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 4 | Archive 5 |
@ Aircorn: those quotation marks you removed really aren't "scare quotes". The term "gender critical" isn't commonly known. The quotes serve to let readers not already in-the-know that the terminology is a specific ideology or viewpoint. At least one to start out with to make readers aware of the terminology isn't scare quoting. Terminology that is widely-used and known would be scare-quoted in this instance. This is a very niche term most probably aren't aware of. I suggest putting the marks back. Gwen Hope ( talk) ( contrib) 07:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
If you look at the page views graph in the header section above, you can see that in the last couple of days the average page views rocketed from around 1,200 per day, to 40,000 on December 19th. What's going on? It is the result of a single Tweet by J.K. Rowling and its aftermath, which you can read about in Forbes, or Vanity Fair or hundreds of other articles. You can view this 4-way pageviews graph comparing TERF views with J.K. Rowling views, both of which went up, and also with Radical feminism and Transgender, which did not. (You can see how our page views compare with Google searches here.)
I'm not making an argument in this discussion that this Tweet and the kerfuffle that followed should or shouldn't be considered for addition to the article. Rather, I'm calling attention to pageviews awareness and asking for vigilance. I added the page views widget a while back, not just out of curiosity (although that's a valid reason) but so we could monitor fluctuating attention to the article, to help us gauge when something might be going on we were perhaps not aware of that might indicate some new sources that might be useful, or a new event that might need reporting on. So, watch the graph from time to time, and see if the data might be pointing us to something that could be used to improve the article. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 06:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Aircorn: Which sources in particular do you think should be removed? At least some should be, but I think it would be better to tag the questionable SPS individually while they are under discussion. If the main issue is the Davis and McCready draft paper, which I still maintain should be removed, it may be necessary to start an RfC on it. -Crossroads- ( talk) 03:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
There's still one article by Pilgrim which we haven't used at all, it has this:
Those feminists who resist accepting transwomen, as real women, are often known descriptively, within the debate, as ‘TERFS’ (‘trans-exclusionary radical feminists’). At the outset, this was a neutral description but increasingly it took on derogatory connotations and is now considered a slur by those described, who tend to prefer the term ‘gender-critical feminists’. The latter argue that a man cannot become a woman and that cross-dressing or medical intervention will never create the objective and subjective conditions of full patriarchal oppression. The blurred line between the personal vulnerabilities of individual trans-people and their collective societal position, as a social movement, can prompt trans-activists and their supporters to reject these gender-critical feminist arguments for being bigoted and ‘transphobic’ (e.g. Pearce 2018).
Pilgrim, David (2018). "Reclaiming reality and redefining realism: the challenging case of transgenderism". Journal of Critical Realism: 308–324. doi: 10.1080/14767430.2018.1493842.
This is recent, academic, and to the point. Haukur ( talk) 22:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Crossroads recently removed several of these. Three of them (Serano, Cameron, and McKinnon's video) I'm not terrible broken up about (although I feel like McKinnon's video is justifiable given that she's cited as an academic source elsewhere in the article). However, the Davis and McCready paper is academic and extremely relevant to the page, even if it is a draft paper. I'd very much like to add it back. (Failing that, McCready has a published book that has a part about the linguistics of slurs which would be clearly relevant if it contained the term "TERF".) Loki ( talk) 04:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.It is you who is misusing WP:SPS, and also ignoring WP:SECONDARY. SPS states:
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable...- note, not necessarily WP:DUE. And SPS states:
Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.Finally, WP:SECONDARY states:
Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources.The article is complete and thorough without the SPS, so there is no valid reason to cherry pick the ones anyone thinks are appropriate. Note that two sides could play at that game. Better to keep the SPS off the article. -Crossroads- ( talk) 17:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
This revert is totally unjustified. First it not not SUPER POV, it is relevant, in fact the argument can be made that the neologicsm gender critical is in itself POV as it is admittedly an evasion on the part of Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists, and was coined for that purpose. The statement in the edit summary that it is not relevant because the source does not mention TERFs is a non starter, because the source addresses the issue of the word gender critical, which is the term used in the lede. Since edit warring is verboten and there is a 1rr perhaps another editor would consider reverting the revert. Oldperson ( talk) 19:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.
And your comment above is simply your own opinion, which quite apparently is strongly anti trans POV." This has gone far enough. The personal attacks against other editors you disagree with are unacceptable. You've been editing under your user name since 12 August 2018, and since then you've been warned by several editors about inappropriate behavior. One more personal attack against any editor of this article, or any article, and you will be facing a misconduct ANI. You don't get a pass to attack editors because you've only been editing for 1-1/2 years. And you certainly don't get a pass because of a personal status. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh did I accuse you of not AGF or having an ulterior motive. I certainly did...your very firm, often stated critical position...Stating that you appear to be transphobic is not an unjust or unwarranted accusation, it arises from your hundreds or is it thousands of edits. All of those constitute personal attacks. Perhaps Oldperson would like to retract their baseless attacks? And Newimpartial, I am frankly sick of your behavior towards me, stating false things about me in the RfC, and now supporting this user's attacks. This is harassment, and if you continue like this, you will find yourself at ANI too. Lastly, anti-trans is obviously an accusation of bigotry, one I strenuously reject, and is equivalent to anti-semitic as referring to being against a type of person. Antifeminist would also be an attack in most cases, however. -Crossroads- ( talk) 01:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment - I would like to set aside the personal attacks and counterattacks and deal with the substance of this discussion. Crossroads, you misstate the content of Oldperson's edit in several ways - it does not even use the term "anti-trans activism" in wikivoice; rather it states in wikivoice that "gender critical" is used as a label for anti-trans activism. You can disagree with the sources - and I'd be interested in seeing the sources you would bring to bear to do this - but calling it a "POV edit" is unsupported by evidence and seems hotheaded on your part. And you insist - again without evidence - that "anti-trans activism" is an equivalent term to transphobia, then cite an RfC about this different term in relation to another part of the article. This obstacle course of slippery slopes and moving goalposts does not represent the values of AGF and WP:V to which we are all supposed to aspire, here on WP. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
This edit does not reflect the sources and breaks both WP:NPOV and WP:TONE, since it adds a strident tone that most of sources do not reflect. From the sources for that statement:
Online, it often it appears alongside violent rhetoric
As for Sosa’s response, Allen said it was “inadequate.” TERF is “frequently accompanied by threats of violence, rape and death,
Emphasis mine. The other sources, at least at a quick glance, do not specifically mention violence or characterize how the speaker thinks it is related to it; furthermore, Inside Higher Ed is the only secondary source, and the quote it highlights clearly uses accompanied by. On an Alleged Case of Propaganda quotes many things that imply the connection, but cautiously avoids stating or characterizing it specifically. We need to be extremely careful about what we say when reporting such contested and controversial claims; the fact that some of the most well-known voices criticizing the term were careful to hedge their words with qualifying statements like "alongside" or "accompanied by" is something that we have to reflect when summarizing their views. I'd accept either "alongside" or "accompanied by" (since the sources use both), but we have to include one of those two disclaimers, since the sources were careful to do so. -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I'm offending any sensibilities, I'm not used to these weird Urban Dictionary-style articles, but is the blog called Bitch Media a reputable source?-- Adûnâi ( talk) 18:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Some identify themselves as gender critical, in the lead) could have additional sources added if anyone would like: besides the sources cited for the article-body sentence which that lead-sentence is summarizing, here is (for example) a New Republic piece speaking of "self-described 'gender-critical feminists'—also called trans-exclusionary radical feminists, or TERFs". So, the source is reliable and is being used reasonably, AFAICT. (It's also not vital, since other sources either are or could be cited for everything it's being cited for, but the more reliable sources the merrier...) -sche ( talk) 22:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Those referred to with the word TERF typically reject the term or consider it a slur. Some identify themselves as gender criticalin the lead, a similar bit in the body, and
The people at whom the word TERF is directed often characterize it as a slur or hate speech. Those aren't things anyone disputes, I think (though some people might say we should word them differently or go into more detail as mentioned in disputes above.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 23:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
A subseet of radical feminists? How many subsets of RadFems are there? From what I've seen on this page and elsewheres, TERF's are indeed a minority. Calling them a subset enlarges and obfuscates situation and the population. Trans(women) Exclusionary Radical Feminists may not like being referred to as TERF's, but TERFdom is not a physiological or psychological issue, it is an attitudinal issue. And attitudes can be adjusted and even reversed. I know so from personal experience. So tough on Trans(women) Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs)
Since TERF is an acronym that includes, specifically, radical feminists. It is illogical to claim that the termTERF has come to apply to persons who are not RadFems.
