Talk:Gender-critical feminism

Drastic changes to lede

@PBZE you have made drastic, non-consensus and WP:POV changes to the lede of a contentious topic article that are not an improvement, are badly written, and don't reflect what cited WP:RS say, please self-revert and bring it to talk. Void if removed (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I looked over both versions. PBZE’s is just, terribly written. Void, yours removes longstanding consensus agreed upon information supported overwhelmingly by the article in favor of “Gender critical feminists simply believe that biological sex is what matters” which is incredibly reductive, POV, and not reflective of the article. Snokalok (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It’d be like if the article on an anti-immigrant group just said “Protect Evropa is a movement that believes in the preservation of traditional European values and ideals.” Instead of “Protect Evropa is a group known for opposing allowing emigration to the EU for people of color, stating that it believes in the preservation of traditional European values and ideals”

Anyway, I’ve reverted that paragraph to the last version that everyone had consensus on. Snokalok (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Snokalok. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with Snokalok. The current version of the lead is good, PBZE's version was very awkwardly worded, and Void's version unacceptably cut significant amounts of sourced content in ways that violated WP:NPOV. Loki (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand why my choice to put the titles in the middle of the lead sentence instead of the beginning was not well-received. Other than that specific change, would it be alright to put back my other changes to the first paragraph? They include:

• Removing the mention of the term "gender ideology" from the lead sentence. The term has only been widely used in TERF discourse for about a decade, but the lead sentence is supposed to have a historical perspective as well as a modern one. I instead put the term in another sentence with more context.
• Merging the sentence "They reject the concept of transgender identities" into the first sentence, which already describes what the movement opposes.
• Replacing "opposes the concept of" with just "opposes". The former is clunky, vague, and unnecessarily philosophical and abstract, while the latter is more direct, concise, and to the point. Gender-critical feminist ideology is not limited to opinions about concepts.

PBZE (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The term "gender ideology" has been the central boogeyman concept of this movement for years, so it should be included in the first sentence. The first sentence or paragraph should serve as the most succinct summary of the article. For comparison, consider Donald Trump: the first sentence mentions that he served as president, and this point is expanded upon later in the lead. Similarly, while we discuss when and in what context "gender ideology" became a term in this movement later in the lead, it needs to be mentioned at the beginning due to its current importance in framing their actions as opposition to "gender ideology."

I'm ok with merging the sentence "They reject the concept of transgender identities" into the first sentence, and changing "opposes the concept of" to "opposes". --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m not clear what is intended by any change to ‘opposes the concept of ‘ .Which wording is it proposed to change? It would be helpful if the whole proposed draft would be provided. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The term "gender ideology" has been the central boogeyman concept of this movement for years

This is refuted by gender-critical feminist WP:RS, which a) acknowledge the use of the term by "anti-gender" actors and b) make explicit reference to more precise alternatives such as "gender identity ideology". Void if removed (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Re: “Gender Ideology”

TERFism is a much more widespread and influential ideology than it was in the 70s. Back then it was the view of a few niche radfem communities. Now we have major political parties and governments all throughout the first world centering their entire platforms on its tenets. I’d argue that that gives recent ideas and points more weight on the subject. To invoke Godwin’s Law - no one cares about what Nazi ideology looked like in the 20s, they care about what it looked like in the 30s and 40s.

Re: “The concept of”

Saying they “oppose gender identities” implies they recognize they exist, they just think they shouldn’t. Terfism opposes the very recognition of gender identity as something that exists, thus “oppose the concept” is better. Snokalok (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Re ‘gender ideology’: I don’t recognise your description of the political situation in the first world.

Re ‘the concept of’: unfortunately, I am still in the dark as to what exact changes you are proposing for the lead.

Sweet6970 (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh I think the paragraph before this dispute was perfectly fine as it was, I’m arguing against changing it.

And Re: Gender Ideology, have you been reading the British news? Snokalok (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Terf ideology is far more widespread and influential in the world now than historically, and thus it makes sense for the article on it to give more weight and pagespace to the modern day. Snokalok (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

...which is a reaction to transgenderism being far more widespread and influential in the world. It's true that in the '70s the specific strain of radical feminism focusing on opposing transgenderism was a minor fringe movement, but that is because transgenderism itself was a minor fringe movement; the vast majority of the world went about its business without caring about the issue one way or the other. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Not a forum, this isn’t relevant to the lede. Snokalok (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

TERFs may not really represent the thoughts of most women?

There's a poll from the UK showing that the majority of women are actually more friendly to transwomen:

https://novaramedia.com/2021/06/08/terfs-dont-speak-for-women-but-dont-take-it-from-me-look-at-the-polls/

In other words, TERFs may not be representative of what most women think about transwomen.

Should we add this to the article? 2001:B011:4002:3D22:79E1:BE04:8FA0:A48D (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this source. However, the source is about general attitudes to transgender people in the UK, and does not mention gender-critical feminism, which is the subject of this article. So I do not think it can be used for any amendment to this article. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

We need to avoid original synthesis. We can't stitch together a connection from survey results showing different opinions from those of the GCs to a statement about the GC movement itself if the survey didn't ask about the GC movement. Surveys about opinions on trans people are on topic for other articles, although we would not want to place too much emphasis on any one survey. What we would need for inclusion here is for a Reliable Source to make the connection themselves explicitly. For example, if an RS were to say something like "The GC movement has struggled to gain broad support among women due to most not sharing the GCs' views about trans people" and were to then talk about some survey results then we would have something. DanielRigal (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Globalize template

Do we really need the Globalize template? If there are examples of TERF ideology in non-western countries (I suspect they would be quite marginal), feel free to add it, but a huge globalize template seems unncessary. TERFism is mainly a thing in western countries (like radical feminism). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

