Talk:Gender-critical feminism/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

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)

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)

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)

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)

Mentioning "far right"

Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM or WP:SOAPBOX
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article is like a polemic, it just mentions the word far right all the time, even though most gender critical thinkers, like Helen Joyce and Kathleen Stock are not in any sense seen as so. So including the index it has these words, far-right 7 times, extreme 3 times, anti-trans 33 times, anti-rights movement 2 times, trans-exclusionary 34 times, hate 12 times, fringe 7 times, discriminatory 15 times, predjudicial 2 times, deplore, 2 times, virulent attacks 1 time dehumanise 1time, paranoid 1 time, terf 43 times, anti-feminist 5 times, Right-wing 11 times, anti-LGBT 2 times, genocide 1 time, misogyny 3 times, Nazi 1 time, populist 1 time, fascist 3 times, transphobia 10 times, transphobic 10, transphobe 1 time, paramilitary 1 time, armed 1 time, threats 7 times, false 4 times, conservative 13 times, anti-gender 17 times. There is a lack of mentions of the left wingers like Rosie Duffield who support gender critical ideas. 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:F8DB:E004:21B2:82DB (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC) This is the first time I've seen someone attempt an WP:NPOV argument by way of word cloud... I think we can resolve this balance issue by repeating the phrase far-left good pro-feminism sensible decent five or six times at the end of the article. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 05:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC) I think its the begining of the article that does the damage in terms of showing the articles leanings. Its like when a FOX news commentator refers to Joe Biden, every time they mention him, with 20 dismissive insults in front if his name. Its bordering in that level of bias. But I just found another odd one, a Russian feminist movement is mentioned, and its support for the Russian invasion Ukraine is one of the only things said about it, as if that has anything to do with this issue, all that is about is linking it to something that would be perceived as from a very right wing side of the spectrum. 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:F8DB:E004:21B2:82DB (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Russian TERFism has attracted the attention of academic literature precisely because by this. The fact that, unlike intersectional feminist organizations, TERF organizations supported the invasion of Ukraine. Since this is what attracted the attention of the academic literature, it will be in Wikipedia. Reprarina (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC) But does it mention that JK Rowling opposed the invasion of Ukraine, and condemned Putin, and that the vast majority of gender critical thinkers have made no attempt to be linked with Putinism. This is just a hit job, the idea that every person with Gender critical views, is far right is clearly wrong. Look at Richard Dawkins, there was even a British Communist Party that announced it is in favour of gender critical viewpoints. This article verges on being just a word salad of dismissive terms towards right wingers, to link the ideology with the right, and far right, and extreme right, it does not mention that there is a Labour party gender critical movement, and that there is a genuine reasonable debate on the nuances on this issue, and that many many gender critical people, are gay, or left wing, many are from ethnic minorities and left wing political traditions and many, indeed I would surmise just about all major modern thinkers have expressed great compassion towards trans people, and are surely not just the hateful monsters that they are being labeled as here. It does not mention that Richard Dawkins was a friend of Jan Morris, or that there are even some Trans people who are fans of aspects of gender critical discourse. It does not mention the debates about Bryson, or puberty blockers, that the UK movement brought forward reforms on, and does not make any attempt to do anything other than link it with the extreme right at its worst. 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:F8DB:E004:21B2:82DB (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Were Rowling's views on Russian invasion of Ukraine mentioned in academic articles topically related to gender-critical feminism? Reprarina (talk) 08:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Academia is part of human life, the idea that wikipedia articles should only be regurgitating what is being said by various level of academia, and not what is going on in the whole of society is a beside the point question. Clearly this article is a biased hit job. 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:5D43:1A5C:9AA6:D0C2 (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Academia, more precisely, those academic works that are most positively cited, is the core source base in Wikipedia. The media are peripheral sources for Wikipedia. They can be used as long as they do not promote theories that are fringe in the academic environment. Reprarina (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC) that there are even some Trans people who are fans of aspects of gender critical discourse I agree that this information can be added in the article, at least it is mentioned in some academic sources. Reprarina (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC) I just looked it up, the Wikipedia article on Adolf Hitler, the most evil man in history, mentions far right and extreme right together once, and thats referring to where he is in a photograph, Wikipedia goes easier and more nuanced on Hitler than it does not gender critical feminism. Gender critical ideas are believed to some extent by a plurality of people in every country on earth, such as for instance the womens sports and trans gender inclusion issue, its not a extreme far right belief. This article is awful. So including the index it has these words, far-right 7 times, extreme 3 times, anti-trans 33 times, anti-rights movement 2 times, trans-exclusionary 34 times, hate 12 times, fringe 7 times, discriminatory 15 times, predjudicial 2 times, deplore, 2 times, virulent attacks 1 time dehumanise 1time, paranoid 1 time, terf 43 times, anti-feminist 5 times, Right-wing 11 times, anti-LGBT 2 times, genocide 1 time, misogyny 3 times, Nazi 1 time, populist 1 time, fascist 3 times, transphobia 10 times, transphobic 10, transphobe 1 time, paramilitary 1 time, armed 1 time, threats 7 times, false 4 times, conservative 13 times, anti-gender 17 times. And the Russian invasion of Ukraine one time. 