyone. ( t · c) buidhe 22:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
None of the material in this section relates to gender-critical feminism, and so I am deleting this section in its entirety. Sweet6970 ( talk) 15:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
The framing of Bev Jackson's tweet is in incorrect context of "arguing" for feminist alliances with the right.
The text quoted from the cited PinkNews source seems to have no direct relationship to feminism at all. She does not mention feminists in the tweet this quote is taken from, and the article she shared in that tweet is not about feminists either, but about parents in the US, and does not mention feminists or feminism once.
The section of the PinkNews article specifically relating to feminists is in fact a second tweet, which says:
"Are you disgusted with feminists who have appeared in events organized by the Heritage Foundation and other rightwing groups? Perhaps you need to get informed as to the reasons they have for doing so. Please take the time to read the attached article before rushing to judgement."
but also in the same article "as a socialist feminist, I do find these alliances problematic.".
I think this is WP:SYNTH, ie an original interpretation of the PinkNews source, in taking a quote from earlier in the PinkNews article and applying it to a different context established later in that article, when the actual words used at that point are weaker (don't rush to judgment rather than only possible course of action).
We should surely err on the side of caution here, given. this risks misrepresenting her as condoning feminists working with Heritage or (worse) creating the implication of working with them herself, since she has also repeatedly made clear her actual personal feelings about Heritage, ie: "Never have, never would work with the Heritage Foundation. "
Given that this article is about feminism and the quotation isn't about feminists, that whole sentence should be removed. Void if removed ( talk) 23:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
launch a gender-critical movement in the US. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 23:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
"Bev Jackson, who would go on to help co-found LGB Alliance, defended "feminists who have appeared in events organized by the Heritage Foundation and other rightwing groups", arguing that this is "sometimes the only possible course of action" since "the leftwing silence on gender in the US is even worse than in the UK."I think the "defended feminists who" aspect is entirely in keeping with the thrust of the Pink News article which uses the two tweets (if we were to combine two tweets mentioned in two separate articles, that may well we WP:SYNTH but it is allowed for our sources to do that). -- Colin° Talk 09:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
@
Amanda A. Brant, can you please explain your edit summary: "rm excessive quote on topic not directly related to the topic of this article, which is the anti-trans ideology specifically; rm unjustified tag, the article isn't supposed to promote fringe views (as this is explicitly described by several sources here) as if they were equally valid as recognised scholarship, per WP:FALSEBALANCE
"
How is the gender-critical position on trans-inclusion in sports not related to the topic of this article? Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 14:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
This article is entitled ‘Gender critical feminism’. Therefore, gender critical views should be fully describedIn order to be NPOV compliant they should be fully described in the tone and manner as they are described by mainstream reliable sources on this. If the mainstream view is negative and critical, which from my understanding of the sources it is, then our article has to be negative and critical lest we fall into the false balance and fringe trap. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm really puzzled. Several editors seem to have decided that our article on "gender-critical feminism" should document any old "gender-critical" viewpoint, whether academic or political or journalism, whether from a feminist or, as we saw above, some bloke writing about rugby who doesn't mention feminism once. Are we going to get Ron DeSantis, Donald Trump and Boris Johnson's views inserted here, because those guys aint feminists and they aint gender-critical feminists but they sure have expressed gender-critical views. I think really you want another article for this. Readers will come to this article wanting to know what a gender-critical feminist is, what gender-critical feminists have said, and what others have criticised them or their views. I don't think we need another dumping ground that simply documents "here's the views of people who rant about 'gender ideology'", cause that's an awful lot and nothing to do with gender-critical feminism. -- Colin° Talk 07:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
"Bassi and LaFleur note that "the trans-exclusionary feminist (TERF) movement and the so-called anti-gender movement are only rarely distinguished as movements with distinct constitutions and aims."[1] Pearce et al. note that the concept of "gender ideology" "saw increasing circulation in trans-exclusionary radical feminist discourse" from around 2016.[31] Claire Thurlow noted that "despite efforts to obscure the point, gender critical feminism continues to rely on transphobic tropes, moral panics and essentialist understandings of men and women. These factors also continue to link trans-exclusionary feminism to anti-feminist reactionary politics and other 'anti-gender' movements."[32] ... In a 2020 article in Lambda Nordica, Erika Alm of the University of Gothenburg and Elisabeth L. Engebretsen of the University of Stavanger, said that there was "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" and that the convergence was linked to "their reliance on an essentialised and binary understanding of sex and/or gender, often termed 'bio-essentialism'".[12] Engebretsen has described the movement as a "complex threat to democracy."[110] Another 2020 article, in The Sociological Review, said that "the language of 'gender ideology' originates in anti-feminist and anti-trans discourses among right-wing Christians, with the Catholic Church acting as a major nucleating agent", and said that the term "saw increasing circulation in trans-exclusionary radical feminist discourse" from around 2016. It further said that "a growing number of anti-trans campaigners associated with radical feminist movements have openly aligned themselves with anti-feminist organisations."[31]"-- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 16:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
The neutrality of this article is disputed. The POV tag should be reinstated. It is not helpful to deny that there is disagreement. Sweet6970 ( talk) 21:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
@
LokiTheLiar: You have said in your edit summary: …. we have a whole article on whether or not it's disparaging….
. But the
TERF article states clearly in the lead that it is disparaging: Though TERF was created to be a "deliberately technically neutral description", the term is now typically considered derogatory or disparaging.
so I don’t understand your comment. I think it’s generally accepted that most people only read the lead of an article – so my addition should be reinstated.
Sweet6970 (
talk)
15:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
TERF is now typically considered derogatory. It's already pretty prominent within the article. If readers don't want to read beyond the lead, or click through to the citations or related articles, then I think that's a problem with the reader and not something we need to address by trying to cram everything into the lead. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 02:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Is there now consensus to reinstate ‘derogatory’ in the lead, relating to 'TERF'? Sweet6970 ( talk) 13:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
No, there is no consensus to add a lengthy polemic about the acronym allegedly being derogatory to the first sentence of the article. That's bizarre, and completely derails and wrecks the first sentence. The first sentence is intended to briefly and succinctly define the topic ( WP:LEAD). Potentially having something about the perceptions of the term somewhere in the lead is not the same as turning the first sentence into a polemic against the term TERF. Even the lead of the article on the acronym notes that there is no consensus on whether it is a "slur", so a more nuanced sentence would look much more like that and be more appropriate somewhere below, not in the first sentence. Additionally, this is very much a pseudo-debate, as the term is frequently used by the most prominent TERFs themselves (e.g. Parker). This is the article on the ideology and movement; the acronym has its own article where debates about it can be addressed in detail. The title of the article isn't even TERF, which is just one of several alternative names of this movement. There is no need to make this article as well into an article focused on pseudo-debates about whether TERF is a "slur", debates that are becoming increasingly irrelevant as we (and they) now increasingly refer to them as gender-critical or GC, and given how that topic has its own article. -- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 17:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
(usually considered disparaging)’ . This is not a
lengthy polemic, it is a statement of fact which is 3 words long. It does not contain any statement that the expression TERF is a
slur.
the term is now typically considered derogatory or disparaging' which is what I based my additional text on. Sweet6970 ( talk) 10:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Amanda A. Brant made significant changes to the lead on 28/29 June without any discussion, and therefore, without consensus. I changed the wording back to the previous wording today. AAB has reverted me without discussion. AAB should not have significantly changed the lead without discussion, and should not have reverted my reinstatement of the previous wording without discussion. The previous wording should have stayed in place unless/until the significant changes have been agreed.