My impression is that most of the non-English speaking world frames their anti-trans stuff as either explicitly religious or as the Anti-gender movement, which is theoretically secular. It seems to be mostly an English speaking thing to conflate it with feminism. Of course, if there is more to say about other countries doing that then people are free to add it but only when it claims roots in feminism. The global article that the templater seems to be requesting already exists at Anti-gender movement, and we do already link to that at the very top of this article, so I'm not sure what more we can do to draw people's attention to it. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, transphobia has become prominent in South Korean feminism, especially among the younger generation, with much of its rhetoric borrowed from TERFism in the US and UK. This article barely covered that at all until I added the bare minimum of information about it a day ago (and what I did add is a small fraction of what information is available in reliable sources, particularly non-English ones). There is also some interesting literature on TERFism in Japan (and other countries) that isn't included in this article at all.

As it stands I think this article is very Anglophone- and especially UK-centric.

I suspect that even the very title of this article showcases a regional bias. I doubt that the controversy over whether or not "TERF" is offensive is nearly as prominent outside of the UK and other Anglophone countries. PBZE (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe the template is too distracting given the potential for improvement it suggests. Editors are free to add material on South Korea and other countries even without the template, but I don't really believe TERFism – i.e. a specific form of transphobia masquerading as radical "feminism" – is a global phenomenon. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that TERFism isn't global. I've found an abundance of sources describing TERFism outside of the Anglosphere. There are also some reliable sources that describe TERFism as a global movement:

This special issue, then, proceeds from the assumption that trans-exclusionary and gender-critical feminisms are feminisms and thus demand careful historicization, analysis, and contextualization as a recent (but not in any way new) formation of feminism that has gained terrifying traction on a global scale over the last fifty or so years.

— Bassi, Serena; LaFleur, Greta (2022). "Introduction: TERFs, Gender-Critical Movements, and Postfascist Feminisms". Transgender Studies Quarterly. 9 (3): 311–333. doi:10.1215/23289252-9836008. S2CID 253052875.

I see your point about the template being too distracting. As a compromise, I put an expand template in the "By country" section instead. PBZE (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's a much better solution. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

We also can use this source to describe the support of a number of TERF groups in Russia for Russia's militaristic policies. Reprarina (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it, it’s a strongly held belief in third world feminist movements. Like it’s not *the* issue, more than anything it’s kind of an irrelevant topic in the face of tackling FGM and forced marriage and such. But like, when it does come up, the widely held opinion is generally terf. Snokalok (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Kind of busts the claim that such views are "fringe". *Dan T.* (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

"Fringe" is not synonymous with "unpopular". It means lacking the support of reliable sources. Snokalok's understanding of popular opinion in non-Western countries, to the extent that it is accurate, may be relevant in determining the notability of this topic in non-Western contexts, but it is not relevant in calculating due weight. For the record, little to none of the non-Western scholarship I've come across so far supports views associated with TERFism. PBZE (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Little to none of scholarship supports the views associated with any "insert social/political group here". Editors are throwing the WP:FRINGE link around in the wrong article and in a misunderstanding about a guideline focused on science and other evidence-based beliefs (did man land on the moon?). What people think about LGBTQ topics or what people think their God is or what people think is the best way to fund healthcare or how best to persuade people towards net-zero and so on are not topics subject to that guideline. Citing that guideline here is wikilawyering. I don't really care, for the purpose of writing this article, if GCF is a UK thing any more than that the Baptist Union of Scotland is a Scottish thing ignored and dismissed by the world of academic theology. We are here to document their beliefs and, when notable, the beliefs of others towards them. We are not here, folks, to debate who is right. -- 07:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC) Colin°^Talk 07:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Citing that guideline here is wikilawyering.

Not really. The reason it keeps getting cited on this talk page is to discuss issues regarding this article's current or hypothetical content being compliant with WP:NPOV and WP:DUEWEIGHT. A dispute about Wikipedia's most fundamental content policies is hardly wikilawyering. If anything, objecting that WP:FRINGE is a guideline focused on science and other evidence-based beliefs is wikilawyering, because regardless of the precise meaning of a particular Wikipedia jargon, the policy that's of most relevance in these discussions, WP:NPOV, applies to all topics covered on Wikipedia, not just the hard or empirical sciences. On Wikipedia, everything is evidence-based, the evidence being reliable sources. PBZE (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy if people want to cite core policies. But WP:FRINGE gets cited in order to eliminate sources written by people who share GCF beliefs, by editors who have repeatedly compared GCF to white supremacists. Which doesn't bear comparison with reality, which is far far closer to my analogy of being in a small church that very few people, globally, belong to. There are lots of people in such small churches with beliefs that would upset many editors here. If you want to discuss whether GCF has weight within other feminism articles, the number of followers and the impact of their writing among scholarly journals is important. But if you are here to write an encyclopaedic article on GCF, it really really is not. The issue is WP:NOTHERE and WP:NOTFORUM and abusing this page. -- Colin°^Talk 07:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Colin Excuse me for potentially butting in & potentially missing something, but may I ask how this refutes @PBZE's point?

My reading of your statement is that GC feminists are comparable to members of a small church, rather then to white supremacists, however:

1. Though yes, some church goers may hold beliefs that others find unsavory, I would think that, if anything, that would reinforce the idea that the idea is fringe.
2. While in isolation, people have the right to believe what they want, that doesn't mean all beliefs are socially equal. If someone's fringe beliefs include belittling or excluding others for their identity, especially if they purport to be backed by science, then yes, their claims will & should be under heavier scrutiny.