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:D80A:1D65:7654:512F (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC) The article just says that some gender-critical feminists are building alliances with the far right. Reprarina (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC) But does it say they are building alliances with the left or moderates, or that there are left wing gender critical people. All it mentions is the right, and condemnatory critiques of GC people, it is a terrible piece of one sided propaganda interspersed with derogatory remarks and put downs. Plus quotations taken out of context to present a picture of Gender critical thinkers being hateful. There is no attempt at defining their beliefs in a nuanced way, no talk about the censorship of Gender critical views from large sections of the media, of the attempts to cancel and ban JK Rowling, by anti gender critical activists, the hounding out of of her position of Kathleen Stock at a university for her beliefs, the demonetisation of Youtube videos just for platforming gender critical speakers, and the attempt to marginalise this belief system, despite strong aspects of it being believed by the plurality of every country on earth, I mean even New Zealand, Australia, and Canada, the countries that have gone furthest on have what could be termed trans inclusion, have pluralities in favour of keeping elite professional women's sport, for those assigned at birth female. There is mention of violence from the 1970s, but no mention of the death threats JK Rowling has received from anti gender critical activists, or the physical attacks that some GC activists have had on them for their opinions, as this is a one sided article, that quite amateurishly is written to frame Gender critical beliefs as purely a hateful creed, when it clearly is not, it is just something that wants to debate certain issues related to trans inclusion, that most people feel are complex, and are deserving of nuanced debate. I have nothing against people campaigning for trans rights, and we can be as inclusive as we can be, but this article is just so much of a attack dog in gender critical views, 90 per cent of it is labelling it extreme conservative and far right, there is little about it from the point f view of its believers, or from neutrals its all just attacking it. So including the index it has these words, far-right 7 times, extreme 3 times, anti-trans 33 times, anti-rights movement 2 times, trans-exclusionary 34 times, hate 12 times, fringe 7 times, discriminatory 15 times, predjudicial 2 times, deplore, 2 times, virulent attacks 1 time dehumanise 1time, paranoid 1 time, terf 43 times, anti-feminist 5 times, Right-wing 11 times, anti-LGBT 2 times, genocide 1 time, misogyny 3 times, Nazi 1 time, populist 1 time, fascist 3 times, transphobia 10 times, transphobic 10, transphobe 1 time, paramilitary 1 time, armed 1 time, threats 7 times, false 4 times, conservative 13 times, anti-gender 17 times. And the Russian invasion of Ukraine one time. Meanwhile the Wikipedia article on Adolf Hitler, the most evil man in history, mentions far right or extreme right, just once and is referring to where he is in a photo. So wikipedia is more nuanced on the far right him, than on the very often left wing inhabited world of Gender critical people. JK Rowling is a pro Women's rights in Iran, historically Labour voting remainer. 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:304F:1F5:CBB0:629B (talk) 10:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC) The term "far-right" appears five times in the body of this article because various WP:reliable sources make note of the coalition between terves and far-right Christian and anti-feminist groups, and compare their beliefs. The article does not explain Gender Critical as a far-right ideology in WP:Wikivoice, although they are definitionally anti-trans. The number of times a particular buzzword appears or doesn't appear in an article—without context—is not how Wikipedia defines WP:balance, and not a problem we can (or should attempt to) solve. Please come up with a more specific (and ideally, more concise) argument, addressing specific text in the article you would like changed. Otherwise you're just pointlessly WP:soapboxing. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 14:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Its clearly a hit job of a article, its framing gender critical beliefs as extreme and far right, when clearly the vast majority of its believers are Labour, SNP and Green supporting feminist, remainer, intellectuals, like JK Rowling, and very often members of the LGBT community such as Elaine Miller, Joanna Cherry, and Robin Harper, its all fair and well being precise but this whole article is awful and shameful. 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:5CBA:C541:CAFF:92D3 (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Additionally it is unfair to label them anti trans. The majority of gender critical thinkers, I would say just about all in the modern era, are not wanting restrictions because the individuals specifically are trans, they want the restrictions as they believe biological sex exists and has consequences. That is not a unimportant nuance, that is the basis of gender critical beliefs, that biological sex exists, has consequences and that therefore it is OK to have limitations dependent on sex category, and that whether you are trans or not in some situations, is not the most relevant thing involved. So I dont think it is perfectly fair, or reasonable to assume all gender critical thinkers are anti trans, when really the basis of their points of view is based on sex category. To miss that out, and have the word anti trans over and over again, is a massive miss representation and miss slanting of the gender critical side. Once again, its not a nuance, its a major feature of the ideology, that sex category is a still very important matter for certain things, so its not anti trams, its focussing on the category of biological sex. So in that way I would beg to differ on your phrase, anti trans, being plastered across this article. I mean its the whole concept of gender critical thinking really, that sex is important. 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:5CBA:C541:CAFF:92D3 (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Additionally you are using the phrase terves, which is a term designed to offend, this is pure politics. 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:5CBA:C541:CAFF:92D3 (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC) And the reason the article links the word far right and such so often is you wat to belittle the idealogy, how often do you say JK Rowling is a Labour supporting celeb, how often do you say the fact that Helen Joyce worked for the centrist Economist or that most people support many planks of gender critical views, or that Keir Stamer or Tony Blair, have expressed some support for some gender critical positions, no the whole article is a pure and simple attack and miss characterisation of a ideology, in a attempt to paint it as far right, when most of its key and famous thinkers are moderate centrists and centre left. And you dont mention that ever. 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:5CBA:C541:CAFF:92D3 (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Not one time, do you mention that there are left wing, centrist and far left people who support gender critical ideas, why even the Communist Party of Britain support it. And more importantly the amount of moderate centrists who are gender critical is very high. JK Rowling for example. 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:5CBA:C541:CAFF:92D3 (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Legal cases in the UK