Comments, please. Sweet6970 ( talk) 12:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
The lead presently says: "the gender-critical movement typically maintains that the immutability of sex assigned at birth, which gender-critical feminists often refer to as biological sex"
...and I wonder if that is truly sourceable. Sometimes the sex assigned at birth is wrong (e.g., intersex people). To the best of our knowledge, do any gender-critical feminists actually say that someone with 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency, who is assigned female at birth but develops male genitalia at puberty is immutably female?
I suspect that they don't, and that this particular wording is misrepresenting their actual POV. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
The gender-critical movement typically maintains that biological sex is immutable and that this implies that trans women are not women and trans men are not men, possibly with a
They therefore reject the concept of genderjust to make it clear why they're called that. I'll make this edit now and see how it reads. Loki ( talk) 15:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
…what is the purpose of gender at all?Quite.
If gender is the mechanism of oppression, what use is it?It is of use to those who want to reinforce traditional gender roles and stereotypes. Gender critical feminism is the opposite of the attitudes of the anti-gender movement; our article on this is confused, to put it politely. The anti-gender movement says that gender is tied to sex; gender-critical feminism says that gender doesn’t exist. Sweet6970 ( talk) 13:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
maintains that " biological sex" (by which they mean [...]) is", to clarify their other-than-standard use of the term. (The current "
based on biological sex, which they believe is immutable" is alright. "
many of the social and cultural signifiers ascribed to gender ought to instead be assigned based on biological sex" is a little unclear, as the article does not seem to mention "cultur(e|al)" or "signifiers" again.) Also, as I recall coming up on the 'Feminist views...' page, they don't solely oppose "efforts to expand transgender rights", they also oppose currently-existing rights. -sche ( talk) 18:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
"many of the social and cultural signifiers ascribed to gender ought to instead be assigned based on biological sex"’ since I have no idea what it means. I have also deleted ‘
and typically oppose transgender rights' because I don’t think this is accurate – I think the general gender-critical view is that trans rights may conflict with women’s rights. If this is to be added back, then it needs a source. Sweet6970 ( talk) 13:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
"many of the social and cultural signifiers ascribed to gender ought to instead be assigned based on biological sex"means. It may be comprehensible to you, but I doubt if many, or any, of our readers would understand it. Please provide an alternative in normal English.
and typically oppose transgender rights’.
is widely regarded by sociologists as typically opposing transgender rights’? Sweet6970 ( talk) 14:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Noticing some IP edits on this page. I've opened a request for protection. Please watch the edits. Theheezy ( talk) 17:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
An editor is disruptingly removing an entirely uncontroversial explanatory footnote that merely lists the terms and abbreviations already used in this article and its sources (with its two main forms already included in the lead). The only reason for having a footnote for this is that it would make the first sentence very difficult to read if we were to list half a dozen variations of the names of the article's topic there. This should be reverted immediately, and we may have to consider increasing the protection level. -- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 18:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
disruptively removing an entirely uncontroversial explanatory footnote.’ Another editor and I have both reverted you, stating clearly in the edit summaries that this matter is still being discussed – see above. Sweet6970 ( talk) 10:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
The text: ‘The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention described the gender-critical movement as "a fascist movement" and "a loose international affiliation of people and groups who promote far-right ideas" and that focuses primarily "on the imagined threat posed by transgender women".
’ has been added to the article. The source is a primary one, and constitutes a political statement by a non-notable organisation. This text should be deleted.
Sweet6970 (
talk)
10:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I have restored the content in this diff. The content was removed of the grounds that it is allegedly uncited or not validly cited. On a first glance it appears plausibly cited to me, but that is only on a first glance. What do we think? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 20:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
"Although trans exclusionary feminists, focus on trans women, they often hold controversial positions on intersex women. Women with XY AIS as an example were called "men" and "defective males" by Germaine Greer. The deceleration of biological "femaleness," often excludes cisgender women who do not fit into the a clearly defined "biological" box."
"There is nothing new in using the catch-all category “female” to describe incomplete males. In August 1996 the British media were alerted to the existence of 'women' with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. AIS is the name given to a condition in which a male fetus does not respond to androgens and fails to develop masculine characteristics."The section then goes on to state factually incorrect information of the phenotype of AIS, women with AIS do not develop any male traits during puberty, in fact the phenotype of a woman with CAIS tends to be more less masculinized then endosex women, I think she meant DHT insensitivity syndrome? That's neither here nor there but as an intersex person reading that horribly bigoted text simply made me a bit mad.
"They (intersex people) could use this work to see how one particular construction had been forced on them and how their lives might have been better (and could yet be better) under different social constructions. 68 Social constructivism also gave solace to those who felt their gender identities did not fit into the simplistic male-female dichotomy promoted by Western popular culture. It was especially painful, therefore, for some intersex women (particularly women with AIS) to find their self-identities as women rejected by Germaine Greer in her book The Whole Woman because she insisted that 'it is my considered position that femaleness is conferred by the final pair of XX chromosomes. Otherwise I don’t know what it is.' As Morland has noted, when Greer was challenged by women with AIS and family members of girls with AIS, she was 'dismissive; she then used the book’s second edition not to retract the claims, but to publicly mock the AIS correspondents by referring to them too as men.'"Des Vallee ( talk) 21:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Although trans exclusionary feminists, focus on trans women, they often hold controversial positions on intersex women’ is badly formed, and is too general for an article. Instead of speaking generally about what ‘trans exclusionary feminists’ ‘often’ say, we should only include specific views of specific people (properly sourced).
The deceleration of biological "femaleness," often excludes cisgender women who do not fit into the a clearly defined "biological" box.’ is meaningless, even if ‘deceleration’ is a typo for ‘declaration’.
This seems like a WP:POVFORK. We already go over the ideology at Feminist views on transgender topics § Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism and the label at TERF. It seems very odd to me that we have an a separate article for this now. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 03:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Sideswipe9th: take it to the talk page instead of reverting me in 3 minutes and giving some edit summary which doesn't even make sense. I must be blind because I'm not seeing this quote. Willbb234 20:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The Assembly condemns the highly prejudicial anti-gender, gender-critical and anti-trans narratives which reduce the struggle for the equality of LGBTI people to what these movements deliberately mis-characterise as "gender ideology” or "LGBTI ideology".(emphasis mine for clarity), which was already quoted in the content that you removed. That report is pretty clearly talking about the same subject matter as this article, right down to the mischaracterisation of gender identity being an ideology. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
No but it really isn't, is it? The article is talking about gender-critical feminism (emphasis mine) while the resolution doesn't even mention feminism. It has no place in the article. Willbb234 20:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
this article is about a branch of feminismRespectfully, that seems to run counter to what you said above, where you supported Barnards.tar.gz's second definition of
Gender-criticism as a more expansive, less academic set of viewpoints that aren't necessarily explicitly feminist but share common ground with the above and are aligned through criticism of gender. This would be what mainstream media mean when they say "gender-critical".If you support that version of the article's scope, then this isn't an article on the feminist only subset of the gender-critical movement. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
harming women’s and children’s rightsas if the ideologies they refer to are anti-feminist. Sweet6970 ( talk) 21:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
"which reduce the struggle for the equality of LGBTI people to what these movements deliberately mis-characterise as “gender ideology” or “LGBTI ideology”. Such narratives deny the very existence of LGBTI people, dehumanise them and often falsely portray their rights as being in conflict with women’s and children’s rights."This is a clear description of the movement/ideology covered by this article. -- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 22:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Most important to note from the report is that it is the backlash against trans* rights, and not the proposed adoption of a gender-expansive legal framework, that poses a significant risk to the rights of women and LGBTQI+ people. To the former because, the anti-gender movement contributing to the backlash utilizes a framework of biological determinism that ultimately undermines the autonomy and bodily integrity of all cisgender women, stripping them of their agency and reducing their role in society to their sex characteristics.