I see where the acronym has taken on meaning as a derogatory term, so has the word gay (i.e. that is so gay (stupid)), amongst others such as "sick"there is nothing one can do about changes in the popular language. Trans(woman) Exclusionary Radical Feminist is an accurate description of those radical feminists who exclude transwomen. TERF is simply an acronym. TERFs who resent the acronym have the option and ability cease and desist from their behavior. Oldperson ( talk) 00:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
generally reliable fornote this!
Internet culture.It also states,
Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.It is obviously not at all scholarly, so it does not. As Aircorn also notes, the Canadian interview of 6 people actually reached different conclusions than the claim being made. And no, it is not necessary to find sources that use "majority" unless that is being claimed, which it is not. Either claim is problematic, because "feminist" is vague - is it referring to everyone who identifies as feminist in a survey, to feminist organizations, internet activists, or what. And crucially, the source would need to be not specific to just one country, since the claim being made is a general one that applies everywhere.
Now that the "radical" bugbear has been dispatched, can we achieve consensus on "minority of feminists" and remove the godforsaken "disputed"? No sources have been presented that dispute that the term concerns a minority of feminists, so we shouldn't be implying that a non-existent dispute actually exists. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
As Stryker and Bettcher note, anti-trans forms of feminism may have only ever truthfully described a minority, however loudly and destructively that minority may broadcast itself.. Is this right Aquillion. It seems a reasonable source, ( submission policies) what do others think? AIRcorn (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
However, it seems like we are trying desperately to say minority to the extent that we are pulling and twisting the sources just so we can qualify it.Agreed. There are really no good sources to back up this claim but there's a big push to get it in the article anyway. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I've removed this tag for a few procedural reasons: it's not clear how it's actionable (the content certainly has been discussed, and is reliably sourced); it refers to content which is present and sourced in the body (so the tag should go there or both instances of the material should be removed); tag-bombing isn't the way to express that you disagree with an idea; and it's not clear what the reasoning means ("TERF is not a subset" of what? And "[TERF is not] a term that is used to describe people who are not TERFs" is a definitional tautology, not a semantically meaningful phrase). — Bilorv ( talk) 21:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Newimpartial, this restored text is problematic in a number of ways IMO.
Firstly, and most simply, it is clumsily and ambiguously phrased. If TERF is the word used to describe "a minority of feminists who espouse sentiments that other feminists consider transphobic", what word is used for the majority who espouse such sentiments?
Secondly, and probably most importantly, it is inherently PoV to ennumerate how prevalent such beliefs are at the beginning of, and as part of the definition. What purpose - apart from implying marginality - could such an inclusion serve in such a place? "Atheists are a minority of people who ...", "Protestants are a minority of christians who ..." and, most appositely in the current context "Transsexuals are a very small minority of people who ...". Even if assertions about how numerous atheists/protestants or transsexuals - or any other human group - could be 100% reliably sourced, including how numerous they were in their definition would be PoV. Therefore, even if sourcing is 100% RS, assertions about how numerous "TERF"s are need to be meaningfully seperated from who they are, and what they believe. This is normal in articles, especially ones about beliefs and ideas.
Thirdly, currently there is a real ambiguity in this article as to whether it is about the term, or the set of beliefs and people who are the target of the term. If the article is about the term, there is neither need nor benefit in quantifying how numerous such views could be. We don't quantify how many people are considered snowflakes - there would be no point in quantifying something which is inherently unquantifiable, ie how many people could legitimately end up as targets of a subjective, and largely abusive term. I realise that this encroaches on the "is it a slur?" question, but even if it is not technically a slur, it is certainly the case that "TERF" is not used by any of those targetted by the word. Thus, the term is somewhat akin to "heretic" or "infidel", ie defining people, not according to their self-descriptions of what they believe, but according to how their ideological opponents have characterised those beliefs. In a sense, it is a pity that this article has been written, rather than one about gender-critical radical feminists, or some other term which those espousing such views would actually use. Apart from being inherently more balanced, such an article might be able to say somewhere in it how numerous such persons are.
Lastly what does "minority of feminists" actually mean - and how well is it sourced? If I were to assert "A minority of atheists believe XYZ", is it reasonable to assume that I have conducted research on a randomised sample of those people - worldwide - who self-describe as atheists before making this claim? Or is the truth much closer to, "well I'm an atheist blogger in country X and practically all the other bloggers in country X agree with me?" I really don't see how anyone could possibly make this claim for feminists worldwide (which is what WPVOICE implies), and even on a country-specific basis, the claim could only be at best a vague impression of those "public feminists" - ie bloggers, journalists and academics - who had actually made public pronouncements on the matter. I haven't seen any sources which pronounced on how prevalent these views are with any plausible authority, such is the extent of partisanship in many of the sources used.
If sources are intrinsically partisan, the opinions expressed should be attributed, and if they are inherently locale-specific, the countries which they are speaking about should be named.
So, IMO, the claim that TERFs are "a minority", fails WP:NPOV, (certainly as currently phrased), fails WP:V, and frankly isn't a claim worth making, since the targets of the term would still be called TERFs, regardless of how few or numerous they were deemed to be by those who disagreed with them. Pincrete ( talk) 17:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
There, the most vocal trans-exclusionary voices are, ostensibly, “feminist” ones, and anti-trans lobbying is a mainstream activity.. Contrasted with
In America, however, TERFism today is a scattered community in its death throes. Considering it is a opinion piece (I don't know how much of an expert she is, most of the stuff I can find about her is in regards to surrogacy) it is only really useful if attributed and then even it is not strong enough to say minority unless you divide it on geographical grounds. [4]
famous lesbian sitebeing taken over by
anti-trans ‘feminists’other Lesbian publications released a statement in support of trans women. It doesn't obviously cover all feminism and I am not even sure it is strong enough even say a minority of lesbians, but it is definitely useful.
Feminism is about inclusivity and empowering women – all women – which is why TERF ideology is so at odds with most forms of feminism. A clickbait site, a lot of the top content seems to be about mocking people. Thi is a very poor source and should probably not be used. [5]
TERFs are a small minority within feminism, and they are shrinking as gender is becoming more commonly accepted as a spectrum, rather than two distinct categories.Probably the best source which specifically mentions minority. The site seems to more cover memes, streaming and other internet culture. We do get TERF bangs again though. [7]
we have high-quality academic sources that explicitly observe that trans-inclusion is the majority position among feminist organizations in the United States and in Canada.Well where are they? I have watched this area on and off for over a year now and in all my time here (editing some pretty knarly topics) I have never seen such a lack of high quality academic sources (or academic sources in general). It doesn't seem to stop editors from stating with absolute certainty their view is the correct one though. Why are we citing indy 100, persona blogs, youtube, and a bunch of opinion pieces if we have these high-quality sources out there? One high quality source is worth more than any number of poor or average ones. Also this is not the American wikipedia, so we can't use something that may be true in America and extrapolate it to include the whole world.