Given the current size of the article (12,000 words) and Wikipedia:TOOBIG it seems unnecessary to include every single time a legal case in the UK involves gender critical views (it probably comes under Wikipedia:Notnews as well). The 2024 cases should probably be put into the paragraph summarising various different cases. I will give this a go later, but wanted to start a discussion here to see what the consensus was before making this change.

LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Given the amount of other fluff, I'd say that this is the wrong place to cut, seeing as legal cases in the UK are some of the most widely covered in mainstream sources.

Other places that could be cut in priority:

• The section on "intersex conditions" which largely boils down to a thing Germaine Greer said once, and then lots of restatement of eg. Anne Fausto Sterling's opinions.
• The section on Russia, which depends on a single source and has had no notable secondary coverage.
• The "gender-critical feminism" part of the "terminology" section, which simply restates points made by sources in "scholarly criticism" higher up the article
• The strange tangent about autogynephilia in the "sexual orientation" section.

Void if removed (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that Void’s comments are along the right lines here. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I realised I phrased my initial statement badly. I was more concerned about the legal cases in the UK being used as a list for every case mentioning gender critical (is Lizzy Pitt's case necessary for a paragraph) and was using article size to say this article definitely needs no padding.

Reading through the entire article I think the largest problem is that we go through all the details of Maya Forstater's case twice (in both by country and controversies). Now my solutions to this problem would be either to put a see this other part of the article section (not sure if that is ever done) or put the legal cases in the UK section into the by country section (this seems neater). I am very happy to hear other solutions, but as important as the case is the repetition is a problem.

The above definitely seems to be highest priority to remedy for me. The others my opinion varies but going through the highest priority one, that section seems to go through how that view has been held for a long time but could use with some condensing. LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I have moved the legal cases as a subsection into the per-country section where they belong since this is a global article.

I've also done a wordcount of the article and as it stands, the UK section takes up almost 20% of the entire global article by wordcount, so I have tagged it as very-long-section that may benefit from a split from the article into its own article with a summary left behind here. That would also address the concern that it seems to be continuing to grow.

So, either it is time to consider to trim the section down to WP:SUMMARIZE or potentially WP:SPLIT with a summary left behind. Raladic (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Which, Maya Forstater case summary should be deleted. I'm suggesting the one outside the legal cases section but one needs to be deleted. LunaHasArrived (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, since it's a legal case and was already covered in the legal cases subsection, which is now a child of the parent UK country section, I removed it from the parent section. Raladic (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the structural issues you're pointing out to do with parts referencing other parts stems from a tendency to move supposedly "important" content towards to the top of the article in an arbitrary fashion while trying to group everything UK-specific down the bottom, rather than letting it flow somewhat naturally and chronologically. Sure this is supposed to be a global article, but the UK context is absolutely central, and this is not reflected in the structure at all.

My preference would be a total rework of history to encompass the UK context primarily (GRA reform, mumsnet etc), as multiple scholarly sources agree this is pivotal to the emergence of "gender critical feminism", and include Forstater as part of that. That instead we have multiple paragraphs about the US in the 20th century which had zero influence on gender critical feminist activism as it exploded in the UK post-2015 makes this article worse than useless for anyone linked here from practically any other article, eg. Maya Forstater.

Similarly the peppering of "rebuttals" throughout each section absolutely bloats them and makes it incoherent and coatrack-y.

Eg. this paragraph from "sex-based rights":

Human rights scholar Sandra Duffy described the concept of "sex-based rights" as "a fiction with the pretense of legality", noting that the word "sex" in international human rights law does not share the implications of the word "sex" in gender-critical discourse and is widely agreed to also refer to gender. Catharine A. MacKinnon noted that "the recognition [that discrimination against trans people is discrimination on the basis of sex, that is gender, the social meaning of sex] does not, contrary to allegations of anti-trans self-identified feminists, endanger women or feminism", they expand by saying "women do not have 'sex-based rights' in the affirmative sense some in this group seem to think".

Should go in "scholarly criticism". Void if removed (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Again to my point above, it is better that this article stays a global article and then maybe we have a separate child article on "Gender-critical feminism in the United Kingdom" where all of that can be expandend.

Main articles should WP:SUMMARIZE the concepts at large, not go into the details of one country if the concept is and can be a global one.

Rebuttals should be in the section that they are about and not centralized into a central WP:CRITS section, which is why crits sections are generally discouraged and it is preferred to have them in the main prose instead as is currently the case. Raladic (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

If the material on the situation in the UK only takes up about 20% of the article, I don’t see that this is out of proportion. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:CRITS doesn't apply to philosophies and ideologies: "Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section." Void if removed (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Definition

The current definition has a problem. It reads

an ideology or movement that opposes what it refers to as "gender ideology": the concept of gender identity and transgender rights, especially gender self-identification.

While the definition of Anti-gender movement

an international movement that opposes what it refers to as "gender ideology", "gender theory", or "genderism", terms which cover a variety of issues, and do not have a coherent definition.

It does not show what Gender-critical feminism particularly focuses on and why it is a different concept than the more general Anti-gender movement. --by Huhu9001 (talk) at 05:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Because the two are heavily overlapped in their ideological principals as reported by WP:RS.

Note the hat note at the top of the two articles that reference and interlink between the two of them with notes of what separates them:

On this article here you find "This article is about the movement originating within radical feminism. For the broader or related right-wing movement, see anti-gender movement." and in turn on Anti-gender movement you will find "This article is about the movement often associated with conservative or religious views. For the anti-trans movement with roots in radical feminism, see Gender-critical feminism." Raladic (talk) 06:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this should also be in the main text. How about this, change the definition to:

"an ideology or movement originating within radical feminism that opposes ... (same text)"

--by Huhu9001 (talk) at 06:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Header notes are not always visible, for example in page previews. --by Huhu9001 (talk) at 06:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

That is already there in the lead in the second paragraph - Originating as a fringe movement within radical feminism mainly in the United States, trans-exclusionary radical feminism has achieved prominence in the United Kingdom. Raladic (talk) 06:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible to have it in the first paragraph? --by Huhu9001 (talk) at 06:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

That would just bloat the first paragraph, which is basically already pretty long WP:FIRSTSENTENCE, which is why it's in the second paragraph. It is not inherently material on the "what", so it is fine where it is to expand on the origins and the link to the anti-gender movement in the second paragraph. Raladic (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Second paragraphs share the similar problem. They are not always visible like in page previews --by Huhu9001 (talk) at 06:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Which is why in some cases, we have a WP:short description, such as is the case here which reads Movement originating within radical feminism. Raladic (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

MOS guidelines on links and exploratory therapy – James Esses BLP

@Raladic: There is a reason why MOS:NOLINKQUOTE exists. The guideline says: Be conservative when linking within quotations; link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author..