"The Assembly condemns the highly prejudicial anti-gender, gender-critical and anti-trans narratives"is specifically condemning all three groups: those who are anti-gender, those who are gender-critical and those who are simply anti-trans. They all have common purpose, common language and to the degree that they are attacking trans people and their rights, support each other with glee either by citations or social medial likes and retweets. I mean, which part of
"falsely portray their rights as being in conflict with women’s and children’s rights"has not been the entire basis of the campaign against self ID in Scotland by gender-critical feminists (you can choose to disagree with the "falsely" if you wish, but the purpose very much was that self ID for trans people was in conflict with women and children's rights, specifically to feel safe in so-called women only places such as toilets or prisons. And
"deny the very existence of LGBTI people"is an inescapable conclusion of gender-critical believe, as you have explained, since there are in their view only men and only women and those are determined by sex at birth which cannot be changed.
Depending on how you want to look at it, the gender-critical feminist movement is either a subset of the broader gender-critical movement which itself is a subset of the anti-gender movement, or it is a synonym for the same movement.Sweet6970 ( talk) 11:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
@ Willbb234:, @ Sideswipe9th:. please try to stay civil for now. I'm happy to mediate a bit in this discussion. Let me take the time to read and understand what's going on in these edits. I agree that WP:BRD is the policy, but a reversion should not lead to a confrontation, but rather a good faith discussion. Theheezy ( talk) 03:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I think I'm coming to the conclusion that "gender critical" is used merely as a shorthand for "gender critical feminist", and that phrase was not (previously) used by the wider anti-gender politics we see coming from religious or right-wing conservative ideologies. Maybe we can find sources for that. It may be then that it is worth debating (at some point, but maybe not now) whether gender critical is the most appropriate article title, with gender-critical feminism a redirect. But if we agree they are equivalent, just shorthand, then we also still agree that anti-gender rants from right-wing men do not belong here. And possibly a fair amount of culture war rhetoric doesn't belong here. For exampe, when Suella Braverman claimed it was an “unfashionable fact” that “100 per cent of women do not have a penis”, I don't think she was being "gender critical" or speaking as a "gender-critical feminist, but was engaging in a culture war for purely political purposes. I think the Council of Europe attack on "gender critical" movements that Sideswipe9th is discussing above is very much including gender-critical feminists, and there is nothing about what they criticise them for that one could say "Oh, no, these GCFs don't do that, its the hateful US rightwing politicians who do that" We've seen above that the beliefs of GCFs have no place where a trans person can legitimately exist as the person they claim to be, only as a person with a mental illness. A person who remains restricted by the sex they were born with as to which bathroom or changing room they are permitted in, whether they can view themselves as a mother or father. For example, when a trans woman has long hair and wears a dress they are told by GCFs they are demonstrating harmful gender stereotypes but if a AFAB person has long hair and wears a dress they are just being typical. In the UK think we can likely source that for some in the GCF domain, it is the fight against "men" being allowed in women's shelters or bathrooms or prisons that is their priority and have adopted GCF as an ideology for the legal convenience of it now being a "protected belief", whereas a belief solely that trans women are perverts who shouldn't be allowed near women's spaces would likely not hold legal protection. -- Colin° Talk 07:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
rejects the concept of genderphrasing. Loki ( talk) 21:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@
Sideswipe9th: For heaven’s sake! The text: Joane Studnik argued that "TERF positions are now mostly heard from conservatives and right-wing extremists."
is about the views of a journalist. How is this factual? Would you agree that I should add text based on
Sonia Sodha’s articles in the Guardian in support of gender-critical feminism?
Sweet6970 (
talk)
14:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Der Freitag reported that.... When looking at the source article, this does not appear to be an opinion piece published in Der Freitag, there's nothing in it that seems to be solely the view of the author and the entire piece appears to be written in Der Freitag's editorial voice. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 14:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
In fact, TERF positions are now predominantly heard from conservatives and right-wing extremists.’ This is not an argument, and she does not provide any information to back up her statement. It is merely her opinion, and, as such, it should not be included on Wikipedia because she is not a notable person. And I do not see anything which says that it is the view of the publication. So there is no justification for including this text in either the gender-critical article or the WDI article. Sweet6970 ( talk) 10:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
It is merely her opinionPlease quote something from the article that uses first person phrasing. In English that would be something like "I" or "My", or "In my opinion". In German, you'd be looking for words like "ich", "mein", or "meiner Meinung nach". Amanda A. Brant you may be able to answer this, as I see on your user page you speak German to an advanced level, much higher than I do anyway? Because I've read this multiple times and I cannot see anything that is the author's personal opinion, and not written in the publication's editorial voice.
she does not provide any information to back up her statementThere is no requirement in WP:RS or WP:V that the sources we use show their working. For reliable sources, like Der Freitag, we only care that they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. To do otherwise would require us to exclude a great many sources, particularly those from news organisations, that we otherwise consider reliable for asserting facts in articles. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 01:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
"There is certainly a tendency among some editors to declare that anything in a news article they disagree with is just an injection of the author's opinion or view into the prose". Maybe we are all guilty of that at times. I read the piece, via Google Translate. I note that Joane Studnik does not appear to be a regular journalist at this newspaper but is a regular at berliner-zeitung.de.
"Joane Studnik argued that"does imply an opinion being argued for, rather than a fact being declared. Which is a little odd since the text "TERF positions are now predominantly heard from conservatives and right-wing extremists" is really a claim that is either accurate or inaccurate, rather than an opinion like whether one side is right or good. I don't think it is a controversial claim. While people might choose to use another word than "TERF", I don't think anyone seriously claims there hasn't been a tsunami of gender-critical articles in the right wing press/media and comments and new trans-hostile laws (or opposition to pro-trans laws) from right wing politicians. There is I suppose a danger that it only reflects an experience relevant to some countries and the inclusion of the word "now" gives us dating problems that might need fixed by saying when this was said. It seems to me a little odd to include that remark alone, when their point in the article is that "the term TERF originates from a decidedly left-wing discourse of British and US materialism". Without this, we are left wondering where "TERF positions" were "heard from" before "now" (whenever that is/was).