Also, contra Aircorn, it is not necessary that the reliable sources include "minority" as part of the definition of TERFYes it is. This is the whole point of writing an encyclopaedia. We use the sources and say what the sources say; taking into account reliability, due weight, and how much attribution is needed. If we say it is the minority in wikivoice, then we need some very good sources to say it is the minority. Our own feelings and opinions on the topic matter not at all.
The trans-inclusive majority is documented here, here, here, here and here - all of which are currently cited in this article or Feminist views on transgender topics - as well as this article, this one and this book - even this UK source - all seem quite clear on where the feminist majority resides.
And no, it isn't necessary for sources to include "minority" in the definition of TERF for it to be relevant to the lede here. It is quite sufficient for the majority to be Verifiable, and for it to be relevant to the origin and use of the term. It is a matter of reliably sourced evidence and weight - when all of the most important organizations and the majority of all organizations are trans-inclusive, as is already documented in both articles with RS, then the majority is established and is relevant context. To insist pedantically on regurgitating only the definitions certain sources provide is a violation of NOTDICT and ENC policies at the same time. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Feminism in Canada as embodied by national feminist organizations, still has a long way to go towards clearly stating that the ‘women’ that it speaks for may include transgender and transsexual women; however, it seems that given the responses of the interview participants there is much potential for the realization of trans-inclusion in national Canadian feminist organizations so long as they can overcome the challenges posed by generational divides, theoretical challenges, funding, and indulgence in debate rather than meaningfully moving forward.AIRcorn (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Thus, the general consensus amongst interview participants was that trans-inclusion at the organizational level should not be a major issue at all. One participant simply said of transgender individuals that “…if they self identify [as women] and I’m able to reach them with my emails, my call outs, then they’re included [in the constituency of my organization].” As such, she stated that general inclusion simply should not be of concern at the national, organizational level, but rather should work at an individual level, enabling those women who self identify as women to be included and organizations to facilitate their inclusion as necessary and appropriate.The recognition in the conclusion that "there was still a long way to go" in 2007 should not be read as undermining the two key points identified on pages 7 and 8: theat there was a generational divide within their organizations about the inclusion of trans women as women, and that the way thus was being resolved was to include trans women in the basis of self-identification going forward. It is clear from these interviews that the majority was already trans-inclusionary back in 2007, and this has only developed since that time (e.g., Quebec's largest and most visible feminist organization is now led by a trans woman). Newimpartial ( talk) 10:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.AIRcorn (talk) 07:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Very little of the debate in the UK has taken place within feminist organizations, I've no idea whether what you say is true about US+Can, but do know that "the Pope says", does not = "most christians think", ditto any 'belief' organisation, even the most doctrinaire and authoritarian. As said, it's pure SYNTH to imply that the two are synonymous. I think it probable, given the breadth of US sources, that the "trans inclusive" position enjoys greater sympathy among the left than the "TERF" alternative. That does nothing to alter the fact that no source says this explicitly - even regarding US - and no precedent justifies putting 'minority' in 'pole' position in the definition. I unapologeticly admit that I am inexpert in both 'trans' and feminist matters, I understand NPOV though. Pincrete ( talk) 13:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
one cohort of feminists who self-identify as radical). Another source uses "sections of the left". Maybe we can take a closer look at how the best sources put this. Haukur ( talk) 21:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The currently-protected version has the following line of text in the lead:
There's a few style errors in it that should be uncontroversial to fix - the italics are too broad (they should just be for the term being defined), and there's a space between the refs. The fixed version should therefore be:
This request doesn't imply anything about whether or not that line should stay (which might require a bit more discussion), just that the clear style errors should at least be fixed as soon as possible so they're not left visible for the full duration of the page's protection. Note that there has also been some discussion of reverting the page entirely to before that edit, here; obviously such fixes shouldn't interfere with that if that's what happens. But I thought I ought to open this request just to be sure that these errors are fixed quickly either way; I imagine the more controversial discussion of which version to protect or whether the line stays at all might take a bit longer. -- Aquillion ( talk) 08:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Though contested, the term [TERF] has since become an established part of contemporary feminist speech., which I would be surprised if the editor meant to remove. Regardless of whether the change to the lead is kept, the technical fixes to the body should be re-implemented (and, IMO, the one body sentence should be restored). As for what appears to have been the only actually intended change, I think its stated goal (of explaining the meaning of the newly introduced term) could be accomplished in better ways, including by simply changing the period before "Some identify..." to a semicolon. -sche ( talk) 09:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Vasquez 2014
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
If Oldperson fails to engage the article talk page (doing in so in a civil and collegial way), I will revert the protected page to the other version.Oldperson has not done so in all the time they have been arguing over this since 31 December (as seen in a discussion above), nor has he done so now. Based on the concerns raised above, I hope El_C will consider reverting Oldperson's edit.
Regarding this removal and restoration: I note that the RSN thread referred to had a grand total of four (4) participants, including the OP and one person whose sole contribution was to ask whether TSQ was peer-reviewed or not. Only one of the other editors opined that the source was not reliable, at a time when they also thought the source journal was not peer-reviewed; one other editor opined that we should perhaps attribute the statement rather than presenting it in wikivoice. "Consensus" to remove the source this is plainly not. I would, however, think that if MFF indeed attributes the statement we're discussing to TSQ, we might look directly at what TSQ says and, if TSQ indeed supports the statement, add TSQ as a source, potentially replacing MFF if MFF indeed does no more than say TSQ said it. (In turn, while the suggestion of name-checking the sources of the information in the prose could work if the source under discussion were the only source for the information, it is not.) -sche ( talk) 05:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
It <TERF> was used to describe a minority of feminists, because the only supportive text in the MFF piece explicitly attributes the viewpoint to Stryker & Bettcher in TSQ. This is not dependent on the peer reviewed nature of either MFF or TSQ. The MFF source should be removed and replaced by the TSQ source. Additionally, Stryker & Bettcher's piece in TSQ is the Introduction to that issue, not peer reviewed, which includes only the following as supportive text
Rather than cede the label feminist to a minority of feminists who hold a particular set of negative opinions about trans people, and rather than reducing all transgender engagement with feminism to the strategy embraced by some trans people of vigorously challenging certain forms of antitransgender feminist speech, we should instead demonstrate the range and complexity of trans/feminist relationships.This is background prose explaining the intent of that TSQ issue; not a work of scholarly study. It should be attributed. Or, other sources should be found. - Ryk72 talk 05:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Forgive me for my ignorance, but why is this term italicized? Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 11:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
This article used to be much worse (favoring the side saying TERF isn't a slur) and it's good that it's improving but there's still lots of bollocks. Example: TransAdvocate is not a reliable source. Cristan Williams also created the website theterfs.com which to me is honestly reminiscent of "Zionism" conspiracy theories. (Apparently there's a powerful group of radical feminists who control the United Nations. Would be a good joke if they didn't mean it seriously!) If TransAdvocate is to be considered a reliable source, so should for instance Feminist Current and Meghan Murphy which represents the polar opposite viewpoint but I don't see her being cited at all. In fact I would say Feminist Current has much better journalistic standards but that's just my opinion. What's a fact is that TransAdvocate/Cristan Williams are at least as biased as FeministCurrent/Meghan Murphy.
Also "the view, predominant in feminist organizations, that trans women are women" is not supported by any unbiased sources. It's just trying to make that perspective seem like the "normal" one. The whole article still reads like it was written by people who are on the side of transgender activists who can't take feminist criticism and try really really hard to be objective but ultimately fail at it. Words like "espousing sentiments that other feminists consider transphobic" set a biased tone. (Instead of just saying, you know, "expressing views" or something that's both simpler and sounds much less accusatory than "espousing sentiments".) Another example: "The people at whom the word TERF is directed often characterize it as..." why say "characterize it as" instead of simply "see it as." Because when you say "characterize" you imply that they're wrong, simple as that.