The link in the quotation is obviously completely inappropriate. The quote is from a statement made by Metanoia in settlement of legal action against them by James Esses. It reads as if is was entirely dictated by Esses’ lawyers. It is not conceivable that the Metanoia statement intends to, in effect, accuse James Esses of supporting a practice which will probably become a crime in the UK in the foreseeable future. The link has the effect of being a BLP violation against James Esses, and the effect of making it look as if Metanoia are defaming James Esses. You should self-revert. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Not at all, the part linked is about gender exploratory therapy, so it is clear per the to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended and is perfectly in line with our guidelines. There is absolutely no BLP violation and the very same thing was also pointed out to you by @DanielRigal, who also said the very same thing. Raladic (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a BLP violation because there is no way that the person quoted would agree that "exploratory therapy" is a form of conversion therapy. You should self-revert. Void if removed (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

What they belief and what the general consensus of the scientific community agrees is tangential here and WP:OR, the fact that "gender exploratory theory" is a form of conversion theory is agreed upon by the scientific community (and as such, summarized so by us on Wikipedia). We are simply linking to it here and the fact that the institute apologized to Esses due to holding that belief as it is protected doesn't change the fact that we link relevant terms on Wikipedia to help the reader, which in this case, the context is very clear from the inline ref citation by the Guardian as it talks about "gender exploratory therapy" as conversion theory (using the term conversion 6 times). You are welcome to remove the quote itself on the basis of WP:MOSQUOTE and reword the section, but it still is absolutely relevant to link to the article we link to for contextualization. Raladic (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

MOS:NOLINKQUOTE says link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author. This is taken from an article where the clear intent is that exploratory therapy is not conversion therapy, and would be wrongly covered by a ban on conversion therapy. You should err on the side of caution and I ask again to self-revert on that basis. Void if removed (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Ridiculous. The link is to a section about GET, which is clearly the same topic as what the speaker is talking about (MOS:LINKQUOTE). The fact that the target section has negative and well-sourced things to say about that topic which the speaker would disagree with is unrelated. It strains good-faith to conclude that the link is accusing him of a pseudo-crime or misrepresenting his beliefs. There is no separate topic of "GET but not conversion therapy" to which he was referring instead.

Defamation is not transitive in this fashion (John Doe has endorsed quantum magnetoquark vaccine theory. ==> Medical experts describe quantum magnetoquark vaccine theory as "a despicable pseudoscience linked to the deaths of children". =/=> John Doe is a despicable child murderer). Or, if it was, it would be troubling and make linking to anything in a BLP context quite dangerous. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 14:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

For the record I'm okay with moving the link out of the quote, if we mention GET anywhere else. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 14:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Why are you arguing about a quote that's been removed by consensus? Void if removed (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

That was not apparent from this thread (which appeared in my watchlist after YFNS's comment below). I lack the patience for this subject or the discussions below, so am not following this article's text very closely. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 15:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I can’t even find the edit that’s being debated Snokalok (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay I still cannot find the disputed edit but just based on what I’m reading, I’m with Loki, Roxy, Raladic, and YFNS. This is an absurd application of BLP Snokalok (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the quote containing the link, as suggested above. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This is silly, James Esses' website recommends, among other conversion therapy advocates, Therapy first (formerly the Gender Exploratory Therapy Association) and Genspect - both of whom are listed at Gender exploratory therapy.[5] There is a BLP violation because there is no way that the person quoted would agree that "exploratory therapy" is a form of conversion therapy. - Advocates of reparative therapy are famous for insisting it's not conversion therapy, the term still links there and we would link it if we quoted anyone using it... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

A reminder that WP:BLP applies to talk pages too. Void if removed (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The idea that it's a BLP violation to say that:

1. Person A advocates for Thing B (when they clearly do and can be clearly sourced saying so themselves)
2. Thing B is pseudoscience (as can also be clearly sourced)
3. Therefore Person A advocates pseudoscience

is absolutely absurd. We make this connection all the time in other articles: see Deepak Chopra, Mehmet Oz, and Gwyneth Paltrow, among many others, all of which explicitly mention the subject promotes pseudoscience or has been criticized for promoting pseudoscience in the lead, as well as David Icke, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, and Mike Lindell, among many others, all of which explicitly call their subjects "conspiracy theorists" in their leads. Loki (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a BLP violation to imply someone advocates conversation therapy without a source, yes. Void if removed (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Void if removed by this logic Joseph Nicolosi said "reparative therapy shouldn't be covered by laws against conversion therapy" is somehow a BLP violation... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there’s no amendment to the article currently being proposed. So I think everyone should drop the stick. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

That is because we're discussing your removal of links from the article. Not just from the part about Esses,[6][7], but the section literally about conversion therapy that mentions Genspect supporting "gender exploratory therapy".[8]

By my count, me, Raladic, DanielRigal, RoxySaunders, Snokalok, and Loki think we should link exploratory therapy to gender exploratory therapy, only you and Void if Removed don't. There is clearly a consensus to link it (so you should drop the stick).

So, unless consensus drastically shifts, I say we:

1. update the Esses sentence to include this Times article and say something like Esses campaigned against the government's ban on conversion therapy for transgender people, arguing it would criminalize exploratory therapy
2. update the Conversion therapy section so the sentence Genspect promotes what they call "gender exploratory therapy" actually links to gender exploratory therapy (which repeatedly mentions Genspect)

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

so you should drop the stick

You reopened this discussion about linking text in a quote about a week after the quote itself was removed. The quote hasn't been reinstated. That several editors started arguing about MOS:NOLINKQUOTE when there was no longer a quote to link in just took up space for no clear reason. Void if removed (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with YFNS, and think that this is a good way to link the thing that Esses endorsed without falling afoul of MOS:NOLINKQUOTE. Loki (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

TO YFNS: Have you not noticed Luna’s amendment to the text on James Esses? Sweet6970 (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Anti-rights movements