"The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words". We aren't really summarising here, but cherry-picking people to quote from. And rather than debate whether Studnik is notable, if we wanted to include Studnik's opinions (and I don't think that claim is an opinion) then an ideal measure of that would be to cite a secondary source that itself quotes Studnik. Because Studnik's article is a primary source of their own opinions and doesn't itself demonstrate they have weight. -- Colin° Talk 18:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
There is no consensus for this new addition [10] which frames discussions about the anti-trans bathroom panic and various conspiracy theories advocated by the anti-trans movement (that have been widely critiqued/debunked) in highly laden, transphobic dogwhistle language. These discussions are framed very differently in scholarship, where anti-trans activists' claims of "defending" "women" in toilets etc. are certainly not taken at face value ( [11] [12], as "anti-trans bathroom panic" by Catharine A. MacKinnon et al. [13]). Some more general sources regarding the toilet debate: [14], [15]; this is a highly complex topic that cannot be summarized as a supposed "right" to "single-sex" spaces in toilets etc. without contextualization, and when summarized by most RS it is commonly referred to as an anti-trans moral panic, bathroom panic etc. Also note that the word "sex" (of women) in a legal context obviously also refers to trans women, which is how the CEDAW Committee has interpreted it. In other words, the language used in the new addition is also misleading and confusing. While these discussions / moral panics / the debates and analyses of them should be addressed in the article, they should be addressed in a nuanced way and contextualized. Yes, we can probably include the quote regarding "single-sex spaces" somewhere below in the body of the article, but in a context that also includes scholars' perspectives and analyses of the anti-trans bathroom panic and related themes. Within scholarship of the TERF movement, this is simply one of several moral panics and conspiracy theories that TERFs whip up. The grandiose attempt to frame TERFs – as a fringe movement – as representatives of "women" is general, in the context of organizing, is nothing but POV and exaggerates their importance to a bizarre degree, and is not appropriate for the lead section. Do not reinstate this addition without consensus. -- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 14:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The gender-critical movement also argues that women have the right to use "single-sex spaces and to organise on the basis of biological sex"as
which frames discussions about the anti-trans bathroom panic and various conspiracy theories advocated by the anti-trans movement (that have been widely critiqued/debunked) in highly laden, transphobic dogwhistle language.whereas, on the contrary, there is no reference in the added wording to ‘bathroom panic’, there are no references to ‘various conspiracy theories’, there is no ‘transphobic language’ and there are no ’dogwhistles’. I recommend that AAB should read the wording again. The wording added is simple, factual, neutral, and highly relevant to this article, and should be reinstated. Sweet6970 ( talk) 14:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The gender-critical movement argues that recognition of transgender people, particularly trans women, conflicts with women's "sex-based rights"- this could be elaborated on but I don't agree with using magazines or government sources to "clarify" something from an academic source. -- Aquillion ( talk) 15:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Gender-critical feminists equate “women” with the female sex class, and view historical and contemporary oppression of women as being rooted in their being female. They believe sex is biological and cannot be changed, and that biological sex should be a protected characteristic under equality legislation.
only those beliefs that would be an affront to Convention principles in a manner akin to that of pursuing totalitarianism, or advocating Nazism, or espousing violence and hatred in the gravest of forms”). We should also summarise the non-UK cases mentioned in Preferred gender pronoun § Legal issues and legal recognition, including the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decisions and whatever has happened since Amul Thapar's 2021 ruling regarding Meriwether and Shawnee State University. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 15:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gender-critical feminism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In place of ‘Because anti-trans positions are associated with feminism in Britain, they are present in left-wing British media to an extent they are not in the US.’, may I suggest ‘Because questioning or challenging some trans positions is associated with feminism in Britain, they are present in left-wing British media to an extent they are not in the US.’
Reason: ‘anti-trans’ is not how a fair minded reader would describe say Professor Kathleen Stock and Helen Joyce and Hadley Freeman. 86.165.163.36 ( talk) 06:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I have had a look at the sources for the statement ‘Because anti-trans positions are associated with feminism in Britain, they are present in left-wing British media to an extent they are not in the US.
’ They are both opinion pieces, and therefore, not suitable to support the text. So I am deleting this sentence from the article.
Sweet6970 (
talk)
12:19, 20 August 2023 (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 |
This is an MA thesis so it's probably not appropriate as a source in itself, but it contains a thorough literature review that may be of interest to editors working on this article: https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/fub188/32780/MASTERS%20THESIS_Simon%2c%20Braedyn%20Ezra.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y -- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 13:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
argue for the gender critical/TERF point of viewisn't really necessary, what is important is explaining what that point of view is - and I'm sure the draft will get there eventually. Newimpartial ( talk) 12:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps the article should explain early on (incl in the lead) how gender-critical feminism is related to the broader anti-gender movement? I'm thinking specifically of how TERFs and the conservative anti-gender movement have converged, how they increasingly cooperate, how TERFs/gender-criticals have embraced the worldview and terminology originally associated with the conservative anti-gender movement, as many sources have discussed. -- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 13:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I haven't checked whether enough Julie Bindel material has been added to the UK section - could someone do that?
Also, while I'm not a Telegraph fan, this piece might provide useful, non-Stock-dominated, "free speech" coverage from the UK. Newimpartial ( talk) 14:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
For reference: In Google Scholar there are
-- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 16:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
For statements like this, in the lead as well as body, we are going to need to provide immediate inline citations. There is no point painting huge citation-needed targets, even on a draft article.
(This kind of thing, by the way, is the rationale for the bare links I have occasionally inserted: before suggesting any names, I am making sure that reliable sources actually describe the person or org as feminist, and gender-critical or trans-exclusionary. So the LGB Alliance may not fit here, because I'm unaware of any reliable sources actually labelling them "feminist".) Newimpartial ( talk) 16:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
the key issue, then I don't think this article will be fit for purpose in an encyclopedia and will oppose its move to article space. I am not interested in a COATRACK or a catch-all, here.
is now the main figurehead of this movement, as though this should be reflected in the current article, reflects a profound misreading of what has actually happened. Rowling has been made into a symbol of "TERFism" by its opponents, and in response to that, people (typically celebrities) signal their attitudes towards trans rights by statements against, or in support of, Rowling. But Rowling has contributed nothing to "gender critical"ism, much less gender critical feminism, except her celebrity. This does not make her important - or even worth mentioning - in an article about gender-critical feminism unless the better sources say the opposite. I am profoundly uninterested in helping along yet another article about social media controversies, when we have an actual topic populated by theorists, activists and organizations that describe themselves as - and actually act as - gender-critical (that is, trans-exclusionary) feminists. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
believe the article should be primarily about social media controversies. But to me the statement,
Gender-critical feminism/TERF is to a large extent an Internet phenomenonis equally misleading. Of course gender-critical feminists, like other feminists, like trans activists, organize and promote their ideas mostly online. But what is of most encyclopaedic interest is their scholarship and activist interventions - including legal and legislative interventions, demonstrations and other actions. As far as I am aware, most of the higher-quality sources on gender-critical feminism, like most of the sources on inclusionary, intersectional feminism and most of the sources on trans activism, focuses primarily on these, rather than purely internet phenomena.
it would be odd not to mentionsomeone or something, experience tells me that they are usually suggesting that the thing is significant in some way, and not that they are noting a situation where reader expectations could be met through a passing mention. But clearly you meant something other than what experience led me to expect. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
"it is important to keep in mind that the TERF movement is above all an online movement. The few demonstrations or occupations of public space attempted by transphobic groups have mobilized very few people. The movement counts on an over-representation of TERF views in the British tabloid press, which is only too happy to fill its pages with scandalous headlines in order to divert attention from the Conservative government’s post-Brexit austerity policies. The TERF movement is an artificial movement that occupies space through a galaxy of Twitter accounts and shadow organizations representing very few real-life activists"I believe the article should somehow address the role the Internet has played in the movement and the promotion of their ideas more generally. -- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 02:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
And, as I keep saying, I don't think everything written about the TERF movement
(in The Atlantic or elsewhere) belongs in this article. Things may be true of "the TERF movement" that are not true of feminists who are gender-critical, because "the TERF movement" as loosely defined in American media and on social media, is not notably feminist. But "Gender-critical feminism", the object of this article, is supposed to be.