To those who care: PLEASE improve the page further. I would try but I don't have the nerves to be called a bigot for supporting women's rights and remain calm about it. DungaroosAreCool ( talk) 17:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
the view ... that transwomen are womenis
predominant in feminist organizations, as established through many sources. This is a factual statement, not a biased one. And in my view, the word "characterized" is used in
people at whom the word TERF is directed often characterize it as a slurnot because it implies that they are wrong (it doesn't) but because what we know about the situation is what the recipients of the term say, but not what they "see" or how they "feel".
Should this self-published source, a prepublication draft paper, be used? Here is a diff showing how it is being used. -Crossroads- ( talk) 00:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.The authors' peculiar definition of slur has zero uptake or endorsement in published reliable sources. We as editors should not cherry pick self-published opinions and use them to counter published sources. The POV of the source is already represented in the article by better sources anyway. Using this source constitutes undue weight.
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.This is not a free pass for inclusion, however. Note 3 things: (1) It says such a source may be reliable; however, a source being reliable does not mean the source's opinion is due. It is not, because again, this definition is unique to a single preprint. (2) WP:SPS then immediately says in a note,
Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.Claiming to have the one true definition of "slur" is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, one
that [is] contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, because, again, this definition exists nowhere else. (3) After the note, WP:SPS states, as quoted above,
if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.All this together weighs against inclusion of this material.
In this paper, we argue for a particular view of slurswhich they refer to as
our theory. The whole paper is clear that this definition is original to it. The paper is not published and has not had time for others to endorse it, and it has no cites on Google Scholar aside from one of the authors. Therefore, any other definition of slur anywhere contradicts the one in the paper. This includes dictionary definitions. This is supported further by what Ryk72 quoted below where the theory is referred to as controversial. As for me supposedly contradicting myself, you're reading too much into my phrasing. The point is that this definition of slur has no endorsement from anyone else, and the prevailing view of the academic community does not include the features it introduces by the authors' own admission. -Crossroads- ( talk) 04:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources...; WP:V
Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form".A draft paper, still in flux, and currently undergoing revision, is not, for mine, "published". Additionally, as this viewpoint runs contrary to dictionary definitions, I share Crossroads concern as to how DUE inclusion is. I note that
In relation to the test for slurhood, the most interesting (and perhaps most controversial) claim the authors put forward is that, at least prototypically, slurs are those expressions that target groups which stand in a position of subordination (according to flawed ideologies implemented within society)(emphasis mine) - Ryk72 talk 01:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC) - clarified - Ryk72 talk 06:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC) - add - Ryk72 talk 09:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Ryk72's position that the authors' claim is "controversial" runs afoul of NOTDICT. No, I don't think it does. The "position" is also held by Cepollaro & Zeman in their editorial introduction.
If followed to its logical conclusion, would lead to WP providing journalistic over academic sources, a very UNENC position to maintain regardless of their intentions. No, this is not a logical extension. And certainly
WP providing (sic; preferring?) journalistic over academic sourcesis not a position I have ever espoused. Reductio ad absurdum is very close to strawmanning. - Ryk72 talk 22:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
the conceptualisation of "slur" developed by the authors ... <should or> should not be considered as reliable as a dictionary for purposes of an encyclopedia; they don't discuss encyclopaedias at all as far as I can see, and I've made no representation that they did. They do, however, consider that the conceptualisation of "slur" developed by the authors is, at least in part, controversial; and, I would suggest, intimate that it is novel. This is in the quote included in my !vote. I suggest only that we should consider how a novel, controversial, possibly minority, viewpoint aligns with DUE. That may mean not including it; it may mean attributing the viewpoint; it may mean that we find alternative, possibly more mainstream, viewpoints to include alongside it. Which text from NOTDICT is apropos? - Ryk72 talk 02:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
As with any subject, articles on words must contain encyclopedic information. That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry ... and include information on the social or historical significance of the term.Restricting the use of the best available specialized analysis of the significance of a term, because the analysis might be somewhat novel and might disagree with dictionary definitions, seems to be to run against both the spirit and the letter of NOTDICT. And it is not as though this WP particle has given any UNDUE WEIGHT to the unpublished scholarly article; we already have many sources (of generally lesser quality) offering an opposing view. Newimpartial ( talk) 04:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
what would be found in a dictionary entryor that this article should not
include information on the social or historical significance of the term, TERF. I do say that if this source provides a novel, controversial, likely heterodox or minority viewpoint, then it's use should reflect that (per DUE, YESPOV, etc); and that a novel, controversial, likely heterodox or minority viewpoint may not be
the best available specialized analysis of the significance of <the> term. Note that doesn't mean that I suggest the the source shouldn't be used at all; once published. - Ryk72 talk 06:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Crossroads constantly defends the inclusion of non-expert commentary in various articles...while advocating the exclusion of actual academic workand
in this article...Pyxis Solitary and Crossroads have constantly defended the shoehorning in of op-ed content that suits their POV while advocating the exclusion of actual RS expertise with which they disagreeare unsourced, utterly false, and are nothing more than psychological projection. I only ever fought for Andrew Sullivan commentary one time to provide balance to material about how gay men need to be attracted to trans men, and this was after Newimpartial was fighting tooth and nail to keep multiple opinion pieces pushing that, and ridiculously claimed that these pieces were actually "ethnomethodology". -Crossroads- ( talk) 22:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
The editor removing the material appears to believe that ethnomethodology is not a "real" methodology, and after I stated that these were opinion pieces, you said,
In particular, autobiographical or ethnomethodological primary sources have exactly the same status as original scientific studies. Diffs: [9] [10] And here is the ridiculous POV content that I had rightly removed and which you were clearly calling "ethnomethodology". -Crossroads- ( talk) 02:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Given the actual state of sourcing on this topic and in this article, in which Pyxis Solitary ... have constantly defended the shoehorning in of op-ed content that suits their POV while advocating the exclusion of actual RS expertise with which they disagree...." What a foolish, last-resort statement. I have made a total of 10 edits to this article. Find them. Post the diffs. And then let's see precisely what POV you've claimed I have "shoehorned" into it. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 04:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
{{
ping}}
)
czar
09:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)The draft paper that is the subject of the above RFC has been published. Could someone with the appropriate institutional access please get the quotes to cite it properly? (I'd go ahead and do it anyway if a major issue raised in the RfC wasn't possible changes during peer review.) Loki ( talk) 06:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
— Bilorv ( talk) 17:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
The introduction says: "It was originally applied to a minority of feminists espousing sentiments that other feminists consider transphobic" but the sources cited at the end of the paragraph are both highly biased opinion pieces. Second wave feminism was rife with criticism of the transgender movement and I'm not aware of any reliable source confirming the belief that criticism of the transgender movement was considered transphobic by a majority of feminists at any point in time. It could even be argued that the trend of calling some feminists "TERF" was started by a vocal minority and only recently became mainstream. Here's an opinion piece claiming exactly that, i.e. that "TERF" was originally a buzzword used in some corners of the internet: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2017/09/what-terf-how-internet-buzzword-became-mainstream-slur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:C70:52C0:6551:71DC:1462:55B7 ( talk) 18:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"Phrases like "Kill a TERF!" or "Punch a TERF!" are also posted by trolls online and there have been other depictions of violence aimed at TERFs." Two comments on this: firstly it's not just posted by trolls online, it was actually painted on the windows of Vancouver Rape Relief by real-life vandals, it was worn on a t-shirt by a transgender activist during a Pride March, it was posted online by a thug who later physically assaulted a woman and was charged with a crime. All three of those cases of the word "TERF" entering the meatspace can be verified. Secondly, the sentence uses "TERFs" to objectively refer to people in Wikipedia's tone even though the whole article should make it clear that calling someone a "TERF" in Wikipedia's tone is not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:C70:52C0:6551:71DC:1462:55B7 ( talk) 18:51, 19 June 2020 (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 4 | Archive 5 |
@ Aircorn: those quotation marks you removed really aren't "scare quotes". The term "gender critical" isn't commonly known. The quotes serve to let readers not already in-the-know that the terminology is a specific ideology or viewpoint. At least one to start out with to make readers aware of the terminology isn't scare quoting. Terminology that is widely-used and known would be scare-quoted in this instance. This is a very niche term most probably aren't aware of. I suggest putting the marks back. Gwen Hope ( talk) ( contrib) 07:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
If you look at the page views graph in the header section above, you can see that in the last couple of days the average page views rocketed from around 1,200 per day, to 40,000 on December 19th. What's going on? It is the result of a single Tweet by J.K. Rowling and its aftermath, which you can read about in Forbes, or Vanity Fair or hundreds of other articles. You can view this 4-way pageviews graph comparing TERF views with J.K. Rowling views, both of which went up, and also with Radical feminism and Transgender, which did not. (You can see how our page views compare with Google searches here.)
