Talk:Anti-gender movement

entire article is not neutral

Opposition to gender ideology is obviously not confined to some sort of right-wing fringe. According to Pew Research, as of 2021, 60 percent of Americans believe sex is not "assigned at birth" and this percentage has been growing for several years. The gender ideology is the anomaly, not the opposition. 68.131.47.147 (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Correction, 2022 is the year. 68.131.47.147 (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

If you have a concrete suggestion for an edit to the article, please propose it. Or, if you have confirmed that it would not violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, simply make the edit. Please note also that this page is not a forum for discussion of anti-transgender movements or sentiments in general, discussion here should be narrowly focused on improving the article. Srey Sros^talk 19:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@SreySros why is it called anti gender movement? There is no one calling themselves anti gender. Anti gender idealogy makes more sense. Youhavetodobetter (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

i agree. blurb on "TERFS" is basically just about how they're fascists. Not neutral. 205.168.122.98 (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This only applies to the US, however. ChillyDude153198 (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree with OP here. The entire article is essentially a refutation of those who criticize the LGBT movement and is entirely one-sided. Need more perspectives here. DivineReality (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Getting rid of the mildly pejorative phrase, "right-winger" and the polemic, "far right" to connote adherents would be a good start. I consider neutral right-wing populists, conservatives. As opposition to gender ideology among Christians is not limited to "fundamentalists", remove "fundamentalists" as the head of the phrase and describe the Christian opposition with "some Christians". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.205.225.132 (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

This page isn’t a debate among different Wikipedia editors about what words *we* think the article should use; it's a discussion among editors about how to best represent the prevailing opinion among reliable, secondary sources, regardless of our own views. If you have some backing from such sources for your wording suggestions, please present them, otherwise please kindly refrain from giving your own opinions about what the article should say. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot grand so. Can you give a source that shows any of these groups saying they are part of an "anti gender movement"?

All I see are a handful of articles written by biased groups using the phrase in an effort to denigrate any and all differing opinion. Youhavetodobetter (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I can only reiterate what Mathglot has already said. We go by the prevailing opinion(s) among reliable, secondary sources, regardless of our own views. You may think that they are biased but that isn't our concern. DanielRigal (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@DanielRigal so why are there no mentions of polls in the article? Why is the whole article slanted in one direction? You don't think any sort of pushback exists outside of right wing and far right politics? Youhavetodobetter (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, you are asking questions that have already been answered. If you can find reliable coverage of the polls then they can be included. If you can't then that's not our concern. Feel free to make a suggestion for an addition with reliable sources to back it up but please don't kvetch vaguely about bias. That violates WP:NOTFORUM and gets nobody anywhere. DanielRigal (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@DanielRigal didn't post. Blocked? Youhavetodobetter (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you are not blocked. DanielRigal (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/americans-complex-views-on-gender-identity-and-transgender-issues/

There is a lot of nuance in any subject like this. BUt the articles acknowledge this.

UK views are pretty much in line with the US.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2019/12/06/94fe8/3 Nothappycamping (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Some secondary coverage would be good, and I'm not sure that the specific passports question is worth including, but that's a good start. What text do you suggest we can add which is supported by that Pew source? DanielRigal (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/rising-share-americans-say-gender-determined-birth-assigned-sex-poll-f-rcna35560

In the opening "The anti-gender movement is an international movement which opposes what it refers to as "gender ideology", "gender theory" or "genderism". The concepts cover a variety of issues and have no coherent definition".

Can we get proof that there is actually a joint international movement and not just different people all over the world that are not united in anyway other than that they sometimes agree on some of laws that are aimed at trans.

If the polls show that the majority of UK citizens are not 100% behind laws that put trans women in the same bracket as women and same for trans men and men then it cannot possibly be some sort of right wing/christian conspiracry. The numbers just arent there to support it. It has to be clearly defined in the lead that many people from all walks of life are not on board. Nothappycamping (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, is that where you were going with this. Sorry. I thought you were serious for a moment. DanielRigal (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe if you could stop minimizing genuine concerns from other editors, this article can get somewhere. It is clear that this is a contentious topic; there is no need to riducle what @Nothappycamping wrote above. Zilch-nada (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The article needs to be based on reliable sources that verifiably mention the topic. People who post here to complain about the article generally don't bring any so whatever changes they think should be made, cannot be. (t · c) buidhe 14:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe but the topic only exists on one side of the debate. The groups or the people who are accused of being members of the "anti gender movement" never use the phrase.