Newimpartial (
talk)
02:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
movementand I think it would be foolish to run ahead of the facts and turn them into one. Speaking pragmatically, I think an article about something that exists and can easily be shown to exist is much better for all concerned (readers and editors from varying perspectives) than an article the very reality of which has to be asserted and will be contested. There are reasons TERF is an article about a term, and this article ought to be essentially the opposite/complement of that one.
Rowling and Linehan and coare
prominent vehicles by which GC ideology is being disseminated and legitimisedis something that the article can only include based on RS, and we have to be careful with sources like the "philosophical problems" piece to observe a distinction between arguments against trans inclusion in general, and gender-critical feminist arguments in particular. Of course it is true that much gender-critical feminist discourse takes place outside of peer review, but that doesn't mean that all trans-exclusionary discourse on social media is therefore feminist. We have plenty of material to include in this article consisting of writings by feminists, campaigns by feminists, and critique and opposition to these by others in various forms, all of which is clearly within a clearly defined topic. I just don't want to loose the proverbial grub to the organic sludge, here.
movementor
ideologyin article space unless reliable sources use them, and can't use them without attribution unless reliable sources are nearly unanimous in using them. Now I know this doesn't apply to Talk pages, really, but it is an important thing to internalize IMO. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
The thing is, I don't think this article should aim to represent all gendercrits everywhere, because I'm not convinced that's a notable (or well-defined) topic. I think the sources, especially scholarly sources, are strong for gender-critical feminism, so that should be the focus. Stock is a much more important figure than Rowling, at least in this context. Low-quality sources and TERF figureheads
are less essential.
Newimpartial (
talk)
02:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:LEADCITE, it would definitely be best for any article on this topic to have citations in its lead. A pertinent quote (emphasis added):
The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.
I dare say that this topic is complex, current, and controversial. For the sake of the sanity of each of us, and to forestall present and future debates, the lead of any article on this topic should be fully cited. Crossroads -talk- 05:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
The gender essentialism and biological determinism eg. here One thing I've read but have trouble finding sources for is that TERFs tend to be those who believe the patriarchy is men oppressing women whereas their opponents tend to be people who promote the idea of more autonomy and choices for everyone. ( t · c) buidhe 22:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
None of the material in this section relates to gender-critical feminism, and so I am deleting this section in its entirety. Sweet6970 ( talk) 15:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
The framing of Bev Jackson's tweet is in incorrect context of "arguing" for feminist alliances with the right.
The text quoted from the cited PinkNews source seems to have no direct relationship to feminism at all. She does not mention feminists in the tweet this quote is taken from, and the article she shared in that tweet is not about feminists either, but about parents in the US, and does not mention feminists or feminism once.
The section of the PinkNews article specifically relating to feminists is in fact a second tweet, which says:
"Are you disgusted with feminists who have appeared in events organized by the Heritage Foundation and other rightwing groups? Perhaps you need to get informed as to the reasons they have for doing so. Please take the time to read the attached article before rushing to judgement."
but also in the same article "as a socialist feminist, I do find these alliances problematic.".
I think this is WP:SYNTH, ie an original interpretation of the PinkNews source, in taking a quote from earlier in the PinkNews article and applying it to a different context established later in that article, when the actual words used at that point are weaker (don't rush to judgment rather than only possible course of action).
We should surely err on the side of caution here, given. this risks misrepresenting her as condoning feminists working with Heritage or (worse) creating the implication of working with them herself, since she has also repeatedly made clear her actual personal feelings about Heritage, ie: "Never have, never would work with the Heritage Foundation. "
Given that this article is about feminism and the quotation isn't about feminists, that whole sentence should be removed. Void if removed ( talk) 23:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
launch a gender-critical movement in the US. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 23:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
"Bev Jackson, who would go on to help co-found LGB Alliance, defended "feminists who have appeared in events organized by the Heritage Foundation and other rightwing groups", arguing that this is "sometimes the only possible course of action" since "the leftwing silence on gender in the US is even worse than in the UK."I think the "defended feminists who" aspect is entirely in keeping with the thrust of the Pink News article which uses the two tweets (if we were to combine two tweets mentioned in two separate articles, that may well we WP:SYNTH but it is allowed for our sources to do that). -- Colin° Talk 09:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
@
Amanda A. Brant, can you please explain your edit summary: "rm excessive quote on topic not directly related to the topic of this article, which is the anti-trans ideology specifically; rm unjustified tag, the article isn't supposed to promote fringe views (as this is explicitly described by several sources here) as if they were equally valid as recognised scholarship, per WP:FALSEBALANCE
"
How is the gender-critical position on trans-inclusion in sports not related to the topic of this article? Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 14:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
This article is entitled ‘Gender critical feminism’. Therefore, gender critical views should be fully describedIn order to be NPOV compliant they should be fully described in the tone and manner as they are described by mainstream reliable sources on this. If the mainstream view is negative and critical, which from my understanding of the sources it is, then our article has to be negative and critical lest we fall into the false balance and fringe trap. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm really puzzled. Several editors seem to have decided that our article on "gender-critical feminism" should document any old "gender-critical" viewpoint, whether academic or political or journalism, whether from a feminist or, as we saw above, some bloke writing about rugby who doesn't mention feminism once. Are we going to get Ron DeSantis, Donald Trump and Boris Johnson's views inserted here, because those guys aint feminists and they aint gender-critical feminists but they sure have expressed gender-critical views. I think really you want another article for this. Readers will come to this article wanting to know what a gender-critical feminist is, what gender-critical feminists have said, and what others have criticised them or their views. I don't think we need another dumping ground that simply documents "here's the views of people who rant about 'gender ideology'", cause that's an awful lot and nothing to do with gender-critical feminism. -- Colin° Talk 07:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
"Bassi and LaFleur note that "the trans-exclusionary feminist (TERF) movement and the so-called anti-gender movement are only rarely distinguished as movements with distinct constitutions and aims."[1] Pearce et al. note that the concept of "gender ideology" "saw increasing circulation in trans-exclusionary radical feminist discourse" from around 2016.[31] Claire Thurlow noted that "despite efforts to obscure the point, gender critical feminism continues to rely on transphobic tropes, moral panics and essentialist understandings of men and women. These factors also continue to link trans-exclusionary feminism to anti-feminist reactionary politics and other 'anti-gender' movements."[32] ... In a 2020 article in Lambda Nordica, Erika Alm of the University of Gothenburg and Elisabeth L. Engebretsen of the University of Stavanger, said that there was "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" and that the convergence was linked to "their reliance on an essentialised and binary understanding of sex and/or gender, often termed 'bio-essentialism'".[12] Engebretsen has described the movement as a "complex threat to democracy."[110] Another 2020 article, in The Sociological Review, said that "the language of 'gender ideology' originates in anti-feminist and anti-trans discourses among right-wing Christians, with the Catholic Church acting as a major nucleating agent", and said that the term "saw increasing circulation in trans-exclusionary radical feminist discourse" from around 2016. It further said that "a growing number of anti-trans campaigners associated with radical feminist movements have openly aligned themselves with anti-feminist organisations."[31]"-- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 16:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
The neutrality of this article is disputed. The POV tag should be reinstated. It is not helpful to deny that there is disagreement. Sweet6970 ( talk) 21:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
@
LokiTheLiar: You have said in your edit summary: …. we have a whole article on whether or not it's disparaging….