I'm not making an argument in this discussion that this Tweet and the kerfuffle that followed should or shouldn't be considered for addition to the article. Rather, I'm calling attention to pageviews awareness and asking for vigilance. I added the page views widget a while back, not just out of curiosity (although that's a valid reason) but so we could monitor fluctuating attention to the article, to help us gauge when something might be going on we were perhaps not aware of that might indicate some new sources that might be useful, or a new event that might need reporting on. So, watch the graph from time to time, and see if the data might be pointing us to something that could be used to improve the article. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 06:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Aircorn: Which sources in particular do you think should be removed? At least some should be, but I think it would be better to tag the questionable SPS individually while they are under discussion. If the main issue is the Davis and McCready draft paper, which I still maintain should be removed, it may be necessary to start an RfC on it. -Crossroads- ( talk) 03:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
There's still one article by Pilgrim which we haven't used at all, it has this:
Those feminists who resist accepting transwomen, as real women, are often known descriptively, within the debate, as ‘TERFS’ (‘trans-exclusionary radical feminists’). At the outset, this was a neutral description but increasingly it took on derogatory connotations and is now considered a slur by those described, who tend to prefer the term ‘gender-critical feminists’. The latter argue that a man cannot become a woman and that cross-dressing or medical intervention will never create the objective and subjective conditions of full patriarchal oppression. The blurred line between the personal vulnerabilities of individual trans-people and their collective societal position, as a social movement, can prompt trans-activists and their supporters to reject these gender-critical feminist arguments for being bigoted and ‘transphobic’ (e.g. Pearce 2018).
Pilgrim, David (2018). "Reclaiming reality and redefining realism: the challenging case of transgenderism". Journal of Critical Realism: 308–324. doi: 10.1080/14767430.2018.1493842.
This is recent, academic, and to the point. Haukur ( talk) 22:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Crossroads recently removed several of these. Three of them (Serano, Cameron, and McKinnon's video) I'm not terrible broken up about (although I feel like McKinnon's video is justifiable given that she's cited as an academic source elsewhere in the article). However, the Davis and McCready paper is academic and extremely relevant to the page, even if it is a draft paper. I'd very much like to add it back. (Failing that, McCready has a published book that has a part about the linguistics of slurs which would be clearly relevant if it contained the term "TERF".) Loki ( talk) 04:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.It is you who is misusing WP:SPS, and also ignoring WP:SECONDARY. SPS states:
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable...- note, not necessarily WP:DUE. And SPS states:
Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.Finally, WP:SECONDARY states:
Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources.The article is complete and thorough without the SPS, so there is no valid reason to cherry pick the ones anyone thinks are appropriate. Note that two sides could play at that game. Better to keep the SPS off the article. -Crossroads- ( talk) 17:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
This revert is totally unjustified. First it not not SUPER POV, it is relevant, in fact the argument can be made that the neologicsm gender critical is in itself POV as it is admittedly an evasion on the part of Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists, and was coined for that purpose. The statement in the edit summary that it is not relevant because the source does not mention TERFs is a non starter, because the source addresses the issue of the word gender critical, which is the term used in the lede. Since edit warring is verboten and there is a 1rr perhaps another editor would consider reverting the revert. Oldperson ( talk) 19:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.
And your comment above is simply your own opinion, which quite apparently is strongly anti trans POV." This has gone far enough. The personal attacks against other editors you disagree with are unacceptable. You've been editing under your user name since 12 August 2018, and since then you've been warned by several editors about inappropriate behavior. One more personal attack against any editor of this article, or any article, and you will be facing a misconduct ANI. You don't get a pass to attack editors because you've only been editing for 1-1/2 years. And you certainly don't get a pass because of a personal status. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh did I accuse you of not AGF or having an ulterior motive. I certainly did...your very firm, often stated critical position...Stating that you appear to be transphobic is not an unjust or unwarranted accusation, it arises from your hundreds or is it thousands of edits. All of those constitute personal attacks. Perhaps Oldperson would like to retract their baseless attacks? And Newimpartial, I am frankly sick of your behavior towards me, stating false things about me in the RfC, and now supporting this user's attacks. This is harassment, and if you continue like this, you will find yourself at ANI too. Lastly, anti-trans is obviously an accusation of bigotry, one I strenuously reject, and is equivalent to anti-semitic as referring to being against a type of person. Antifeminist would also be an attack in most cases, however. -Crossroads- ( talk) 01:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment - I would like to set aside the personal attacks and counterattacks and deal with the substance of this discussion. Crossroads, you misstate the content of Oldperson's edit in several ways - it does not even use the term "anti-trans activism" in wikivoice; rather it states in wikivoice that "gender critical" is used as a label for anti-trans activism. You can disagree with the sources - and I'd be interested in seeing the sources you would bring to bear to do this - but calling it a "POV edit" is unsupported by evidence and seems hotheaded on your part. And you insist - again without evidence - that "anti-trans activism" is an equivalent term to transphobia, then cite an RfC about this different term in relation to another part of the article. This obstacle course of slippery slopes and moving goalposts does not represent the values of AGF and WP:V to which we are all supposed to aspire, here on WP. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
This edit does not reflect the sources and breaks both WP:NPOV and WP:TONE, since it adds a strident tone that most of sources do not reflect. From the sources for that statement:
Online, it often it appears alongside violent rhetoric
As for Sosa’s response, Allen said it was “inadequate.” TERF is “frequently accompanied by threats of violence, rape and death,
Emphasis mine. The other sources, at least at a quick glance, do not specifically mention violence or characterize how the speaker thinks it is related to it; furthermore, Inside Higher Ed is the only secondary source, and the quote it highlights clearly uses accompanied by. On an Alleged Case of Propaganda quotes many things that imply the connection, but cautiously avoids stating or characterizing it specifically. We need to be extremely careful about what we say when reporting such contested and controversial claims; the fact that some of the most well-known voices criticizing the term were careful to hedge their words with qualifying statements like "alongside" or "accompanied by" is something that we have to reflect when summarizing their views. I'd accept either "alongside" or "accompanied by" (since the sources use both), but we have to include one of those two disclaimers, since the sources were careful to do so. -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I'm offending any sensibilities, I'm not used to these weird Urban Dictionary-style articles, but is the blog called Bitch Media a reputable source?-- Adûnâi ( talk) 18:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Some identify themselves as gender critical, in the lead) could have additional sources added if anyone would like: besides the sources cited for the article-body sentence which that lead-sentence is summarizing, here is (for example) a New Republic piece speaking of "self-described 'gender-critical feminists'—also called trans-exclusionary radical feminists, or TERFs". So, the source is reliable and is being used reasonably, AFAICT. (It's also not vital, since other sources either are or could be cited for everything it's being cited for, but the more reliable sources the merrier...) -sche ( talk) 22:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Those referred to with the word TERF typically reject the term or consider it a slur. Some identify themselves as gender criticalin the lead, a similar bit in the body, and
The people at whom the word TERF is directed often characterize it as a slur or hate speech. Those aren't things anyone disputes, I think (though some people might say we should word them differently or go into more detail as mentioned in disputes above.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 23:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
A subseet of radical feminists? How many subsets of RadFems are there? From what I've seen on this page and elsewheres, TERF's are indeed a minority. Calling them a subset enlarges and obfuscates situation and the population. Trans(women) Exclusionary Radical Feminists may not like being referred to as TERF's, but TERFdom is not a physiological or psychological issue, it is an attitudinal issue. And attitudes can be adjusted and even reversed. I know so from personal experience. So tough on Trans(women) Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs)
Since TERF is an acronym that includes, specifically, radical feminists. It is illogical to claim that the termTERF has come to apply to persons who are not RadFems.