Apologies again if I'm missing something basic here, but I had been reading your statement several times & was still seemingly lost, so I just felt the need to ask for a clarification. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it the point of this article to argue GCF is held equally to other forms of feminism or other beliefs about society in general? I would say no, not any more than it is for our article on a Scottish denomination to argue that the Baptist Union of Scotland has worked out "how to do church" better than any other church or "how to support local community" better than any other social organisation. They exist, they have followers, and as an encyclopaedia it is our job to accurately describe them and their beliefs.

Would you expect authors of the Baptist Union of Scotland article to insist that we cannot and must not cite any sources written by said Scottish baptists, citing WP:FRINGE to argue that their actual beliefs as written about by actual Scottish baptists are so globally negligible, that instead we must write about them by citing American neoliberals or some other more popular group? Or that only atheist sources are permissible?

PBZE argues that '"Fringe" is not synonymous with "unpopular". It means lacking the support of reliable sources.' This completely misunderstands the point of this article (unless one considers the point of this article is to have a talk page where activists can rant on about how much they hate GCFs) and what reliable means. What are said sources meant to be "reliable" about? This is key. I would argue all that matters is that the source is reliable about GCF history, who their adherents are, and what they believe and have claimed and so on. And we would write about these things as things GCF believe and have claimed, not as things Wikipedia believe is Right or we think are valid arguments or are widely held. We require our "reliable sources" to have a reputation for "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". We don't judge sources on whether the beliefs of the writer are Correct, according to editors here.

Beliefs like the ones described in this article are not subject to fact checking or evidence. They aren't at all like flat earth or perpetual motion machine or nanobots inside covid vaccines or whatever. While some people view such things in black and white and right and wrong terms, as though they are laws of physics, that's not really how our social beliefs actually work.

In terms of WP:DUE for example, our article on woman writes about trans women as a subset of women who have "a female gender identity that does not align with their male sex assignment at birth". A GCF would argue that those paragraphs don't even belong in the woman article but instead in the man article. But our various policies on this do not give that idea sufficient weight in those articles to even be worth mentioning. In contrast, in this article we have a whole section and several paragraphs explaining that the biological sex definition of woman as "adult human female" is the one held by GCF, and that definition has no place for people born with a willy. We don't say that definition is right (and nor do we say it is wrong). That is now WP:DUE works and how WP:NPOV works. -- Colin°^Talk 09:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

So, with recent additions there is now a paragraph on Russia, and three on South Korea.

Not one of these relies on sources which use the phrase "gender critical". The Russian section presents in wikivoice the opinion of one non-notable researcher.

This page continues to be a WP:COATRACK for tenuous additions, with no attempt to describe a coherent ideological framework for the interested reader.

Neither of these sections are WP:DUE, but belong, at best, in Feminist views on transgender topics. Void if removed (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

So, with recent additions there is now a paragraph on Russia, and three on South Korea.
Not one of these relies on sources which use the phrase "gender critical".

Neither of these sections are WP:DUE, but belong, at best, in Feminist views on transgender topics.

One of the sources ([1]) mentions several prominent British gender-critical activists such as Maya Forstater and J.K. Rowling. At least three of them ([2][3][4]), when discussing "TERFs", cite sources which themselves use the phrase "gender critical" and which are used in this article. The sources obviously use "TERF" as a synonym of "gender-critical feminism", and shouldn't be disqualified just because they use the most common term in academia instead of the other term. TERF movements in Russia and South Korea are different, but not disconnected, from "gender-critical feminism" in the UK.

The Russian section presents in wikivoice the opinion of one non-notable researcher.

You're conflating our notability policies with our sourcing policies. Sources don't have to be notable, they have to be reliable. I agree that the sourcing in the Russia section is lacking, which makes sense, because the section was created today. It's a problem solved by adding more sources and coverage, thereby reducing our Anglophone bias.

This page continues to be a WP:COATRACK for tenuous additions, with no attempt to describe a coherent ideological framework for the interested reader.

We aren't obligated to "describe a coherent ideological framework" throughout the article. We only need to do so where the sources do. If sources don't describe gender-critical feminism as having "a coherent ideological framework", then neither should we when we use those sources. We need to describe gender-critical feminism as the sources do. PBZE (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Void isn't conflating notability with sourcing. They are saying that if our source is merely a person's opinion, and needs stated as such, then who's opinion it is matters and how prestigious the publication matters. I found the Korean sources hard to read and it wasn't at all clear just how many TERFs they were claiming exist in S Korea. Much of the article had to mention other countries. The Russian source is very clearly an opinion piece published in a "forum" section and I have no idea why it warrants a whole section/paragraph and rambling comments about the war in Ukraine. So there are people in Russia that support the war against Ukraine. Well, there's a surprise. Oh and some of them are TERFs. Let's write something about how TERFs support Russia in the war against Ukraine then. This is terrible logic.

WP:WEIGHT is determined by reliable sources. Opinion pieces don't actually count as a reliable source other than for the author's own opinion, which then needs to be somewhat notable (I'm not referring to our notability policy). I think at present, I would agree with Void that these sections are the result of someone spending too much time one evening on Google, trying to find something bad about a topic they hate. Yes it is hard to get an international outlook, but that doesn't mean the quality on those areas should be at scraping the barrel levels. -- Colin°^Talk 22:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Russian TERFs also inform Russian law enforcement agencies about those people with male documents who do not join the army. (in Russian). Yes, real followers of the canonical old feminism, the suffragism (more precisely, the right wing of suffragism), with white feathers and racism. Reprarina (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

A source of unknown veracity, constructed largely from anonymous Russian social media posts, because its not like Russia is known for the spread of full-spectrum disinformation on social media. Hardly compelling. Void if removed (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not suggest using this source in the article. Reprarina (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Well then sounds like WP:NOTFORUM. This section in our article isn't at an encyclopaedic level. Wikipedia is just retweeting opinion pieces by people who hate the same things we hate. That's not how the article should be written. I suggest these pieces have no weight for inclusion of random opinions. -- Colin°^Talk 09:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Those are not opinion pieces. They merely have opinions, which does not disqualify them from being reliable sources.