. But the
TERF article states clearly in the lead that it is disparaging: Though TERF was created to be a "deliberately technically neutral description", the term is now typically considered derogatory or disparaging.
so I don’t understand your comment. I think it’s generally accepted that most people only read the lead of an article – so my addition should be reinstated.
Sweet6970 (
talk)
15:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
TERF is now typically considered derogatory. It's already pretty prominent within the article. If readers don't want to read beyond the lead, or click through to the citations or related articles, then I think that's a problem with the reader and not something we need to address by trying to cram everything into the lead. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 02:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Is there now consensus to reinstate ‘derogatory’ in the lead, relating to 'TERF'? Sweet6970 ( talk) 13:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
No, there is no consensus to add a lengthy polemic about the acronym allegedly being derogatory to the first sentence of the article. That's bizarre, and completely derails and wrecks the first sentence. The first sentence is intended to briefly and succinctly define the topic ( WP:LEAD). Potentially having something about the perceptions of the term somewhere in the lead is not the same as turning the first sentence into a polemic against the term TERF. Even the lead of the article on the acronym notes that there is no consensus on whether it is a "slur", so a more nuanced sentence would look much more like that and be more appropriate somewhere below, not in the first sentence. Additionally, this is very much a pseudo-debate, as the term is frequently used by the most prominent TERFs themselves (e.g. Parker). This is the article on the ideology and movement; the acronym has its own article where debates about it can be addressed in detail. The title of the article isn't even TERF, which is just one of several alternative names of this movement. There is no need to make this article as well into an article focused on pseudo-debates about whether TERF is a "slur", debates that are becoming increasingly irrelevant as we (and they) now increasingly refer to them as gender-critical or GC, and given how that topic has its own article. -- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 17:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
(usually considered disparaging)’ . This is not a
lengthy polemic, it is a statement of fact which is 3 words long. It does not contain any statement that the expression TERF is a
slur.
the term is now typically considered derogatory or disparaging' which is what I based my additional text on. Sweet6970 ( talk) 10:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Amanda A. Brant made significant changes to the lead on 28/29 June without any discussion, and therefore, without consensus. I changed the wording back to the previous wording today. AAB has reverted me without discussion. AAB should not have significantly changed the lead without discussion, and should not have reverted my reinstatement of the previous wording without discussion. The previous wording should have stayed in place unless/until the significant changes have been agreed.
Comments, please. Sweet6970 ( talk) 12:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
The lead presently says: "the gender-critical movement typically maintains that the immutability of sex assigned at birth, which gender-critical feminists often refer to as biological sex"
...and I wonder if that is truly sourceable. Sometimes the sex assigned at birth is wrong (e.g., intersex people). To the best of our knowledge, do any gender-critical feminists actually say that someone with 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency, who is assigned female at birth but develops male genitalia at puberty is immutably female?
I suspect that they don't, and that this particular wording is misrepresenting their actual POV. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
The gender-critical movement typically maintains that biological sex is immutable and that this implies that trans women are not women and trans men are not men, possibly with a
They therefore reject the concept of genderjust to make it clear why they're called that. I'll make this edit now and see how it reads. Loki ( talk) 15:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
…what is the purpose of gender at all?Quite.
If gender is the mechanism of oppression, what use is it?It is of use to those who want to reinforce traditional gender roles and stereotypes. Gender critical feminism is the opposite of the attitudes of the anti-gender movement; our article on this is confused, to put it politely. The anti-gender movement says that gender is tied to sex; gender-critical feminism says that gender doesn’t exist. Sweet6970 ( talk) 13:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
maintains that " biological sex" (by which they mean [...]) is", to clarify their other-than-standard use of the term. (The current "
based on biological sex, which they believe is immutable" is alright. "
many of the social and cultural signifiers ascribed to gender ought to instead be assigned based on biological sex" is a little unclear, as the article does not seem to mention "cultur(e|al)" or "signifiers" again.) Also, as I recall coming up on the 'Feminist views...' page, they don't solely oppose "efforts to expand transgender rights", they also oppose currently-existing rights. -sche ( talk) 18:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
"many of the social and cultural signifiers ascribed to gender ought to instead be assigned based on biological sex"’ since I have no idea what it means. I have also deleted ‘
and typically oppose transgender rights' because I don’t think this is accurate – I think the general gender-critical view is that trans rights may conflict with women’s rights. If this is to be added back, then it needs a source. Sweet6970 ( talk) 13:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
"many of the social and cultural signifiers ascribed to gender ought to instead be assigned based on biological sex"means. It may be comprehensible to you, but I doubt if many, or any, of our readers would understand it. Please provide an alternative in normal English.
and typically oppose transgender rights’.
is widely regarded by sociologists as typically opposing transgender rights’? Sweet6970 ( talk) 14:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Noticing some IP edits on this page. I've opened a request for protection. Please watch the edits. Theheezy ( talk) 17:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
An editor is disruptingly removing an entirely uncontroversial explanatory footnote that merely lists the terms and abbreviations already used in this article and its sources (with its two main forms already included in the lead). The only reason for having a footnote for this is that it would make the first sentence very difficult to read if we were to list half a dozen variations of the names of the article's topic there. This should be reverted immediately, and we may have to consider increasing the protection level. -- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 18:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
disruptively removing an entirely uncontroversial explanatory footnote.’ Another editor and I have both reverted you, stating clearly in the edit summaries that this matter is still being discussed – see above. Sweet6970 ( talk) 10:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
The text: ‘The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention described the gender-critical movement as "a fascist movement" and "a loose international affiliation of people and groups who promote far-right ideas" and that focuses primarily "on the imagined threat posed by transgender women".
’ has been added to the article. The source is a primary one, and constitutes a political statement by a non-notable organisation. This text should be deleted.
Sweet6970 (
talk)
10:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I have restored the content in this diff. The content was removed of the grounds that it is allegedly uncited or not validly cited. On a first glance it appears plausibly cited to me, but that is only on a first glance. What do we think? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 20:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
"Although trans exclusionary feminists, focus on trans women, they often hold controversial positions on intersex women. Women with XY AIS as an example were called "men" and "defective males" by Germaine Greer. The deceleration of biological "femaleness," often excludes cisgender women who do not fit into the a clearly defined "biological" box."