I see where the acronym has taken on meaning as a derogatory term, so has the word gay (i.e. that is so gay (stupid)), amongst others such as "sick"there is nothing one can do about changes in the popular language. Trans(woman) Exclusionary Radical Feminist is an accurate description of those radical feminists who exclude transwomen. TERF is simply an acronym. TERFs who resent the acronym have the option and ability cease and desist from their behavior. Oldperson ( talk) 00:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
generally reliable fornote this!
Internet culture.It also states,
Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.It is obviously not at all scholarly, so it does not. As Aircorn also notes, the Canadian interview of 6 people actually reached different conclusions than the claim being made. And no, it is not necessary to find sources that use "majority" unless that is being claimed, which it is not. Either claim is problematic, because "feminist" is vague - is it referring to everyone who identifies as feminist in a survey, to feminist organizations, internet activists, or what. And crucially, the source would need to be not specific to just one country, since the claim being made is a general one that applies everywhere.
Now that the "radical" bugbear has been dispatched, can we achieve consensus on "minority of feminists" and remove the godforsaken "disputed"? No sources have been presented that dispute that the term concerns a minority of feminists, so we shouldn't be implying that a non-existent dispute actually exists. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
As Stryker and Bettcher note, anti-trans forms of feminism may have only ever truthfully described a minority, however loudly and destructively that minority may broadcast itself.. Is this right Aquillion. It seems a reasonable source, ( submission policies) what do others think? AIRcorn (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
However, it seems like we are trying desperately to say minority to the extent that we are pulling and twisting the sources just so we can qualify it.Agreed. There are really no good sources to back up this claim but there's a big push to get it in the article anyway. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I've removed this tag for a few procedural reasons: it's not clear how it's actionable (the content certainly has been discussed, and is reliably sourced); it refers to content which is present and sourced in the body (so the tag should go there or both instances of the material should be removed); tag-bombing isn't the way to express that you disagree with an idea; and it's not clear what the reasoning means ("TERF is not a subset" of what? And "[TERF is not] a term that is used to describe people who are not TERFs" is a definitional tautology, not a semantically meaningful phrase). — Bilorv ( talk) 21:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Newimpartial, this restored text is problematic in a number of ways IMO.
Firstly, and most simply, it is clumsily and ambiguously phrased. If TERF is the word used to describe "a minority of feminists who espouse sentiments that other feminists consider transphobic", what word is used for the majority who espouse such sentiments?
Secondly, and probably most importantly, it is inherently PoV to ennumerate how prevalent such beliefs are at the beginning of, and as part of the definition. What purpose - apart from implying marginality - could such an inclusion serve in such a place? "Atheists are a minority of people who ...", "Protestants are a minority of christians who ..." and, most appositely in the current context "Transsexuals are a very small minority of people who ...". Even if assertions about how numerous atheists/protestants or transsexuals - or any other human group - could be 100% reliably sourced, including how numerous they were in their definition would be PoV. Therefore, even if sourcing is 100% RS, assertions about how numerous "TERF"s are need to be meaningfully seperated from who they are, and what they believe. This is normal in articles, especially ones about beliefs and ideas.
Thirdly, currently there is a real ambiguity in this article as to whether it is about the term, or the set of beliefs and people who are the target of the term. If the article is about the term, there is neither need nor benefit in quantifying how numerous such views could be. We don't quantify how many people are considered snowflakes - there would be no point in quantifying something which is inherently unquantifiable, ie how many people could legitimately end up as targets of a subjective, and largely abusive term. I realise that this encroaches on the "is it a slur?" question, but even if it is not technically a slur, it is certainly the case that "TERF" is not used by any of those targetted by the word. Thus, the term is somewhat akin to "heretic" or "infidel", ie defining people, not according to their self-descriptions of what they believe, but according to how their ideological opponents have characterised those beliefs. In a sense, it is a pity that this article has been written, rather than one about gender-critical radical feminists, or some other term which those espousing such views would actually use. Apart from being inherently more balanced, such an article might be able to say somewhere in it how numerous such persons are.
Lastly what does "minority of feminists" actually mean - and how well is it sourced? If I were to assert "A minority of atheists believe XYZ", is it reasonable to assume that I have conducted research on a randomised sample of those people - worldwide - who self-describe as atheists before making this claim? Or is the truth much closer to, "well I'm an atheist blogger in country X and practically all the other bloggers in country X agree with me?" I really don't see how anyone could possibly make this claim for feminists worldwide (which is what WPVOICE implies), and even on a country-specific basis, the claim could only be at best a vague impression of those "public feminists" - ie bloggers, journalists and academics - who had actually made public pronouncements on the matter. I haven't seen any sources which pronounced on how prevalent these views are with any plausible authority, such is the extent of partisanship in many of the sources used.
If sources are intrinsically partisan, the opinions expressed should be attributed, and if they are inherently locale-specific, the countries which they are speaking about should be named.
So, IMO, the claim that TERFs are "a minority", fails WP:NPOV, (certainly as currently phrased), fails WP:V, and frankly isn't a claim worth making, since the targets of the term would still be called TERFs, regardless of how few or numerous they were deemed to be by those who disagreed with them. Pincrete ( talk) 17:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
There, the most vocal trans-exclusionary voices are, ostensibly, “feminist” ones, and anti-trans lobbying is a mainstream activity.. Contrasted with
In America, however, TERFism today is a scattered community in its death throes. Considering it is a opinion piece (I don't know how much of an expert she is, most of the stuff I can find about her is in regards to surrogacy) it is only really useful if attributed and then even it is not strong enough to say minority unless you divide it on geographical grounds. [4]
famous lesbian sitebeing taken over by
anti-trans ‘feminists’other Lesbian publications released a statement in support of trans women. It doesn't obviously cover all feminism and I am not even sure it is strong enough even say a minority of lesbians, but it is definitely useful.
Feminism is about inclusivity and empowering women – all women – which is why TERF ideology is so at odds with most forms of feminism. A clickbait site, a lot of the top content seems to be about mocking people. Thi is a very poor source and should probably not be used. [5]
TERFs are a small minority within feminism, and they are shrinking as gender is becoming more commonly accepted as a spectrum, rather than two distinct categories.Probably the best source which specifically mentions minority. The site seems to more cover memes, streaming and other internet culture. We do get TERF bangs again though. [7]
we have high-quality academic sources that explicitly observe that trans-inclusion is the majority position among feminist organizations in the United States and in Canada.Well where are they? I have watched this area on and off for over a year now and in all my time here (editing some pretty knarly topics) I have never seen such a lack of high quality academic sources (or academic sources in general). It doesn't seem to stop editors from stating with absolute certainty their view is the correct one though. Why are we citing indy 100, persona blogs, youtube, and a bunch of opinion pieces if we have these high-quality sources out there? One high quality source is worth more than any number of poor or average ones. Also this is not the American wikipedia, so we can't use something that may be true in America and extrapolate it to include the whole world.