The statements in wikivoice were statements of fact published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. One source is indeed listed in a "forum" section, which, in the context of that journal, means "off topic", not "Internet forum" or "opinion". PBZE (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

If sources don't describe gender-critical feminism as having "a coherent ideological framework"

Sources do describe a coherent ideological framework, which this article obfuscates, relying as it does on a wide range of incoherent and contradictory critical sources, instead of neutrally appraising the subject. What's there is a total mess. Putting more international mess on top of a mess isn't helping.

Gender-critical feminist sources are very consistent about what they believe. Critics, however - as I've shown many times here - are all over the map. Critics seem to believe they are right wing and far right and racist and white supremacist and biological essentialist, both for thinking that sex and gender are the same and for thinking that sex and gender are different.

This is all a result of the twin failings of a) wrongly dismissing genuinely high quality sources by the subject of this article as WP:FRINGE and downplaying or ignoring them, in favour of b) relying heavily on hyperbolic and opinionated opposing academic sources to conflate the insult "TERF" with "gender-critical feminism" and thus bring in even more incredibly tenuous sources and specious allegations. Frankly, this article goes to such lengths to avoid being "gender-critical feminist" WP:ADVOCACY it has gone the other way. Void if removed (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree and I don't think this helps our readers understand what GCF is. If people want to read rants about hateful TERFs are, there's a whole internet. -- Colin°^Talk 09:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that those academic sources that harshly criticize TERFs are the ones who most accurately describe their actions and views... Reprarina (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

It may be that the actions and views they describe are correct, but I don't know and we don't have any way to check. I don't think for a moment these "academic" sources have any journalistic fact checking capability to go interview the accused and check they really said or did what is claimed. It's just a Daily Mail opinion column printed on nicer paper and with some fancy words. Don't know how this meets "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" vs "a place for random feminists to post things" that is only a RS for what that particular feminist thinks. But the thing they seem to get wrong, repeatedly, is grouping any anti-trans female into the TERF bucket which editors here then group into the GCF bucket. I don't think that works or is helpful to any side. And then recently we get silliness of adding in "pro Russian invasion of Ukraine" as a GCF belief. Perhaps some GCFs hang their toilet paper the wrong way round, and we should mention that too. Colin°^Talk 13:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the latest two opinions on Russia and Korea. We need more than just an opinion piece in each case to establish there is anything worth including on Wikipedia. Random people don't magically become notable and worth citing just because you like what they say. WEIGHT for a paragraph of text really needs multiple sources when as non-obvious as this. Also the guff about supporting the Ukraine war is just plain embarrassing. Colin°^Talk 18:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Don't confuse facts and opinions. The fact that the Womenation group supported the invasion of Ukraine is a fact noted in the academic literature and therefore significant for Wikipedia. More significant than the facts reported by the conservative British press. Russia and Korea should remain in the article, albeit with little cited sources, because the article is about a global phenomenon and should not focus on the UK. Reprarina (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think for a moment these "academic" sources have any journalistic fact checking capability to go interview the accused and check they really said or did what is claimed. It's just a Daily Mail opinion column printed on nicer paper and with some fancy words.

These assertions directly contradict WP:SCHOLARSHIP, part of the reliable sources guideline which is backed by longstanding, community-wide consensus.

Anyways, I've added those sections back, because they were just created, cite reliable sources (which are not opinion pieces), and have potential to be expanded with more reliable sources. The United States section, which has existed for far longer, has fewer sources. PBZE (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Wrt Reprarina, I'll take your word for it about the fact that a group of people in Russia (or at least some members of that group) supported the invasion of Ukraine. But given that Reactions to the Russian invasion of Ukraine says 74% of Russians support this war, my question is why on earth is that support worth singling out this group about? I assume one could make the case that Russian football players support the war in Ukraine. Russian chefs. Russian maths teachers. Are you going to go to our articles on teaching maths in secondary schools and add the "global" information that in Russia the maths teachers support the war in Ukraine. The war in Ukraine is nothing to do with Gender Critical Feminism. This is madness.

Of course is the audience for this "academic" paper is people who want another reason to hate TERFs. It so so so awful that I don't really know why you think it helps your case. Anyone sensible reading that will facepalm and think well if that's the level of "throwing random shit at a subject I hate" that's gone into this page, why read any of the rest of it. If you fill this article with "100 reasons TERFs are awful people" and in fact only 4 or 5 are really important, then all those other 95 reasons you found by Google will only weakens things. People will see 95 pathetic reasons and forget there might be a few really important ones.

Wrt PBZE, you haven't demonstrated WP:WEIGHT, which is core policy, so ask you please to self revert until you have established a weight of sources (plural) think these matters worth reporting, or consider the author themselves so weighty on the issue of Russian/Korean TERFs that every utterance is worth repeating here. That your sources are reliable for their author's opinions is merely a necessary and very insufficient condition for including them.