"There is nothing new in using the catch-all category “female” to describe incomplete males. In August 1996 the British media were alerted to the existence of 'women' with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. AIS is the name given to a condition in which a male fetus does not respond to androgens and fails to develop masculine characteristics."The section then goes on to state factually incorrect information of the phenotype of AIS, women with AIS do not develop any male traits during puberty, in fact the phenotype of a woman with CAIS tends to be more less masculinized then endosex women, I think she meant DHT insensitivity syndrome? That's neither here nor there but as an intersex person reading that horribly bigoted text simply made me a bit mad.
"They (intersex people) could use this work to see how one particular construction had been forced on them and how their lives might have been better (and could yet be better) under different social constructions. 68 Social constructivism also gave solace to those who felt their gender identities did not fit into the simplistic male-female dichotomy promoted by Western popular culture. It was especially painful, therefore, for some intersex women (particularly women with AIS) to find their self-identities as women rejected by Germaine Greer in her book The Whole Woman because she insisted that 'it is my considered position that femaleness is conferred by the final pair of XX chromosomes. Otherwise I don’t know what it is.' As Morland has noted, when Greer was challenged by women with AIS and family members of girls with AIS, she was 'dismissive; she then used the book’s second edition not to retract the claims, but to publicly mock the AIS correspondents by referring to them too as men.'"Des Vallee ( talk) 21:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Although trans exclusionary feminists, focus on trans women, they often hold controversial positions on intersex women’ is badly formed, and is too general for an article. Instead of speaking generally about what ‘trans exclusionary feminists’ ‘often’ say, we should only include specific views of specific people (properly sourced).
The deceleration of biological "femaleness," often excludes cisgender women who do not fit into the a clearly defined "biological" box.’ is meaningless, even if ‘deceleration’ is a typo for ‘declaration’.
This seems like a WP:POVFORK. We already go over the ideology at Feminist views on transgender topics § Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism and the label at TERF. It seems very odd to me that we have an a separate article for this now. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 03:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Sideswipe9th: take it to the talk page instead of reverting me in 3 minutes and giving some edit summary which doesn't even make sense. I must be blind because I'm not seeing this quote. Willbb234 20:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The Assembly condemns the highly prejudicial anti-gender, gender-critical and anti-trans narratives which reduce the struggle for the equality of LGBTI people to what these movements deliberately mis-characterise as "gender ideology” or "LGBTI ideology".(emphasis mine for clarity), which was already quoted in the content that you removed. That report is pretty clearly talking about the same subject matter as this article, right down to the mischaracterisation of gender identity being an ideology. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
No but it really isn't, is it? The article is talking about gender-critical feminism (emphasis mine) while the resolution doesn't even mention feminism. It has no place in the article. Willbb234 20:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
this article is about a branch of feminismRespectfully, that seems to run counter to what you said above, where you supported Barnards.tar.gz's second definition of
Gender-criticism as a more expansive, less academic set of viewpoints that aren't necessarily explicitly feminist but share common ground with the above and are aligned through criticism of gender. This would be what mainstream media mean when they say "gender-critical".If you support that version of the article's scope, then this isn't an article on the feminist only subset of the gender-critical movement. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
harming women’s and children’s rightsas if the ideologies they refer to are anti-feminist. Sweet6970 ( talk) 21:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
"which reduce the struggle for the equality of LGBTI people to what these movements deliberately mis-characterise as “gender ideology” or “LGBTI ideology”. Such narratives deny the very existence of LGBTI people, dehumanise them and often falsely portray their rights as being in conflict with women’s and children’s rights."This is a clear description of the movement/ideology covered by this article. -- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 22:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Most important to note from the report is that it is the backlash against trans* rights, and not the proposed adoption of a gender-expansive legal framework, that poses a significant risk to the rights of women and LGBTQI+ people. To the former because, the anti-gender movement contributing to the backlash utilizes a framework of biological determinism that ultimately undermines the autonomy and bodily integrity of all cisgender women, stripping them of their agency and reducing their role in society to their sex characteristics.
"The Assembly condemns the highly prejudicial anti-gender, gender-critical and anti-trans narratives"is specifically condemning all three groups: those who are anti-gender, those who are gender-critical and those who are simply anti-trans. They all have common purpose, common language and to the degree that they are attacking trans people and their rights, support each other with glee either by citations or social medial likes and retweets. I mean, which part of
"falsely portray their rights as being in conflict with women’s and children’s rights"has not been the entire basis of the campaign against self ID in Scotland by gender-critical feminists (you can choose to disagree with the "falsely" if you wish, but the purpose very much was that self ID for trans people was in conflict with women and children's rights, specifically to feel safe in so-called women only places such as toilets or prisons. And
"deny the very existence of LGBTI people"is an inescapable conclusion of gender-critical believe, as you have explained, since there are in their view only men and only women and those are determined by sex at birth which cannot be changed.
Depending on how you want to look at it, the gender-critical feminist movement is either a subset of the broader gender-critical movement which itself is a subset of the anti-gender movement, or it is a synonym for the same movement.Sweet6970 ( talk) 11:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
@ Willbb234:, @ Sideswipe9th:. please try to stay civil for now. I'm happy to mediate a bit in this discussion. Let me take the time to read and understand what's going on in these edits. I agree that WP:BRD is the policy, but a reversion should not lead to a confrontation, but rather a good faith discussion. Theheezy ( talk) 03:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I think I'm coming to the conclusion that "gender critical" is used merely as a shorthand for "gender critical feminist", and that phrase was not (previously) used by the wider anti-gender politics we see coming from religious or right-wing conservative ideologies. Maybe we can find sources for that. It may be then that it is worth debating (at some point, but maybe not now) whether gender critical is the most appropriate article title, with gender-critical feminism a redirect. But if we agree they are equivalent, just shorthand, then we also still agree that anti-gender rants from right-wing men do not belong here. And possibly a fair amount of culture war rhetoric doesn't belong here. For exampe, when Suella Braverman claimed it was an “unfashionable fact” that “100 per cent of women do not have a penis”, I don't think she was being "gender critical" or speaking as a "gender-critical feminist, but was engaging in a culture war for purely political purposes. I think the Council of Europe attack on "gender critical" movements that Sideswipe9th is discussing above is very much including gender-critical feminists, and there is nothing about what they criticise them for that one could say "Oh, no, these GCFs don't do that, its the hateful US rightwing politicians who do that" We've seen above that the beliefs of GCFs have no place where a trans person can legitimately exist as the person they claim to be, only as a person with a mental illness. A person who remains restricted by the sex they were born with as to which bathroom or changing room they are permitted in, whether they can view themselves as a mother or father. For example, when a trans woman has long hair and wears a dress they are told by GCFs they are demonstrating harmful gender stereotypes but if a AFAB person has long hair and wears a dress they are just being typical. In the UK think we can likely source that for some in the GCF domain, it is the fight against "men" being allowed in women's shelters or bathrooms or prisons that is their priority and have adopted GCF as an ideology for the legal convenience of it now being a "protected belief", whereas a belief solely that trans women are perverts who shouldn't be allowed near women's spaces would likely not hold legal protection. -- Colin° Talk 07:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
rejects the concept of genderphrasing. Loki ( talk) 21:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@
Sideswipe9th: For heaven’s sake! The text: Joane Studnik argued that "TERF positions are now mostly heard from conservatives and right-wing extremists."
is about the views of a journalist. How is this factual? Would you agree that I should add text based on
Sonia Sodha’s articles in the Guardian in support of gender-critical feminism?