There is nothing contentious about the Category:Anti-rights movements. It is literally an anti-rights movement by its common definition – opposing transgender rights is their sole focus – and is described as such by e.g. UN Women. It belongs in the category just as much as anti-gender movement. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is by definition a pro-rights movement – feminism promotes women’s rights. And it is obviously contentious, since your addition of the anti-rights category was reverted by Barnards.tar.gz. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Trans women are women, this ideology opposes this, so it is anti-rights by definition. The United Nation defines trans rights as basic human rights, so any movement opposing them is by definition anti-rights. Raladic (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary "Trans women are women" is not a statement about the rights, or otherwise, of trans women. So your comment is not applicable to the point in question here. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Raladic you've reinstated the contentious category, but there is an ongoing discussion which is not showing consensus and the WP:ONUS is on you to establish consensus first before including material, rather than edit-warring. Both WP:POVCAT and WP:CATV have been referenced, and neither answered. Please self-revert until a substantive policy-based consensus emerges. Void if removed (talk) 09:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the reversion from Barnards prior to this discussion as their edit summary appeared to be lacking per the policy on POVCAT, which states "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition - this category is clearly applicable, and referencing to it is already in the article and has been so for a long time, which means it is not a POVCAT, as I explained in my edit summary. Barnards reversion did not suggest any talk page discussion was happening in their reversion. After I reverted it, with my explanation of why POVCAT is satisfied already by the existing sourcing, I came across this talk page discussion, but again, no good policy-based reason appears here. We have strong sourcing for it, which has already been in the article, so the category just helps readers for navigation to other similar anti-rights movements. The category is not adding any new facts that were not already established as such in the article.

The facts for this category are both verifiable and included in the article body, covering CATV, we have reputable RS that supports it (and had so for a long time). As well as neutral statement of facts (per my above, which is why I reverted the revert prior to coming here) as supported by one of the world's largest human rights organizations of the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women charged with protecting the rights of women and various other refs. There are many more refs that could be added dating back many years (e.g. [9], [10]) that call out this movement as being anti-rights, being against the basic human rights of transgender people, thus being an Anti-rights movement by definition.

Also, I'd like to remind you to WP:AGF and not accuse others of edit-warring, when no such thing happened. This is a very normal and common pattern of someone reverts something, a different editor then comes and finds the original reversion lacking, thus it gets reverted again (with an explanatory edit summary of why the initial reversion was not good), you can refer to WP:BOLD, revert, bold (again). Typically, after this then discussion happens, such as is happening, but so far again, it appears the sourcing supports the category. Raladic (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

this category is clearly applicable

Then why not come to talk and make that case, rather than reverting?

not accuse others of edit-warring

When three edits in a row add, remove and then re-add the same material on a WP:CTOP with no discussion in between, that is the beginnings of an edit war and I would urge you to follow WP:BRD.

The category is not adding any new facts that were not already established as such in the article.

Yes it is - it is turning an attributed opinion into a category. This is not NPOV. Void if removed (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

No editor is required to come to the talk page if an initial reversion didn't appear good, that's how most WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS is formed. Most editing on Wikipedia happens through editing and the edit summary. Only a small portion changes happen on the talk page for the most part. Most active editors on Wikipedia spend around 50% of their edits in the main space and only a fraction in other areas or talk space.

I wasn't aware of a talk page discussion when I reverted the change, as you can see from the time stamps of my reversion and then subsequent stumbling across this talk. which I did comment on then after I had reverted with my explanatory edit summary. As you can also see from my reversion, I tagged it with the the assumption of good-faith on Barnards part, but felt it lacking, which is why I boldly reverted it, supporting Amanda's original change. This is a perfectly common pattern as I linked. Raladic (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Now that you know there isn’t consensus for adding this category, will you please self-revert? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

TERF ideology is a form of transphobia. It is not feminism, and it is singularly focused on promoting discrimination against transgender people, so it is by definition an anti-rights movement, and described as such by major authorities like UN Women – the world's premier organization that works for women's rights. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The removal was just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is no policy-based reason to remove the category – that reflects a description that has been in the lead for a long time and that is reliably sourced – and it was rightly reinstated by another user. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

A "by definition" argument based on a name doesn't work for the same reason that the people who loudly insist that National Socialism is "by definition" a type of socialism/leftism get very short shrift on articles related to that. You can't argue these things based on what names imply because names can be (intentionally and unintentionally) deceptive. It is also a mistake to assume that "pro-rights" rhetoric can always be taken at face value. People who are anti-rights often frame their rhetoric in terms of being "pro-rights" for some other group. After all, if you see banners saying "Rights for Whites" you know that it means "No rights for non-whites" and that you're at a Nazi rally (and also that it's well past time to not be at the Nazi rally).

Of course, none of that argues for the category, just that these are poor reasons to oppose it. So, let's look at whether the category is actually supported by the article.

In the lead we have "is an ideology or movement that opposes what it refers to as "gender ideology", the concept of gender identity and transgender rights, especially gender self-identification." That says that it opposes transgender rights, as well as those other things. There is more along these lines in the article body. It does seem to support the category. Ironically, if we take the phrase "sex based rights" at face value, the exact opposite category might also be supported. Maybe it could be a rights movement and an anti-rights movement at the same time if it promotes some rights and opposes others, but that would require Reliable Sources to take the idea of "sex based rights", as used here, seriously. DanielRigal (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: Your comment includes: "After all, if you see banners saying "Rights for Whites" you know that it means "No rights for non-whites" and that you're at a Nazi rally (and also that it's well past time to not be at the Nazi rally)." Would you care to clarify that (I hope) you are not accusing me of being a Nazi? Sweet6970 (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not! My point was that the language of rights can very easily be coopted for insincere/deceptive purposes and that people as smart as us should keep an eye out for that and, if we do fall for it briefly, we should extricate ourselves as soon as we realise that we have made a serious mistake. The "you" in my comment was the generic "you" not you specifically. I probably should have used a more formal tone and said "one" instead of "you" but I didn't even think that you might think I meant you specifically. DanielRigal (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Just before the remark about Nazis, you said “You can't argue these things….” which was presumably addressed to me – so I think my concern was reasonable. It would be more conducive to calm and civil discussion if everyone agreed not to use the word ‘Nazi’ on this page, in view of the potential for misunderstanding. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliable Sources to take the idea of "sex based rights", as used here