That the issue really is a global phenomenon seems to be regularly disputed on this page by people saying its is a British fringe movement. So which is it? Would you stick "global phenomenon" in the lead? We all would like articles to have global considerations but it is a common failing in many topics and the lack of good sources in many countries is not a reason to exempt the issue from our core policies. We don't fill our articles with random musings about Russian and Korean TERFs just to fill this aim. That aim is very very secondary to our core policies. Colin°^Talk 13:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

But given that Reactions to the Russian invasion of Ukraine says 74% of Russians support this war, my question is why on earth is that support worth singling out this group about? Because Russian TERFs supported the invasion unlike Russian intersectional feminists who found the anti-war organization Feminist Anti-War Resistance. Reprarina (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

And by "TERFs" what you mean is the radical feminist website Womenation, which this opinionated source calls "TERFs" and "SWERFs". These are not coherent ideologies, this is simply using derogatory epithets.

Per this source:

Characteristic examples are provided by two standalone feminist websites: Ravnopravka.Ru created in 2011 by the Moscow Feminist Group, an intersectional feminist collective, and Womenation.Org, a radical feminist website that sprung up from an eponymous collective blog on Livejournal in 2013. Both websites published foundational texts in Russian translation alongside original Russian texts. The lists of foreign authors partly overlap: for instance, both platforms have published translations of Virginia Woolf, Gloria Steinem, and Marylin Frye. Womenation also features prominently authors like Betty Friedan, Andrea Dworkin, and Sheila Jeffreys. Ravnopravka, on the other hand, prefers Adrienne Rich, Angela Davis, and Audre Lorde.

Or this source:

Social media is also helping new feminisms emerge through collective blogs such as Russia’s feministki or womenation, Za Feminizm (http://www.zafeminizm.ru/) and the Moscow Feminism Group (http://ravnopravka.ru) and Ukraine’s feminism-ua. These and other informal virtual discussion groups have created a new forum for issues of gender equality as well as engaging in new causes that were rarely discussed earlier, such as LGBTQ politics, intersectionality, restrictions on abortion, legalization of prostitution, in and out-migration, polygamy, body-image and the media’s representation of women and girls. It is undeniable that women’s and feminist organizing have substantially contributed to the paths of political, economic and cultural developments in the territory that the Russian Empire and the Soviet ruled until 1992. The deep historical scars of past dictatorial systems continue to produce erratic political and economic developments, profoundly mediating the emergence and influence of women’s groups and feminist activism.

And according to this they are no longer in operation:

the team of the community womenation, which has now stopped their activity

And the website is now a landing page.

And the quote is on an anonymous social media account.

So what this is is a non-notable author sounding off about a defunct radical feminist group blog which has an anti-pornography stance the author disagrees with, based on an anonymous russian social media account.

This is not WP:DUE for an article on "gender-critical feminism", and I wholly support the removal of this content. Void if removed (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

It's your opinion. And I think that this is a normal academic author, writing in the same vein as highly cited authors. And I will stand in this position. It is better to exclude those sources that contradict highly cited academic sources. Reprarina (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources do describe a coherent ideological framework, which this article obfuscates, relying as it does on a wide range of incoherent and contradictory critical sources, instead of neutrally appraising the subject. What's there is a total mess. Putting more international mess on top of a mess isn't helping.

Yes, I'm aware that Holly Lawford Smith et al. have attempted to articulate a coherent ideological framework for gender-critical feminism in their writings. We do, in fact, describe their writings in this article. The point is that when other sources don't mention their writings, or criticize them, we aren't obligated to contort our coverage to fit within those writings. Hence, we aren't obligated to "describe a coherent ideological framework" throughout this article, except for where the relevant sources do, and with due weight.

Gender-critical feminist sources are very consistent about what they believe. Critics, however - as I've shown many times here - are all over the map. Critics seem to believe they are right wing and far right and racist and white supremacist and biological essentialist, both for thinking that sex and gender are the same and for thinking that sex and gender are different.

These "critics" make up a vast majority of the academic scholarship covering this topic, and therefore must be given the corresponding due weight. Your personal opinions aren't policy-based objections.

This is all a result of the twin failings of a) wrongly dismissing genuinely high quality sources by the subject of this article as WP:FRINGE and downplaying or ignoring them, in favour of b) relying heavily on hyperbolic and opinionated opposing academic sources to conflate the insult "TERF" with "gender-critical feminism" and thus bring in even more incredibly tenuous sources and specious allegations. Frankly, this article goes to such lengths to avoid being "gender-critical feminist" WP:ADVOCACY it has gone the other way.

Please enlighten us as to which reliable sources by the subject of this article aren't currently being used in this article, in such a quantity that they should shift the balance of perspectives that this article currently has under WP:DUE.

If you truly believe this article needs so much rewriting from the ground up, I kindly suggest that you create a draft in your userspace, where it's not disruptive to remove or replace large amounts of sourced material. Then you can try to get consensus here that your version is an improvement. PBZE (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

These "critics" make up a vast majority of the academic scholarship covering this topic

No, they make up a big chunk of the academic scholarship of different topics (trans studies, gender studies), which are inherently antagonistic to this one. Due for criticism, but not for defining the subject. The first five citations backing up the opening sentence are like this, and there's no justification for it when better sources exist. The way the lede is structured and cited is like citing Jordan Peterson on Marxism and having the first sentence of the lede be something like "Marxism is a failed ideology that wrongly believed the proletariat was good and the bourgeoisie was evil". Void if removed (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that DUE needs here to be nuanced into what sources are good and reliable for defining GCF and what sources are good and reliable for expressing the wider opinions of it/them within feminism and more generally still. -- Colin°^Talk 13:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

the academic scholarship of different topics (trans studies, gender studies)

These "different topics" you mention happen to be incredibly varied, including not only trans studies and gender studies, but also (from the article's reference list) women's studies, philosophy, sociology, communications studies, criminology, law, Korean studies, etc., and various intersections of these fields.

