Talk:Anti-gender movement/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Anti-gender movement. 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

Need to make the lead neutral

I have repeatedly tried to address the issue of NPOV violation in this article but each time my post has been deleted without any explanation. Please stop doing this.

The whole article, especially the lead, has a massive left-wing bias (as noted by many other commenters). The claim that this "movement" is only restricted to right-wingers is extremely dubious and only made by far-left sources. Highly reliable sources show that majority of people in the US and the UK suport the beliefs of this so-called movement. This must be mentioned in the lead instead of making it appear that only right-wing loonies believe in it. 2001:569:7EFA:5D00:FD49:3AB4:4B6C:19C3 (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The sources you link don't mention the subject of the article. (t · c) buidhe 18:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The sources discuss about public opinion on the issues mentioned in this article but doesn't seem to directly mention the subject. Citing them will probably be considered improper synthesis? Jack234567 (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, see wp:or (t · c) buidhe 00:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Not neutral

Unproductive thread full of red links that are red for good reasons. Has veered off into WP:NOTFORUM and WP:IDHT territory and generally wasting people's time.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article reads as an enumeration of ‘gender critical is fascism’. Please stop this very biased agenda.

The anti-gender movement indeed started from the conservative and alt-right side, but consists currently also out of a wide variety of people. Detransers with trans regret are not conservative or alt-right. It is very disrespectful to corner those poor people in such a corner. Concerned parents (which is an eufemism for parents in panic) with kids that come out as trans from one day to another, totally out of the blue (ROGD) are not radical alt-right parents. Also writers such as Abigail Shrier, Debra Soh, Sasha Ayad and in particular Dr Az Hakeem are progressive, not conservative at all. Hakeem is a goth even and worries about young gay persons mostly. He also worries about what he calls as ‘parents with Transhausen by proxy’, as a variant of Munchhausen by proxy. Provocative yes, but this has nothing to do with a political corner. 2A02:A443:5030:1:79EC:A8A:EDE2:2C62 (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Source that any of these individuals are affiliated with the anti-gender movement? (t · c) buidhe 11:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a ‘movement’. Nobody has a membership card. This article is very bad and not neutral. Just bullying people with other thoughts. Imagine you are a detrans person with regret and cornered for being a Trumper while you have just discovered you were gay instead of transsexual. The thinkers i mention are totally reasonable thinkers with gender critical views for valid reasons. 2A02:A443:5030:1:79EC:A8A:EDE2:2C62 (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Please discuss these edits but there is no consensus for the change removing that most gender critical folks are on the right wing. Andre🚐 11:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The sentences i deleted were no RS. RS is peer reviewed studies. Not citing some kind of trans activist who had the opportunity to say something political in a big news outlet. 2A02:A443:5030:1:79EC:A8A:EDE2:2C62 (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:V and WP:RS. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

You don’t have to teach me with these guidelines. I know how it works. The history of this talk page clearly shows a pattern: readers that don’t identify as being ultra right making an argument that the article is highly unneutral. I know US media has plenty of articles that support the view of this article, and that is essentially the problem itsself. European sources that aren’t in English give a totally different view, but you are not capable to read the EU perspective since you cannot read any of those languages. The issue of the Tavistock scandal and the measures taken bij all Scandinavian countries regarding retraction of GAMT was not a far right choice. Read the Cass review or check what Az Hakeem has to say about that issue. It’s also in his book Detrans. But nobody wants to check this dude. And that is the fundamental problem. 2A02:A443:5030:1:79EC:A8A:EDE2:2C62 (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

There is not even a article about Tavistock scandal. 2A02:A443:5030:1:79EC:A8A:EDE2:2C62 (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Google translate:

https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tavistock-schandaal

https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_protocol

2A02:A443:5030:1:79EC:A8A:EDE2:2C62 (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

You clearly don't know how it works, so I again suggest reading the linked policies. And remember, this is WP:NOTAFORUM. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Title is nonsense

The title of the article is obviously nonsense given that most members of that movement believe in genders. It’s a simple matter of logic. Please don’t delete other editors’ commments. Rather debate here as a rational person should do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExperiencedArticleFixerBot (talk • contribs) 19:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

While I might not have removed this post, the request is not actionable. Wikipedia article titles are based on what reliable sources call it, and you've provided no sources that use another name nor any evidence such a name better fits the WP:article title criteria. Compare the move request I made yesterday at Talk:Immunomodulatory_imide_drug#Requested_move_4_December_2023, where there is a concrete proposal of a specific name supported by evidence. (t · c) buidhe 19:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Concur with buidhe. Mathglot (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Recent lead edits saying "Anti gender has nothing to do with LGB" are wrong

Two editors have recently changed "Members of the anti-gender movement oppose some LGBT rights" to "Members of the anti-gender movement oppose some transgender rights" with the reason (first time): "anti gender has nothing to do with LGB, but has to do with T" by 98.45.176.51 (talk · contribs) which is false, because it started out more anti-feminist/anti-abortion/anti-sexual freedom for women. So I reverted. Then, it was changed back again (second time) with the reason: "I'm reading the citations so I might revert later, but wouldn't opposition to that World Conference be anti-feminist/anti-equality, not anti-LGB(T)?" (by LightNightLights (talk · contribs)). Yes, of course, duh, but when you add the anti-feminist from that part of the body, the anti-hommosexual (elsewhere in the body) and the anti-T that IP 98 noted, what do you get when you sum all that up because you want to summarize it in the lead in a few words and not duplicate five sentences? You get, "anti-LGBT". Also, the anti-T is a johnny-come-lately addition; it didn't start out that way, although that is a big part of it now. The passage was correct before, it's wrong now. It needs to be put back the way it was. If you want to add "anti-feminist" or "anti-women" to "anti-LGBT", I won't object. Mathglot (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm indifferent on whether we should say "opposing some transgender rights" or "opposing some LGBT rights"; our citations determine that, and I haven't read them yet. I only reverted because Mathglot's rationale in their edit summary (link) seemed irrelevant on whether the anti-gender movement opposes LGBT rights or only transgender rights. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 17:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that one of the early manifestations of the movement was the manif pour tous (?) protests against gay marriage, cited sources do not support that the movement is against trans rights only. (t · c) buidhe 20:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Oceania Section

Thanks for assuming good faith, @Buidhe.