Also, contra Aircorn, it is not necessary that the reliable sources include "minority" as part of the definition of TERFYes it is. This is the whole point of writing an encyclopaedia. We use the sources and say what the sources say; taking into account reliability, due weight, and how much attribution is needed. If we say it is the minority in wikivoice, then we need some very good sources to say it is the minority. Our own feelings and opinions on the topic matter not at all.
The trans-inclusive majority is documented here, here, here, here and here - all of which are currently cited in this article or Feminist views on transgender topics - as well as this article, this one and this book - even this UK source - all seem quite clear on where the feminist majority resides.
And no, it isn't necessary for sources to include "minority" in the definition of TERF for it to be relevant to the lede here. It is quite sufficient for the majority to be Verifiable, and for it to be relevant to the origin and use of the term. It is a matter of reliably sourced evidence and weight - when all of the most important organizations and the majority of all organizations are trans-inclusive, as is already documented in both articles with RS, then the majority is established and is relevant context. To insist pedantically on regurgitating only the definitions certain sources provide is a violation of NOTDICT and ENC policies at the same time. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Feminism in Canada as embodied by national feminist organizations, still has a long way to go towards clearly stating that the ‘women’ that it speaks for may include transgender and transsexual women; however, it seems that given the responses of the interview participants there is much potential for the realization of trans-inclusion in national Canadian feminist organizations so long as they can overcome the challenges posed by generational divides, theoretical challenges, funding, and indulgence in debate rather than meaningfully moving forward.AIRcorn (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Thus, the general consensus amongst interview participants was that trans-inclusion at the organizational level should not be a major issue at all. One participant simply said of transgender individuals that “…if they self identify [as women] and I’m able to reach them with my emails, my call outs, then they’re included [in the constituency of my organization].” As such, she stated that general inclusion simply should not be of concern at the national, organizational level, but rather should work at an individual level, enabling those women who self identify as women to be included and organizations to facilitate their inclusion as necessary and appropriate.The recognition in the conclusion that "there was still a long way to go" in 2007 should not be read as undermining the two key points identified on pages 7 and 8: theat there was a generational divide within their organizations about the inclusion of trans women as women, and that the way thus was being resolved was to include trans women in the basis of self-identification going forward. It is clear from these interviews that the majority was already trans-inclusionary back in 2007, and this has only developed since that time (e.g., Quebec's largest and most visible feminist organization is now led by a trans woman). Newimpartial ( talk) 10:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.AIRcorn (talk) 07:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Very little of the debate in the UK has taken place within feminist organizations, I've no idea whether what you say is true about US+Can, but do know that "the Pope says", does not = "most christians think", ditto any 'belief' organisation, even the most doctrinaire and authoritarian. As said, it's pure SYNTH to imply that the two are synonymous. I think it probable, given the breadth of US sources, that the "trans inclusive" position enjoys greater sympathy among the left than the "TERF" alternative. That does nothing to alter the fact that no source says this explicitly - even regarding US - and no precedent justifies putting 'minority' in 'pole' position in the definition. I unapologeticly admit that I am inexpert in both 'trans' and feminist matters, I understand NPOV though. Pincrete ( talk) 13:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
one cohort of feminists who self-identify as radical). Another source uses "sections of the left". Maybe we can take a closer look at how the best sources put this. Haukur ( talk) 21:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The currently-protected version has the following line of text in the lead:
There's a few style errors in it that should be uncontroversial to fix - the italics are too broad (they should just be for the term being defined), and there's a space between the refs. The fixed version should therefore be:
This request doesn't imply anything about whether or not that line should stay (which might require a bit more discussion), just that the clear style errors should at least be fixed as soon as possible so they're not left visible for the full duration of the page's protection. Note that there has also been some discussion of reverting the page entirely to before that edit, here; obviously such fixes shouldn't interfere with that if that's what happens. But I thought I ought to open this request just to be sure that these errors are fixed quickly either way; I imagine the more controversial discussion of which version to protect or whether the line stays at all might take a bit longer. -- Aquillion ( talk) 08:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Though contested, the term [TERF] has since become an established part of contemporary feminist speech., which I would be surprised if the editor meant to remove. Regardless of whether the change to the lead is kept, the technical fixes to the body should be re-implemented (and, IMO, the one body sentence should be restored). As for what appears to have been the only actually intended change, I think its stated goal (of explaining the meaning of the newly introduced term) could be accomplished in better ways, including by simply changing the period before "Some identify..." to a semicolon. -sche ( talk) 09:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Vasquez 2014
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
If Oldperson fails to engage the article talk page (doing in so in a civil and collegial way), I will revert the protected page to the other version.Oldperson has not done so in all the time they have been arguing over this since 31 December (as seen in a discussion above), nor has he done so now. Based on the concerns raised above, I hope El_C will consider reverting Oldperson's edit.
Regarding this removal and restoration: I note that the RSN thread referred to had a grand total of four (4) participants, including the OP and one person whose sole contribution was to ask whether TSQ was peer-reviewed or not. Only one of the other editors opined that the source was not reliable, at a time when they also thought the source journal was not peer-reviewed; one other editor opined that we should perhaps attribute the statement rather than presenting it in wikivoice. "Consensus" to remove the source this is plainly not. I would, however, think that if MFF indeed attributes the statement we're discussing to TSQ, we might look directly at what TSQ says and, if TSQ indeed supports the statement, add TSQ as a source, potentially replacing MFF if MFF indeed does no more than say TSQ said it. (In turn, while the suggestion of name-checking the sources of the information in the prose could work if the source under discussion were the only source for the information, it is not.) -sche ( talk) 05:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
It <TERF> was used to describe a minority of feminists, because the only supportive text in the MFF piece explicitly attributes the viewpoint to Stryker & Bettcher in TSQ. This is not dependent on the peer reviewed nature of either MFF or TSQ. The MFF source should be removed and replaced by the TSQ source. Additionally, Stryker & Bettcher's piece in TSQ is the Introduction to that issue, not peer reviewed, which includes only the following as supportive text
Rather than cede the label feminist to a minority of feminists who hold a particular set of negative opinions about trans people, and rather than reducing all transgender engagement with feminism to the strategy embraced by some trans people of vigorously challenging certain forms of antitransgender feminist speech, we should instead demonstrate the range and complexity of trans/feminist relationships.This is background prose explaining the intent of that TSQ issue; not a work of scholarly study. It should be attributed. Or, other sources should be found. - Ryk72 talk 05:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Forgive me for my ignorance, but why is this term italicized? Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 11:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
This article used to be much worse (favoring the side saying TERF isn't a slur) and it's good that it's improving but there's still lots of bollocks. Example: TransAdvocate is not a reliable source. Cristan Williams also created the website theterfs.com which to me is honestly reminiscent of "Zionism" conspiracy theories. (Apparently there's a powerful group of radical feminists who control the United Nations. Would be a good joke if they didn't mean it seriously!) If TransAdvocate is to be considered a reliable source, so should for instance Feminist Current and Meghan Murphy which represents the polar opposite viewpoint but I don't see her being cited at all. In fact I would say Feminist Current has much better journalistic standards but that's just my opinion. What's a fact is that TransAdvocate/Cristan Williams are at least as biased as FeministCurrent/Meghan Murphy.
Also "the view, predominant in feminist organizations, that trans women are women" is not supported by any unbiased sources. It's just trying to make that perspective seem like the "normal" one. The whole article still reads like it was written by people who are on the side of transgender activists who can't take feminist criticism and try really really hard to be objective but ultimately fail at it. Words like "espousing sentiments that other feminists consider transphobic" set a biased tone. (Instead of just saying, you know, "expressing views" or something that's both simpler and sounds much less accusatory than "espousing sentiments".) Another example: "The people at whom the word TERF is directed often characterize it as..." why say "characterize it as" instead of simply "see it as." Because when you say "characterize" you imply that they're wrong, simple as that.