Nowhere does the WP:NPOV policy say that a group of reliable sources collectively hold a lesser weight if they belong to the same "topic". This is a ridiculously high standard, especially because gender studies itself is an incredibly broad, interdisciplinary field. I kindly ask you to not smear such a wide range of academic scholarship.

If we were to apply this standard consistently, the sources by gender-critical feminists would all occupy one very niche, non-reputable "field", if one can even call it that.

No, they make up a big chunk of the academic scholarship of different topics (trans studies, gender studies), which are inherently antagonistic to this one. Due for criticism, but not for defining the subject. The first five citations backing up the opening sentence are like this, and there's no justification for it when better sources exist.

Nowhere does the WP:NPOV policy say that different sets of sources, just because they are opposed to each other, must be given equal weight. It explicitly rejects this argument in WP:BALANCE.

The sources need to be equal in prominence. Again, please enlighten us as to which reliable sources by the subject of this article aren't currently being used in this article, in such a quantity that they should shift the balance of perspectives that this article currently has under WP:DUE. PBZE (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I support Colin’s edit of 18:49 17 July 2024, which deletes material which is obviously UNDUE. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Favaro - Let us be free from 'academentia'

A recent publication from Laura Favaro - currently mentioned in this page for taking UCL to a tribunal over the cancellation of her research - writing about that cancelled research: https://revpubli.unileon.es/ojs/index.php/cuestionesdegenero/article/view/8259/6813

For the avoidance of doubt: the political subject of feminism is women (and girls), understood as a sex class, and the aim is to liberate them from patriarchal systems, which are considered to be partly rooted in men’s interest in controlling their reproductive capacities. Therefore, feminism, a centuries-old movement, recognises that sex is a biological reality that matters in certain contexts, while striving to abolish the socially constructed mechanism that functions to naturalise, enforce and perpetuate the subordination of female people to male people, that is, gender (or what before the 1970s was referred to as sex roles and stereotypes, among other terms).

On the other hand, genderism is a much more recent—queer theory-inflected—movement that is sex-critical and pro-gender. Its political subject encompasses all those (who feel) subjected to gender oppression: a phrase that is redefined to mean lack of individual choice and external affirmation relating to a person’s “gender identity”. This is a term that came to replace “psychological sex”

A few years later, another seminal text in queer theory, Gender Trouble, proposed that the “construct called ‘sex’” might be “as culturally constructed as gender”, which would therefore mean that there is “no distinction at all” between the two (Butler, 1990: 7). Another key feminist concept, that of patriarchy, was also challenged, as was “the notion of a generally shared conception of ‘women’”, which Butler (1990: 4) lamented was proving “much more difficult to displace”.

The gradual suffocation of feminism in academia was reflected in the shift from women’s studies to gender studies, which institutions valued as “less feminist, more respectable and less threatening” as well as “more inclusive” (Jackson, 2016).

Not sure how much of this might be usable, but its another source for the "gender-critical feminists say sex and gender are distinct, Butler says they are the same" narrative, and that the dispute from their POV is about the shift in academia to gender studies as a focus, and away from sex-based feminist analysis.

Opposing camps here both claim to be "real feminists", and that the "other side" aren't feminists. Void if removed (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a paper that uncritically cites that particular BBC article and an article from spiked for evidence. It also uncritically uses the term trans identifying males, and believes that queer theory will lead to encouragement of pedophillia. I think the only thing we can use this for is to cite how far Favaro is in the fringe. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, how dare she use terminology that reflects her beliefs instead of yours, and choose to listen to sources you dislike? That proves she's fringe! *Dan T.* (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

How does your comment aim to improve the article page?

I'd also say that these sources aren't simply ones I dislike but widely criticised sources (one has its own Wikipedia page because it was that notably bad). LunaHasArrived (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"We're being pressured into sex by some trans women" The article page in question for clarity sakes. LunaHasArrived (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying this source might be useful for some kind of history or development of GCF beliefs? It may be if you think they are an accurate and fair description of how they came about and aren't just a primary source for the author's own wild ideas. Would any of that history/development be disputed by other GCF or other feminists? I think if the author is relying on poor sources for certain arguments, as Luna points out, we can't regard them as reliable on those areas and it does raise questions about their reliability more generally.

Luna, that the author believes the wrong things or uses the wrong language isn't relevant wrt whether they are a reliable source on what GCF believe or how GCF came about. Nor can we actually use an author's own writings to "to cite how far Favaro is in the fringe". We need secondary sources for that. -- Colin°^Talk 09:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes your right, we can't use this to show that Favaro is fringe on the actual wiki page. I also agree that due to the nature of the source that without other sources agreeing we probably shouldn't use anything from here. Honestly void where would you actually want to use this source in the article and what would you want to cite it for. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Not especially, it isn't an authoritative source - I just note in passing that it is just more corroboration for the perspective laid out in "Sex and Gender" and "Gender Critical Feminism" and others that GCFs consider themselves feminists of a fairly classical sort, adhering to a pretty bog-standard sex-based class analysis (sex is material and gender is socially constructed), and that they consider themselves in conflict with a largely post-90s shift away from women's studies in academia to gender studies, typified by Butler (sex and gender are the same socially constructed continuum).

However we have a section on academic freedom that mentions Favaro, and her (cancelled) research consisted of interviews with academics across all sides, so there's some potentially useful tidbits referenced here. Eg.