They do. That's the issue with sourcing and the use of criticism throughout, rather than in its own section. Instead of, say, something explanatory from the extensive chapters on sex-based rights in Sex and Gender: A Contemporary Reader, we have a critical blogpost and a (white paper?) from Catherine MacKinnon. These don't explain to the reader what "gender-critical feminists" believe, and are lower quality sources. Void if removed (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it could be a rights movement and an anti-rights movement at the same time if it promotes some rights and opposes others, but that would require Reliable Sources to take the idea of "sex based rights", as used here, seriously. An example of a reliable source taking the idea of sex-based rights seriously. So what you’re saying is correct: this is a group of people whose rights claims come into conflict with another group’s rights claims. The claims are mutually exclusive so each side is an anti-rights bogeyman of the other. This is not dissimilar to any political conflict where opposing sides disagree on the application of the harm principle. Are we going to put every political movement in the anti-rights category because their perspective on rights is the logical inverse of the other’s? It has been argued on this page that the GCFs are some kind of fringe holdouts that nobody takes seriously, but the core rights issue here is a fully mainstream debate with pluralities and majorities on both sides depending on how the issue is polled. It is not at all analogous to white supremacism or religious terrorism or whatever. There are (at least) two high-profile, broadly supported, significant mainstream POVs in this space. We have a policy on how to treat this scenario: WP:NPOV. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

You are aware that most hate movements against a particular minority group frame themselves as being in favor of protecting rights for the favored group, yes? Anti-poc groups frame themselves as pro-white, the Nazis framed themselves as pro-German, misogynist campaigners frame themselves as “men’s rights activists”. It doesn’t change the fact that terfism is commonly considered an anti rights movement, and thus the category reasonably applies. Snokalok (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean, this is a category you created 2 days ago, into which you have placed this page, anti-gender movement, and White supremacy.

I think that's pretty inflammatory, per WP:POVCAT, and in terms of WP:CATV seems to rely on a controversial statement by UN Women. Void if removed (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

If the category is legit then I think this article clearly belongs in it. If the category is not, and that seems to be the real bone of contention here, then that's an issue for another venue, probably WP:CFD. DanielRigal (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

How are you establishing "clearly"? Categories require broad agreement in secondary sources that commonly and consistently refer to the subject in those terms, not a vague political statement that's been criticised in the Times. This is inherently POV. Void if removed (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Rather than argue about that here and now, why not clear up the issue of whether the category is valid and, if so, what its inclusion criteria are? That will probably answer the question for us. DanielRigal (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The onus is on those who wish to apply it to this page to demonstrate it is applicable. If you aren't even sure it is valid as a category, then it definitely isn't valid for this page. Void if removed (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Void, I fail to see any criticism from the times. The times just quotes Gender critical activists who deny the claims. This sentence that the movement "opposes ... transgender rights" has been in the lede since at least October 2023 (diff) so even if UN women's discussion was controversial in rs, we don't cite it to that. The idea that the movement opposes rights, and therefore would fall under an anti-rights movement category, clearly has long-standing basis. LunaHasArrived (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem contentious at all that gender-critical feminism is opposed to transgender rights. That is the defining feature of "gender-critical feminism", rather than plain old "feminism", so describing GC feminism as an "anti-rights movement" is not only sourced, but also seems pretty plain.

Raladic has summarised the case for inclusion very well, as far as I can see. This definitely feels more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT than an actual evidenced complaint of controversy. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 15:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

What you have not offered is enough neutral, secondary sources that commonly and consistently call "gender-critical feminism" an "anti-rights movement" for categorisation.

So far, there seems to be one on offer - a political statement - and the subjects are on record rejecting it. Categories are not just there to promote and endorse UN Women's political POV, that's what WP:CATPOV is for.

You haven't even defined what an "anti-rights movement" is. Can you explain the term and who it applies to? Libertarians would consider every other ideology to be an anti-rights movement, and most other ideologies would consider libertarianism to be anti-rights.

Right now editors are using it for:

• White supremacy
• Lawful beliefs in the UK that have successfully been defended in over a dozen discrimination claims, including ones where the victims were falsely compared to white supremacists

Void if removed (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The times just quotes Gender critical activists who deny the claims

Right, so it is contentious and WP:POVCAT. You're can't generalise from what you understand the phrasing in the lede to mean to the specific claim of a nebulous "anti-rights movement" categorisation on the basis of a statement from UN Women. Void if removed (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for not making this clearer. My comment showed that the designation of opposing transgender rights predates the un women saying so and therefore can not be based on UN women saying so. LunaHasArrived (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The category at issue is "anti rights movements".

The only such designation is attributed in text to UN women.

Having a specific stance on specific clashes of rights is not the same thing. Do RS consistently, broadly and neutrally use this new terminology to refer to gender critical feminism? No. Is it undisputed? No. We can't put it in wikivoice, we certainly can't make it a category. Void if removed (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Raladic: I agree with Barnards.tar.gz’s reinstatement of this comment. You should note that according to WP:NPA: “Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack.”. Gensex is a contentious topic – please try to lower the temperature, rather than raise it. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

As I just explained in my re-revert of the comment (and another one made by the IP user) - Transphobia has no place on Wikipedia and hateful comments directed at a group of people are also an attack on a group of editors as the essay WP:HID explains. I've also added a link to WP:GENDERID for further information if it somehow was unclear for you why the comments were transphobic. The fact that the movement that is this article is about is promoting such hateful views is not an excuse that suddenly makes using such language permissible on this talk page. Such comments are commonly WP:RD2 revision deleted by admins. Raladic (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? For example, the controversy over whether "sex" in the UK Equality Act means "biological sex" or "sex including sex as modified by a GRC" has been at the heart of a legislative standoff between the Government in England and the devolved government in Scotland, and is currently wending its way to the supreme court on November 26th. These are live legal and political issues, and whichever way this is finally decided one set of rights is going to be affected, there's no way round that. I'd like to clear up whether you might think accurately describing this state of affairs is "hate"?