Sweet6970 (
talk)
14:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Der Freitag reported that.... When looking at the source article, this does not appear to be an opinion piece published in Der Freitag, there's nothing in it that seems to be solely the view of the author and the entire piece appears to be written in Der Freitag's editorial voice. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 14:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
In fact, TERF positions are now predominantly heard from conservatives and right-wing extremists.’ This is not an argument, and she does not provide any information to back up her statement. It is merely her opinion, and, as such, it should not be included on Wikipedia because she is not a notable person. And I do not see anything which says that it is the view of the publication. So there is no justification for including this text in either the gender-critical article or the WDI article. Sweet6970 ( talk) 10:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
It is merely her opinionPlease quote something from the article that uses first person phrasing. In English that would be something like "I" or "My", or "In my opinion". In German, you'd be looking for words like "ich", "mein", or "meiner Meinung nach". Amanda A. Brant you may be able to answer this, as I see on your user page you speak German to an advanced level, much higher than I do anyway? Because I've read this multiple times and I cannot see anything that is the author's personal opinion, and not written in the publication's editorial voice.
she does not provide any information to back up her statementThere is no requirement in WP:RS or WP:V that the sources we use show their working. For reliable sources, like Der Freitag, we only care that they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. To do otherwise would require us to exclude a great many sources, particularly those from news organisations, that we otherwise consider reliable for asserting facts in articles. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 01:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
"There is certainly a tendency among some editors to declare that anything in a news article they disagree with is just an injection of the author's opinion or view into the prose". Maybe we are all guilty of that at times. I read the piece, via Google Translate. I note that Joane Studnik does not appear to be a regular journalist at this newspaper but is a regular at berliner-zeitung.de.
"Joane Studnik argued that"does imply an opinion being argued for, rather than a fact being declared. Which is a little odd since the text "TERF positions are now predominantly heard from conservatives and right-wing extremists" is really a claim that is either accurate or inaccurate, rather than an opinion like whether one side is right or good. I don't think it is a controversial claim. While people might choose to use another word than "TERF", I don't think anyone seriously claims there hasn't been a tsunami of gender-critical articles in the right wing press/media and comments and new trans-hostile laws (or opposition to pro-trans laws) from right wing politicians. There is I suppose a danger that it only reflects an experience relevant to some countries and the inclusion of the word "now" gives us dating problems that might need fixed by saying when this was said. It seems to me a little odd to include that remark alone, when their point in the article is that "the term TERF originates from a decidedly left-wing discourse of British and US materialism". Without this, we are left wondering where "TERF positions" were "heard from" before "now" (whenever that is/was).
"The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words". We aren't really summarising here, but cherry-picking people to quote from. And rather than debate whether Studnik is notable, if we wanted to include Studnik's opinions (and I don't think that claim is an opinion) then an ideal measure of that would be to cite a secondary source that itself quotes Studnik. Because Studnik's article is a primary source of their own opinions and doesn't itself demonstrate they have weight. -- Colin° Talk 18:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
There is no consensus for this new addition [10] which frames discussions about the anti-trans bathroom panic and various conspiracy theories advocated by the anti-trans movement (that have been widely critiqued/debunked) in highly laden, transphobic dogwhistle language. These discussions are framed very differently in scholarship, where anti-trans activists' claims of "defending" "women" in toilets etc. are certainly not taken at face value ( [11] [12], as "anti-trans bathroom panic" by Catharine A. MacKinnon et al. [13]). Some more general sources regarding the toilet debate: [14], [15]; this is a highly complex topic that cannot be summarized as a supposed "right" to "single-sex" spaces in toilets etc. without contextualization, and when summarized by most RS it is commonly referred to as an anti-trans moral panic, bathroom panic etc. Also note that the word "sex" (of women) in a legal context obviously also refers to trans women, which is how the CEDAW Committee has interpreted it. In other words, the language used in the new addition is also misleading and confusing. While these discussions / moral panics / the debates and analyses of them should be addressed in the article, they should be addressed in a nuanced way and contextualized. Yes, we can probably include the quote regarding "single-sex spaces" somewhere below in the body of the article, but in a context that also includes scholars' perspectives and analyses of the anti-trans bathroom panic and related themes. Within scholarship of the TERF movement, this is simply one of several moral panics and conspiracy theories that TERFs whip up. The grandiose attempt to frame TERFs – as a fringe movement – as representatives of "women" is general, in the context of organizing, is nothing but POV and exaggerates their importance to a bizarre degree, and is not appropriate for the lead section. Do not reinstate this addition without consensus. -- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 14:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The gender-critical movement also argues that women have the right to use "single-sex spaces and to organise on the basis of biological sex"as
which frames discussions about the anti-trans bathroom panic and various conspiracy theories advocated by the anti-trans movement (that have been widely critiqued/debunked) in highly laden, transphobic dogwhistle language.whereas, on the contrary, there is no reference in the added wording to ‘bathroom panic’, there are no references to ‘various conspiracy theories’, there is no ‘transphobic language’ and there are no ’dogwhistles’. I recommend that AAB should read the wording again. The wording added is simple, factual, neutral, and highly relevant to this article, and should be reinstated. Sweet6970 ( talk) 14:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The gender-critical movement argues that recognition of transgender people, particularly trans women, conflicts with women's "sex-based rights"- this could be elaborated on but I don't agree with using magazines or government sources to "clarify" something from an academic source. -- Aquillion ( talk) 15:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Gender-critical feminists equate “women” with the female sex class, and view historical and contemporary oppression of women as being rooted in their being female. They believe sex is biological and cannot be changed, and that biological sex should be a protected characteristic under equality legislation.
only those beliefs that would be an affront to Convention principles in a manner akin to that of pursuing totalitarianism, or advocating Nazism, or espousing violence and hatred in the gravest of forms”). We should also summarise the non-UK cases mentioned in Preferred gender pronoun § Legal issues and legal recognition, including the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decisions and whatever has happened since Amul Thapar's 2021 ruling regarding Meriwether and Shawnee State University. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 15:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gender-critical feminism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In place of ‘Because anti-trans positions are associated with feminism in Britain, they are present in left-wing British media to an extent they are not in the US.’, may I suggest ‘Because questioning or challenging some trans positions is associated with feminism in Britain, they are present in left-wing British media to an extent they are not in the US.’
Reason: ‘anti-trans’ is not how a fair minded reader would describe say Professor Kathleen Stock and Helen Joyce and Hadley Freeman. 86.165.163.36 ( talk) 06:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I have had a look at the sources for the statement ‘Because anti-trans positions are associated with feminism in Britain, they are present in left-wing British media to an extent they are not in the US.
’ They are both opinion pieces, and therefore, not suitable to support the text. So I am deleting this sentence from the article.
Sweet6970 (
talk)
12:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)