Why does an article called "gender critical" not exist? It seems that's used a lot more extensively than "anti gender movement". Nothappycamping (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of "gender ideology", "anti-gender movement", or equivalent expressions in the articles about the polls, so I don't think they are verifiably connected to the topic of this article. (t · c) buidhe 00:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

But no one uses that phrase. ITs not a thing only in a small section of academia. Its not a real world phrase. This is ridiculous.

Can you show me any "right wing group" using the phrase "anti gender movement". If not then how can you connect them to this? Nothappycamping (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. You're right. There might be a place for the polls in another article but not here. DanielRigal (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest that the article does not read as neutral due to issues with the secondary sources already present in the article. Specifically, I question whether they are reliable (or, in the alternative, reliably summarized).

For example, the phrase "all that conservative Catholics despise" appears twice in the article from Anti-Gender Campaigns in Europe: Mobilizing Against Equality. This is a rather empty signifier itself (Catholicism is a global movement whose adherents differ radically in belief, plus the meaning of conservative varies dramatically by nation. The intersection of these already vague terms is especially suspect). The phrase does not communicate anything unless the reader is bringing to the table some sort of dogmatic, monolithic view of conservative Catholicism. The phrase certainly does not provide any clarity to the reader. If anything, it reads more like it's appealing to anti-Catholic sentiment. And I say this as someone with no ties whatsoever to Catholicism.

The problems may be, in part, inaccurate summations of these sources. Paragraph 3 in the introduction cites the aforementioned source, but says the source claims the anti-gender movement is based in Catholic theology. However, Anti-Gender Campaigns in Europe: Mobilizing Against Equality Wikipedia page indicates the book studies the anti-gender movement both in regions where the Catholic Church is and is not influential (considering, for example, Eastern Orthodox influence). I doubt the source supports the current statement in this article that "The movement derives from Catholic theology" (to be frank, the notion that the entire anti-gender movement is specifically Catholic in origin is bizarre, esp. since this article already notes distinctly non-Catholic actors like TERFs).

I examined these two statements just because they stuck out to me. I didn't check any more, but when three out of three statements had reliability issues, that's not great. My sense of things is that if I continued doing so, I would find more such problems throughout the article. I had started writing up a few more, but this comment is already lengthy. In any case, the sources already present in the article and the way they are summarized by the article need serious reexamination. Jakovnewman (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Am I reading this correctly that you haven't actually read the sources you are complaining about? Is that correct?

The quote about conservative Catholics is not from the source you mention but from an entirely different source. That quote is clearly attributed as a direct quote from a Agnieszka Graff. The cited source is freely available online. Graff explains what is meant by conservative Catholics, by, for example, placing "gender ideology" in a lineage with John Paul II's "culture of death" among other things. That some Catholics differ with the Vatican on some issues is mostly irrelevant to Graff's point.

As for the 'Anti-Gender Campaigns in Europe' source, it doesn't appear to have a Wikipedia page, so I have no idea what your comments are referring to. If you have some reason beyond your own WP:OR to say the source isn't reliable, you should present it, but I would recommend actually reading the source, first. For example, that source says in its first paragraph: These campaigns, started in the mid-1990s as a Catholic project in reaction to the results of the UN conferences of Cairo and Bejing, but developed significantly in several European countries after crucial encounters with right-wing populism. (emphasis added, ISBN 978-1-78660-001-1) Nothing about this contradicts the notion that Eastern Orthodox activists and TERFs also adopted this rhetoric. Grayfell (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

(Anti-Gender Campaigns in Europe does have a Wikipedia page.) LightNightLights ^(talk) 06:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree with OP here and therefore I think an NPOV tag is relevant until this is fixed. DivineReality (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

OP didn't include any concrete suggestions, and the article doesn't include any content on sex assignment. If we don't have concrete suggestions, we shouldn't keep the tag. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Article has too much of a Western/Eurocentric bias

Article seems to attribute a lot of it to Catholicism while noting that the origins are debated in the follow up lines. This movement is listed as international when it appears to be far more complex that that.

I did appreciate how it was listed as by "other Christians, Confucians, Hindus, Jews, and Muslims". Most of the literature cited is Western academic too. Ideas like this have existed for far longer. —9e.g. Janice Raymond). Edit: Never mind, I see this movement is seperate from Gender-critical feminism, however I do see this as an extension of the same movement.RJX74 (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)