The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The topic of this article is the ideology or movement known variously in reliable sources as gender-critical feminism (including abbreviated forms such as "GC", "GC feminism") or trans-exclusionary radical feminism (including abbreviated forms such as "TERF ideology", "TERFism" and similar expressions). The two main titles are equivalent. The article was split off from the article Feminist views on transgender topics where the corresponding section is titled "Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism."
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
Sharpe, Alex (May 2020). "Will Gender Self‐Declaration Undermine Women's Rights and Lead to an Increase in Harms?". The Modern Law Review. 83 (3): 539–557. doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12507. S2CID214079382.
Williams, Cristan (2021). "TERFs". The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies.
Varieties of TERFness, special issue of the Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies, 2023
Da Costa, Jade Crimson Rose (24 August 2021). "Chapter 27: The "New" White Feminism: Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminism and the Problem of Biological Determinism in Western Feminist Theory". In Brunton, James; Carter, Kristi (eds.). TransNarratives: Scholarly and Creative Works on Transgender Experience. Toronto: Women's Press. pp. 317–334. ISBN9780889616226.
Lee, Bora; Kim, Hee-jin (2020-02-21). 가장 보통의 사람]불안이란 이름의 ‘혐오’…트랜스젠더 배제한 ‘터프’ 해부하다 [“Hate” in the Name of Anxiety … Dissecting “TERF” That Excludes Transgender People]. 경향신문 (in Korean). Retrieved 2024-06-28.
Kim, Jinsook (December 2021). "The Resurgence and Popularization of Feminism in South Korea: Key Issues and Challenges for Contemporary Feminist Activism". Korea Journal. 61 (4): 75–101. doi:10.25024/kj.2021.61.4.75.
Lee, Hyun-Jae (December 2020). "A Critical Study of Identity Politics Based on the Category 'Biological Woman' in the Digital Era: How Young Korean Women Became Transgender Exclusive Radical Feminists". Journal of Asian Sociology. 49 (4): 425–448. doi:10.21588/dns.2020.49.4.003.
Lifu, Guo (2024-01-29). "Medals and conspiracies: Chinese and Japanese online trans-exclusionary discourses during the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games". Beyond Diversity. düsseldorf university press. pp. 117–134. doi:10.1515/9783110767995-010. ISBN978-3-11-076799-5. Retrieved 2024-06-29.
Kawasaka, Kazuyoshi (2023). "Chapter 8: Queers and National Anxiety: Discourses on Gender and Sexuality from Anti-Gender Backlash Movements in Japan since the 2000s". Global Perspectives on Anti-Feminism: Far-Right and Religious Attacks on Equality and Diversity. Edinburgh University Press. pp. 182–201. ISBN9781399505390. JSTOR10.3366/jj.7358671.14.
One of the ways gender-critical feminism is described as is vaginism, due to its undue obsession of vaginas. Can this fact be included in the article? Antivaginist (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of this weird phrase. If there is a contingency of notable GCs who are organising under that term then maybe it could be mentioned but if it is just one or two non-notable people, or its only been going for a few days, or if it is just somebody trolling, then let's not waste our time on it. GC terminology changes on a pretty regular basis anyway and we don't need to keep track of track the more transient/peripheral details, just the main claims and slogans. DanielRigal (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thread retitled from "NPOV is a super important rule, and I don't think it is operating too well here".
Even if TERFs are assholes -- sure sounds like it -- that should have absolutely zero influence when we write. We want readers to walk away from any article with no clue about what Wikipedia itself thinks about the subject. I did not walk away with that impression. There's too much material on criticism. It's quite clear to me, reading the article, that the Wikipedia doesn't much like these people. It should not be at all clear.
People coming to any article want to know about the entity. People coming to an article about entity X want to know "What is entity X? Is it a political/cultural movement, or just people writing books and articles? What's it history? When did it start? Is it defunct? Were there precursors? Who are some of the main thinkers and leaders in it? Do they have a political party, and if so do they run candidates, and if so how do they fare? How many adherents? Is it a fringe thing?" Lots of other things like that. Of course criticism should be included, but it should be a distinctly secondary subject.
I get that a lot of editors don't like TERFs, and with good reason I guess, but editors who feel strongly about a fraught subject and can't or don't want to be ice-cold even-handed about it should work on other subjects, not to be harsh but it is what it is. If you can be ice-cold even-handed, that's different. (For instance, I detest Jim Jordan, but I took out a bunch of over-emphasis of attacks on him, because of course how I feel about any entity has nothing to do with my work here. Be like me.)
We don't want to see, let's say, an Israeli chauvinists writing about the Gaza war unless they can put aside any bias. Right? Look at Bolshevism, which is hated by many millions of people. There's plenty to criticize, and it helps put the entity in perspective, and it's important to include, but it's under 10% of the article. "Under 10%" seems like a good goal for any article, granted that might not apply here.
Generally, criticism is not intertwined a whole lot into our exposition on the subject, but rather put in a separate section towards the end called "Criticism" or something. That's not happening here.
I haven't looked at the article too closely, but just because someone thinks there's too much material on criticism does not mean the article itself is biased. Neutrality on Wikipedia means reflecting as fairly as possible the predominant views of published, reliable sources. If coverage in reliable sources happens to be unfavorable to the subject, then the article reflects that. Without pointing to specific sources and how they are used, this complaint seems to be nothing more than personal dislike. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