On the Oceania section: I don't know as much about Australia but I think that the anti-gender movement definitely does exist in New Zealand and is significant enough to merit inclusion in this article. The sources I have used tend not to specifically mention the anti-gender movement and the sources don't usually tie it to the anti-gender movement overseas but nevertheless the exact rhetoric, style, proposed policies and so on are used as in the US, UK et al. Tamaki and Peters regularly refer to and whinge about 'gender ideology'. There are also more fringe groups that complain about it as well like [1] and Family First New Zealand but I don't think they have enough coverage to be included in this article.

Sources:

New Zealand First 2023 election policies - https://www.nzfirst.nz/2023_policies "Remove gender ideology from the curriculum"

Brian Tamaki / Destiny Church - https://www.apostlebriantamaki.com/single-post/transgender-agenda-it-s-gone-too-far the stuff on Tamaki's website speaks for itself and this rhetoric been reported in secondary sources too https://www.starobserver.com.au/news/churches-make-lastditch-attempt-to-stop-nz-gay-conversion-therapy-ban/205495 - "An article that Tamaki wrote on August 12 this year titled ‘Are We Being Bullied & Overpowered By A Gay Agenda?’ has recently been circulating around on social media. ... Tamaki claimed these laws are being used to bully Christians into silence."

Because of this, I think the section should be put back. Not exactly the same as in my original edit but it should still be there.

Thanks - Watch Atlas791 (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The sources I have used tend not to specifically mention the anti-gender movement That's the crux of the issue. We are not supposed to use original analysis of the exact rhetoric, style, proposed policies and so on to decide if it's the same. One form of original analysis is classifying certain statements, individuals, etc. as part of the anti-gender movement without a source that explicitly says so. I can not find much of anything about Aus & NZ on Google Scholar, so it may be WP:UNDUE for the time being—most of the reliable sources are about Europe & Latin America. (t · c) buidhe 03:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

True. I stand corrected. Watch Atlas791 (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

This page is almost entirely biased

This is not an objectively written article. 170.199.130.5 (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

That isn't even close to a helpful comment. Grayfell (talk) 05:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Considering that a topic almost identical to this exists here, and there's no substantial evidence to any of your claims, it might be worth removing this topic. ChillyDude153198 (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Reproductive rights is a liberal framing term. The article uses this mutiple times so clearly it's biased. Majority of sources for the article seem to be liberal also and the article has a haranging tone and throwing around the term far-right too loosely. WP:NPOV means we should avoid bias so the comment is helpful actually. --2001:BB6:7A98:2358:F001:B12E:34D8:B145 (talk) 08:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

2001:BB6, You should come with better, more specific arguments than assertions of "liberal bias" before removing referenced content in the article. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

"Gender Ideology" Really Shouldn't Redirect Here

I was reading an article and noticed that "Gender Ideology" redirects to Anti-Gender movement. This doesn't seem right to me, as when clicking on the page it took me to an article that opposes it, not explains it.

I think that, instead, it should redirect to this article - this better defines what the movement calls "Gender Ideology."

As it's a redirect, I posted it here rather than the talk page on the redirect itself.

ChillyDude153198 (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

It looks perfectly correct to me. There is no such thing as "gender ideology". It is a concept (more or less a conspiracy theory) that only exists as a part of the rhetoric of the anti-gender movement and hence this is exactly the correct article for that phrase to redirect to in order for a reader to find out what it means and to understand its context. This article does not "oppose" anything. It just explains the anti-gender movement and their terminology including the phrase "gender ideology". Where else would you expect the phrase to redirect? We don't have, or need, a separate article for the phrase itself as that would just end up repeating more than half of what is in this article. DanielRigal (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I've adjusted the redirect at Gender ideology to go to Anti-gender_movement#"Gender_ideology". I hope this resolves the issue.OsFish (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Works much better, I agree thanks. I also agree that whilst "Gender Ideology is a concept,"

@DanielRigal My entire point was that by redirecting where it did, the link never explained what it meant. (The fact that it is more or less a conspiracy theory creates even more of a reason to show what anybody who uses the term is actually talking about) Happy editing :p ChillyDude153198 (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, next time try WP:RfD --MikutoH ^talk! 22:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Eh, I think it's reasonable to ask if you're confused before jumping straight to RfD. It's pretty clear to me they're a newer editor so they probably aren't as comfortable taking leaps like that. If they had started an RfD, it probably would've been a snow keep anyways. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah not familiar with that much at all (new editor), will try using it in the future though thanks both of you guys :)

Additionally, the talk page for the redirect said that any changes to that page should have been discussed here, which was also I guess another point for confusion. :P ChillyDude153198 (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This discussion page proves how biased the entire article is.2A01:CB0C:1C5:F500:34ED:547C:58F2:D283 (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The article seems slanted in one direction and I think we need some major work on it. ChillyDude153198 (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I've just realised this looking over my original post for this topic - you're so right.

If this article was encyclopedic, then it wouldn't oppose anything, like I said this article does. There's a problem here. ChillyDude153198 (talk) 16:03, 6 August 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)