Not to say this user wasn't being disruptive - I think WP:NOTFORUM definitely applies - but I'm concerned at your reasoning here. There's surely a difference between talking in the abstract about rights as they exist in the UK, and personal attacks and hate. Void if removed (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Rewrite per WP:CRITS

As mentioned in a previous discussion, this page violates WP:CRITS for ideologies and philosophies.

As such we should be moving all critical commentary down to its own section, rather than peppered throughout, and we should be favouring sources in their own words rather than critical ones for the explanatory sections about what "gender-critical feminism" is and its history. This is probably the root of the current confusion over categories and distinction between this and the "anti-gender movement".

Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets.

Because of the POV material throughout, editors are confusing what adherents of this philosophy believe vs what critics say they believe. Both viewpoints need fair and neutral representation, and as is standard for philosophies that means a dedicated criticism section, rather than the current WP:COATRACK. Void if removed (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

We should rely primarily on mainstream scholarship in the field. There is a growing scholarly literature in gender studies and other relevant fields on anti-gender and "gender-critical" movements. I don't think Nazism is favoring Nazi sources to explain the history of Nazism or what it is about either. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

We should rely primarily on mainstream scholarship in the field.

There are now plenty of mainstream gender-critical feminist sources. Nazism is a hyperbolic comparison, can you please try to consider how to present this with NPOV. Perhaps something less inflammatory like Anarchism as a comparison. Void if removed (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

AAB, you are aware that gensex is a Contentious Topic on Wikipedia. A comparison of gender-critical feminism to Nazism is inflammatory, and does not encourage civil discussion. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Nazism is a common rhetorical device for a set of WP:FRINGE beliefs which are universally understood as indefensibly evil. The analogy compares the situations (how to balance secondary material about a controversial group against what they say about themselves), not the groups themselves. However, I can acknowledge the analogy is in poor taste here, given that some sources describe GCs as employing "fascist" rhetoric or "converging" with neo-Nazi movements. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Given the subject is not "universally understood as indefensibly evil", this explanation simply indicates why the analogy is inflammatory, hyperbolic and inapt. I have offered Anarchism as a straightforward comparator. There is no reason we cannot neutrally describe what anarchists believe, and offset that with a criticism section, per WP:CRITS for philosophies/ideologies. Why is gender-critical feminism different? Void if removed (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, my problem with this is that it feels like people are just going to define "criticism" as anything that says things about the topic they disagree with, or that they'll demand that we give WP:UNDUE weight to non-independent "gender-critical" sourcing. That isn't what it is - criticism, in this context, means WP:RSOPINION stuff; only opinion pieces are meant to be moved to a criticism / reception section (and even then, that doesn't mean they can't be cited elsewhere, just that they have to be clearly attributed.) The bulk of the article should be based on what independent secondary high-quality academic sources say about the topic; the purpose of WP:CRITS is not that the bulk of an article about an ideology should be sourced solely to adherents. --Aquillion (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see anyone suggesting that an article about an ideology should be sourced solely to adherents. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes the mainstream view, which shows that most people do not support this fringe movement. As such, this article also focuses on the criticism of this anti-rights ideology and it is absolutely appropriate that the article contains this criticism throughout the article to accurately summarize the state.

Wikipedia isn’t a platform to WP:PROMOTE fringe anti-rights ideologies, or to whitewash them, so we accurately write such articles with the due criticism of them throughout the article. Raladic (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

No-one is suggesting that Wikipedia should ‘promote’ anything in this article. And, as I have just explained in the ‘Anti-rights movement’ section above, gender-critical feminism is not an anti-rights movement. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds a bit WP:RGW to me. It is pretty obvious that an article about a belief system shouldn't be peppered throughout with the criticisms of its ideological opponents. That's why WP:CRITS has the exception for philosophies and ideologies. Void if removed (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The text at Wikipedia:Criticism § Philosophy, religion, or politics (an essay, thus impossible to "violate") does not use the word "ideology", and is concerned mostly with Wikipedia not mistaking Critics say Capitalism dehumanizes and exploits people as A core tenet of capitalism is dehumanization and exploitation. It does not demand writing sections like #Criticism of Nazism Race and intelligence, and certainly doesn't override WP:DUE (a policy, which is possible to "violate"). The rest of the essay makes many compelling arguments about why presenting criticism in context is a very good idea and results in more balanced articles. I'm not convinced that this article is about a particular point of view any more than pseudoscience or biography articles are. This is an article about a hate anti-rights political movement, who take actions, as opposed to holding beliefs. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

"I'm not convinced that this article is about a particular point of view any more than pseudoscience or biography articles are." That is exactly the problem with the article as it stands – it is more about those who hate g-c feminism than it is about g-c feminism itself. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