To those who care: PLEASE improve the page further. I would try but I don't have the nerves to be called a bigot for supporting women's rights and remain calm about it. DungaroosAreCool ( talk) 17:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
the view ... that transwomen are womenis
predominant in feminist organizations, as established through many sources. This is a factual statement, not a biased one. And in my view, the word "characterized" is used in
people at whom the word TERF is directed often characterize it as a slurnot because it implies that they are wrong (it doesn't) but because what we know about the situation is what the recipients of the term say, but not what they "see" or how they "feel".
Should this self-published source, a prepublication draft paper, be used? Here is a diff showing how it is being used. -Crossroads- ( talk) 00:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.The authors' peculiar definition of slur has zero uptake or endorsement in published reliable sources. We as editors should not cherry pick self-published opinions and use them to counter published sources. The POV of the source is already represented in the article by better sources anyway. Using this source constitutes undue weight.
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.This is not a free pass for inclusion, however. Note 3 things: (1) It says such a source may be reliable; however, a source being reliable does not mean the source's opinion is due. It is not, because again, this definition is unique to a single preprint. (2) WP:SPS then immediately says in a note,
Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.Claiming to have the one true definition of "slur" is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, one
that [is] contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, because, again, this definition exists nowhere else. (3) After the note, WP:SPS states, as quoted above,
if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.All this together weighs against inclusion of this material.
In this paper, we argue for a particular view of slurswhich they refer to as
our theory. The whole paper is clear that this definition is original to it. The paper is not published and has not had time for others to endorse it, and it has no cites on Google Scholar aside from one of the authors. Therefore, any other definition of slur anywhere contradicts the one in the paper. This includes dictionary definitions. This is supported further by what Ryk72 quoted below where the theory is referred to as controversial. As for me supposedly contradicting myself, you're reading too much into my phrasing. The point is that this definition of slur has no endorsement from anyone else, and the prevailing view of the academic community does not include the features it introduces by the authors' own admission. -Crossroads- ( talk) 04:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources...; WP:V
Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form".A draft paper, still in flux, and currently undergoing revision, is not, for mine, "published". Additionally, as this viewpoint runs contrary to dictionary definitions, I share Crossroads concern as to how DUE inclusion is. I note that
In relation to the test for slurhood, the most interesting (and perhaps most controversial) claim the authors put forward is that, at least prototypically, slurs are those expressions that target groups which stand in a position of subordination (according to flawed ideologies implemented within society)(emphasis mine) - Ryk72 talk 01:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC) - clarified - Ryk72 talk 06:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC) - add - Ryk72 talk 09:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Ryk72's position that the authors' claim is "controversial" runs afoul of NOTDICT. No, I don't think it does. The "position" is also held by Cepollaro & Zeman in their editorial introduction.
If followed to its logical conclusion, would lead to WP providing journalistic over academic sources, a very UNENC position to maintain regardless of their intentions. No, this is not a logical extension. And certainly
WP providing (sic; preferring?) journalistic over academic sourcesis not a position I have ever espoused. Reductio ad absurdum is very close to strawmanning. - Ryk72 talk 22:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
the conceptualisation of "slur" developed by the authors ... <should or> should not be considered as reliable as a dictionary for purposes of an encyclopedia; they don't discuss encyclopaedias at all as far as I can see, and I've made no representation that they did. They do, however, consider that the conceptualisation of "slur" developed by the authors is, at least in part, controversial; and, I would suggest, intimate that it is novel. This is in the quote included in my !vote. I suggest only that we should consider how a novel, controversial, possibly minority, viewpoint aligns with DUE. That may mean not including it; it may mean attributing the viewpoint; it may mean that we find alternative, possibly more mainstream, viewpoints to include alongside it. Which text from NOTDICT is apropos? - Ryk72 talk 02:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
As with any subject, articles on words must contain encyclopedic information. That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry ... and include information on the social or historical significance of the term.Restricting the use of the best available specialized analysis of the significance of a term, because the analysis might be somewhat novel and might disagree with dictionary definitions, seems to be to run against both the spirit and the letter of NOTDICT. And it is not as though this WP particle has given any UNDUE WEIGHT to the unpublished scholarly article; we already have many sources (of generally lesser quality) offering an opposing view. Newimpartial ( talk) 04:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
what would be found in a dictionary entryor that this article should not
include information on the social or historical significance of the term, TERF. I do say that if this source provides a novel, controversial, likely heterodox or minority viewpoint, then it's use should reflect that (per DUE, YESPOV, etc); and that a novel, controversial, likely heterodox or minority viewpoint may not be
the best available specialized analysis of the significance of <the> term. Note that doesn't mean that I suggest the the source shouldn't be used at all; once published. - Ryk72 talk 06:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Crossroads constantly defends the inclusion of non-expert commentary in various articles...while advocating the exclusion of actual academic workand
in this article...Pyxis Solitary and Crossroads have constantly defended the shoehorning in of op-ed content that suits their POV while advocating the exclusion of actual RS expertise with which they disagreeare unsourced, utterly false, and are nothing more than psychological projection. I only ever fought for Andrew Sullivan commentary one time to provide balance to material about how gay men need to be attracted to trans men, and this was after Newimpartial was fighting tooth and nail to keep multiple opinion pieces pushing that, and ridiculously claimed that these pieces were actually "ethnomethodology". -Crossroads- ( talk) 22:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
The editor removing the material appears to believe that ethnomethodology is not a "real" methodology, and after I stated that these were opinion pieces, you said,
In particular, autobiographical or ethnomethodological primary sources have exactly the same status as original scientific studies. Diffs: [9] [10] And here is the ridiculous POV content that I had rightly removed and which you were clearly calling "ethnomethodology". -Crossroads- ( talk) 02:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Given the actual state of sourcing on this topic and in this article, in which Pyxis Solitary ... have constantly defended the shoehorning in of op-ed content that suits their POV while advocating the exclusion of actual RS expertise with which they disagree...." What a foolish, last-resort statement. I have made a total of 10 edits to this article. Find them. Post the diffs. And then let's see precisely what POV you've claimed I have "shoehorned" into it. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 04:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
{{
ping}}
)
czar
09:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)The draft paper that is the subject of the above RFC has been published. Could someone with the appropriate institutional access please get the quotes to cite it properly? (I'd go ahead and do it anyway if a major issue raised in the RfC wasn't possible changes during peer review.) Loki ( talk) 06:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
— Bilorv ( talk) 17:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
The introduction says: "It was originally applied to a minority of feminists espousing sentiments that other feminists consider transphobic" but the sources cited at the end of the paragraph are both highly biased opinion pieces. Second wave feminism was rife with criticism of the transgender movement and I'm not aware of any reliable source confirming the belief that criticism of the transgender movement was considered transphobic by a majority of feminists at any point in time. It could even be argued that the trend of calling some feminists "TERF" was started by a vocal minority and only recently became mainstream. Here's an opinion piece claiming exactly that, i.e. that "TERF" was originally a buzzword used in some corners of the internet: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2017/09/what-terf-how-internet-buzzword-became-mainstream-slur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:C70:52C0:6551:71DC:1462:55B7 ( talk) 18:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"Phrases like "Kill a TERF!" or "Punch a TERF!" are also posted by trolls online and there have been other depictions of violence aimed at TERFs." Two comments on this: firstly it's not just posted by trolls online, it was actually painted on the windows of Vancouver Rape Relief by real-life vandals, it was worn on a t-shirt by a transgender activist during a Pride March, it was posted online by a thug who later physically assaulted a woman and was charged with a crime. All three of those cases of the word "TERF" entering the meatspace can be verified. Secondly, the sentence uses "TERFs" to objectively refer to people in Wikipedia's tone even though the whole article should make it clear that calling someone a "TERF" in Wikipedia's tone is not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:C70:52C0:6551:71DC:1462:55B7 ( talk) 18:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)