It points to the exodus of female academics with feminist views from gender studies due to persecution, for self-preservation or to escape “scholarship that is Thought Police”, as one interviewee put it. It brings to mind those who claim to hold middle ground positions feeling “anxious”, “depressed”, “frightened”, “alienated”, and in a state of scholarly paralysis. One senior scholar in psychology with views she described as “in the middle” compared the environment that genderists have created at universities to authoritarian regimes and their policing of thought and speech. Evoking this, one sociologist said: “are there things that I could write? Yes. Do I think that they could make a difference, that they could offer something? Yes. Will I write about it? No”. She went on to declare: “I’m too scared. I’m too scared”. Even speaking freely in a research interview that would later be anonymised was a cause for concern. “Because when you say certain words”, I was told, “you’re on a slippery slope to TERFdom”

I wonder if its worth adding a sentence or two to that section based on this, expanding on that particular aspect. Void if removed (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I think your phrasing "that they consider themselves" is key and helps avoid problems with having to decide who's version of events wrt history and shifts is correct.

I'm not sure what tidbits you want to extract here. We already, as you say, have two paragraphs on Favaro and her research interviewing academics and her being cancelled. I don't think WEIGHT would allow us to select her own cherry picked quotes from her own research. While you say they interviewed all sides, these are all quotes that conveniently align with the case she wants to make. Nobody is quoted about how relieved they are that so-and-so left, or that they roll their eyes every time someone blames the academic "Thought Police" while reading Telegraph articles about how some Tory MP wants to ban gender ideology from schools, etc. It seems, like so many things on all sides of this war, to be research designed to be eagerly quoted and credulously repeated by one side, and mocked as hopelessly biased and written with All The Wrong Words by the other side. Would be better to have more independent secondary sources on this, and alas if such are lacking then there is a limit to what we can say. -- Colin°^Talk 10:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

All fair points. TBH, I'm mostly disappointed that we likely won't get any quantitive research out of this now. Void if removed (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

A footnote there (footnote 25 on p. 668) gives some commentary on the term "TERF", which has been under much debate in this talk page:

The acronym TERF stands for “trans-exclusionary radical feminist”. The term is widely rejected by those to whom it refers, namely feminists, notwithstanding some recent defiant appropriations in grassroots activism and online (where there is merchandise on offer with messages such as “TERF is the new punk” or “TERFology: Believe in reality”). First, it fails as a descriptor. The feminist movement includes all women, regardless of their identifications (as “transgender men” or any other label). Furthermore, those that TERF purports to describe represent a range of perspectives, not only those of radical feminism. Second, it is “a word that has come to signify a modern witch [...] imposed on women to shut them up, bully them, condemn them, smear them, humiliate them, and dismiss them. But more than that: it is a threat” (Murphy, 2017). The term is often used alongside threats of and calls for violence, including death and rape. See, for example, the website “documenting the abuse, harassment and misogyny of transgender identity politics”: https://terfisaslur.com[02/05/2024].

*Dan T.* (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

We have a separate page on TERF (acronym). If you believe this adds anything whatsoever, do so there. LunaHasArrived (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Addition of ‘Transgender rights’ sidebar

@Raladic: You have added a ‘Transgender rights’ sidebar to this article, as if the article is about transgender rights. It is not – this article is about a variety of feminism. Why have you done this? Sweet6970 (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Really? I don't object to a discussion as to whether the sidebar is appropriate but this question, posed in this way, is so silly as that, were it not posed by an established user, I would have removed it as likely trolling. I'm sure that that was not the intention so maybe you would like to have another go at stating an objection to the sidebar?

I'll make some comments in the meantime.

1. The relationship of the Gender Critical movement to feminism is highly contested. Consensus exists that there is some connection but not much more is agreed than that. Some people in the movement are feminists but many are not and some are mortified by the mere suggestion that they might be. Clearly this is not just "about a variety of feminism" even if about a variety of feminism at all.
2. The sidebar is "Transgender topics" not "Transgender rights", although both terms would seem equally applicable.
3. This absolutely is an article about Transgender issues. It is a core subject of the article from start to finish. (I would argue that it is the core subject but it is not necessary to prove that to justify the sidebar.)
4. The sidebar includes a link to this article demonstrating it to be within its remit. I see that there has been some edit warring over that but the discussion seems to be in favour of its inclusion.
5. The sidebar (Template:Transgender sidebar) is frickin huge and crowds the top of the article. Template:Transgender topics, which we already have, has exactly the same content and might be sufficient.

As I see it the sidebar (or equivalent) is justified, possibly even required, and the real discussion is which template to use for the best reader experience. At the moment we have both. I don't think we need both. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

to DanielRigal: I am puzzled by your suggestion that my simple question looks like trolling. To me, a troll is a figure from Norse mythology. (I don’t participate in social media of any kind.) So I looked it up on the internet, and found for ‘trolling’:make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them. I don’t understand how anyone could interpret my question like that: saying that gender-critical feminism is a form of feminism is a banal statement of fact. I don’t want an ‘angry response’ from anyone – I want a sensible discussion. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how seriously to take that comment but, whether or not it was intended as bait, I do not feel that is it necessary for us to get into that. Let's drop this part of the discussion and let the rest of it, which is actually on-topic about the sidebar(s) play out below. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd wager that's because GC feminism is, according to RS, defined entirely by its antagonistic relationship to transgender rights. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a variety of feminism that is also called "trans-exclusionary radical feminism". Do you still have an objection or does that satisfy you? Loki (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Have to agree, yet again writing this article from the perspective of nearly exclusively antagonistic sources creates this situation.

It seems not to matter how many RS say it is about sex, and there are plenty.

There's no reason not to have a feminism side bar, both is overkill, last time this resulted in a back and forth and ultimately back to neither because it was simpler. Void if removed (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I fixed the size issues with the transgender sidebar, and added both that and the feminism sidebar to the article. I hope that makes everyone happy. Lots of articles have two sidebars, including "feminist views on transgender topics". And other articles about topics that are related to feminism, but have a questionable adherence to the values of feminism, include the feminism sidebar, such as "anti-abortion feminism", "imperial feminism", "eugenic feminism", and "white feminism". PBZE (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

This ideology is entirely focused on transgender issues, so the transgender sidebar is the most relevant sidebar. No established branch of feminism considers TERF ideology to be feminism, even if its name includes the word "feminism," so it's not really considered "a variety of feminism" but rather as a specific form of transphobia entirely focused on antagonism towards transgender people rather than any feminist issues. The feminism sidebar is quite distracting and not really related to the content of the article, as far as the other content of the sidebar is concerned. The purpose of a sidebar is to provide links to related articles, not to be a stamp certifying that this is feminism. There is simply no connection whatsoever between women's suffrage or any of the other topics covered by the sidebar and this far-right anti-trans ideology. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This subject is related to feminism, to some degree, although it is disputed how much. This article is one of the links included in the Feminism sidebar. I think that the best argument against the sidebar is that it is duplicative of the template at the bottom of the article which has exactly the same links on it. Clearly feminism is not the primary topic area here, so the sidebar would have to be placed below the Transgender topics one, which absolutely is the main topic area that this article falls into. Having two large sidebars is not forbidden and some other articles have both. Nonetheless, it does seem unnecessary given that it would take up a fair amount of space and we already have the same links at the bottom. I guess my line is that I don't object to the Feminism sidebar so long as it is not placed above the Transgender topics one but also that I don't see any strong need for it. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Sidenote - the article wasn't previously linked in the feminism sidebar, this was something that @PBZE had just added while this discussion here is happening.

The main arguments against only the bottom navbox is WP:NAV - Do not rely solely on navboxes for links to articles highly relevant to a particular article., so sidebar for a topic such as this, which is highly relevant to the wider transgender article space is important. Raladic (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

No. I changed the link text while fixing the wrapping behavior. The link to the article was there before that edit. PBZE (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah my bad, sorry.

In any case, the argument for why the trans side bar should stay still stands though as the main topic sidebar. Raladic (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

If it were down to one sidebar, I would agree. But I don't really understand why we're limited to one, since plenty of other articles have two sidebars. Of course, if space is that much of a concern, I'm okay with removing it. But if we do find it reasonable to have two sidebars, I think the feminism sidebar is perfectly fitting. Many reliable sources describe gender-critical feminism as not a standalone, isolated phenomenon, but part of a larger story of exclusionary feminist movements, and conflicts over who really gets to be included in feminism, the boundaries of womanhood, and intersectionality. Many relevant articles on similar or related topics are displayed in the sidebar, such as white feminism and intersectionality. PBZE (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Holly Lawford’s book gender-critical feminism has 10 chapters, of which only one (Ch 5 ‘Trans/Gender’) is about g-c feminism’s relationship to trans attitudes. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to the book that:

• says Many perceive it as being focused on a single issue, namely the social uptake of gender identity. ... The fact that it currently gives the bulk of its attention to a single issue is explained by the urgency of that issue p 13
• Argues trans/gender (Chapter 5) as being central to gender-critical feminist concerns p 15
• And uses some variation of "trans"/"transition"/"transgender"/etc over 500 times?

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

There is simply no connection whatsoever between women's suffrage or any of the other topics covered by the sidebar and this far-right anti-trans ideology.

I don't think this line of thinking is particularly accurate or does much good. There is a long history of exclusionary and discriminatory currents within feminism; for example, the early women's suffrage movements have a history of racism. There are several reliable sources which describe TERFism not as disconnected from feminism, but as a continuation or evolution of its exclusionary and discriminatory aspects.

This raises the question of whether groups such as WoLF might properly be considered ‘radical feminist’ (and hence, ‘TERF’) organisations at all. However, it is important to acknowledge that such organisations do explicitly draw on the language of women’s liberation, and effectively represent the legacy of radical feminist writers such as Raymond (1979) and Jeffreys (1997). Feminists – and especially radical feminists – must contend with this: hence the creation of the ‘TERF’ acronym in the first place. In this work, we therefore seek to focus specifically on trans-exclusionary ideology and action that is associated with feminisms, rather than attempting to draw a boundary around what does or does not ‘count’ as a feminist intervention.
The TERF wars, then, are best understood as a series of complex discursive and ideological battles within (rather than against) feminism. Feminist histories and debates over language are central to this contested landscape. So too are notions of ‘truth’ and ‘neutrality’, which are invoked alongside trans-exclusionary feminist discourses to undermine trans activism and research.
— TERF wars: An introduction

Ultimately, we argue that, in our specific moment, eschewing celebratory narratives of feminism as an incontrovertible political good—as we urgently rethink the boundaries between what we normally imagine as “feminist” and “anti-feminist” movements—is a conditio sine qua non for any kind of antifascist trans feminist political and critical intervention.
— Introduction: TERFs, Gender-Critical Movements, and Postfascist Feminisms

Transgender issues, sex work, and the importance of marginalized perspectives were the most polarizing issues across studies, highlighting that feminists are more divided on the issue of who feminism should fight for, than what feminism should fight for. These studies show the heterogeneity of feminist ideologies and the continued barriers to a truly inclusive and intersectional feminist movement.
...
As outlined above, feminism is not a unified ideology. Feminist discourse tends to disagree about who feminism is for, including who counts as a woman, which women’s choices should be fully supported, and who can or cannot be a feminist. Many different, sometimes oppositional, feminist ideologies have been identified in the academic literature.
— Sex Wars and TERF Wars: The Divisiveness of Who is Included in Feminism

PBZE (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)