who take actions, as opposed to holding beliefs

That is not what WP:RS say. Void if removed (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Transphobic sources are not "mainstream" any more than racist sources are mainstream. There are many books published by Nazi authors, but it is not a "mainstream" perspective. Transphobia – including TERF ideology – is exceedingly fringe in academic contexts. Anarchism is not a relevant comparison because anarchism is a legitimate political ideology with a positive vision for society, it's not just a form of bigotry focused on promoting discrimination against a vulnerable group. TERF ideology is just one specific form of transphobia. White supremacism and homophobia are similar concepts and more relevant comparisons than anarchism. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, WP:SOAPBOX
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article is purely a attempt to frame gender critical feminism as some extremist ideology, which is astounding. Gender critical views such as protecting womens sports and safe spaces are believed in by pluralities of opinion in almost every country on the planet, and in some to not believe those views is regarded as super fringe. To compare it with Nazis, is disgraceful. Look at this article it uses the terms like, terf, far right, conservative and right wing and even nazi over 100 times, it never mentions the word left wing, even though most gender critical people like Dawkins and Rowling, and the Communist Party of Britain, the Alba Party, and former Scottish Greens Leader, Harper (Who is even I am proud to say, proudly LGBT himself), are of the left, but even the article on Hitler only mentions far right once and in relation to where he is in a photo, In other words Wikipedia is more nuanced on the most evil man in history, Hitler, than on a belief, Gender critical feminism, that has aspects believed in by the plurality of people in every country. 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:5D54:7200:E4C:B0D9 (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC) You are so cheeky, you give a disgraceful insulting opinion that gender critical views can be likened to Nazi-ism, which is utterly appalling to the victims of Nazi-ism, as the plurality of them would clearly have believed in traditional gender critical views, and then claim anybody who disagrees with that is having a "opinion". You should be ashamed of this miss characterising of gender critical beliefs of good kind people, like Dawkins, Joyce. Stock, Ash Regan, Rosie Duffield, JK Rowling, Robert Winston (Who is Jewish, how dare you compare a good compassionate caring left wing man like him, who is Jewish, with Nazis) and so many left wingers, how dare you, you should be ashamed ashamed, ashamed. It is dreadful what gender ideaology believers are doing, and nobody will fall for it who looks at the issue for over a half a hour. Shame Shame Shame. And the Orwellian nature of gender ideaology, will show up by the excuse for deleting this comment, come on lets see 1984 gender ideaology in action come on lets see the excuse for deleting this comment, and all opinions and facts that contradict this Kafkaesuqe Pythonesque world view, 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:F4A3:F91C:3779:C87E (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC) If you are new to Wikipedia, you should read our policies on WP:CIVIL, particularly noting that attacks on other editors are what gets comments deleted and accounts banned. There are people on this talk page who radically disagree with each other, but are still here because they figured out how to focus on content. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC) Well you just personally attacked me, by saying "You", surely then in that case all your comments should be banned for that. This article is offensive disgrace, that labels good nice kind left wing people, who do not hate trans people, and never could, as "far right", some gender critical people are Jewish, some are other ethnic minorities, some are LGBT, some are even Trans, how dare you link them with nazis, it is a disgraceful and bigoted what is spewing from gender ideaology and dont think that when you Orwellian 1984 delete my comments, that you have deleted gender critical ideaology, it is more a sign that you cant win the debate. 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:F4A3:F91C:3779:C87E (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC) I get it. Articles can get into bad states. People can say outrageous things. But if you are here only to vent about it, you will eventually get blocked to prevent disruption, particularly because this is designated as a contentious topic where the expected standard of conduct is highest. If you are here to improve the article, please read the discussion carefully and comment thoughtfully. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

only opinion pieces are meant to be moved to a criticism / reception section

This is a philosophy/ideology subject, virtually all the sources are opinion.

For example, in Sexed, Susanna Rustin draws a thread in British feminism from Mary Wollstonecraft to current British gender-critical/sex-based rights/radical feminist movements, to explain why the movement is stronger here than anywhere else in the world. This is a far cry from the opinion of eg. Cristan Williams, who thinks this dates back to lesbian separatists in the US in the 60s.

Opinions differ. Void if removed (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, given the current state I think it might be better to rename this article "Criticism of Gender Critical Feminism" and start a new one. Void if removed (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That is not necessary. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hyperbole is unhelpful. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 15:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that this is hyperbole. To me it is an interesting thought experiment in how NPOV might look on this page. If we were to treat this like other philosophies or ideologies and move criticism to a separate article (like Criticism of Marxism or Criticism of Capitalism), what would be left? A less drastic step would be to follow WP:CRITS for ideologies and move criticism to its own section. Void if removed (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

There's certainly room for experimentation, if you'd like to do it in draft space.

Magnet-critical hypoquark theory or MCHQism is a pseudoscientific theory scientific hypothesis that opposes what it refers to as "molecular ideology", the concept of atomic theory, and especially atoms. MCHQists believe that all matter in the universe is composed of spiritual entities known as "hypoquarks", and that all of modern physics is a conspiracy by world governments.

Magnet-critical hypoquark theory has been described as pseudoscience and "insane quackery" by some physicists and scholarly critics, and is opposed by many scientific and educational organizations. The International Centre for Theoretical Physics has condemned hypoquark theory, among other pseudoscience, and linked it to "virulent attacks" against the scientific method.[23] NASA has described MCHQism as an extreme anti-science movements that employs disinformation.

For criticism, see Criticism of magnet-critical hypoquark theory

I think this is much clearer. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, this article has been written by folk who openly liken Gender Critical views, to Nazi-ism, which is a unbelievably fringe position, that is so extreme, it would be laughed out of any debating chamber or media channel in the world. 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:7896:3C92:6D02:675B (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

While I agree with the other editors that your earlier comment (that was removed and reinstated) didn't seem to contain personal attacks, referring to editors on this page as fringe extremists is a personal attack and I suggest you to strike that.

Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM and this is a contentious topic. If you want to contribute constructively I suggest taking the tone down several notches and sticking to what can be reliably sourced, otherwise you're on a fast track to a ban. Void if removed (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is generating more heat than light, and it's unfortunately transparent what everyone's feelings on this particular topic are. VIR, I'm fully unconvinced that your concern over balance goes beyond WP:ILIKEIT, justified by whatever WP:3LA is handy. I want to reiterate that WP:CRITS is an essay, and the paragraph about philosophies (which I dub WP:CRITSP, pronounced like "crispy") is a subsection of that essay suggesting an exception to what is otherwise a very helpful and productive rule: integrating positive and negative content tends to lead to more balanced and useful articles, while segregating the two tends to manufacture coatracks. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

A moratorium on the use of the word “Nazi” on this page…..

…would be a good idea. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it is unnecessary and pointless to make a local policy about this. There are plenty of synonyms people could use and sometimes, although not often, it is legitimate to use the term. So long as nobody is calling another editor a Nazi, or chatting off topic about Nazis, which nobody was, I think we are fine. All we had was one misunderstanding which was cleared up pretty much immediately. And besides, if we had such a policy already it would be impossible for us to discuss it. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

My comment was not particularly addressed to DanielRigal, who was not the first one to use the word ‘Nazi’ on this page. It was a general plea to avoid using such an inflammatory reference – it’s no wonder the IP gets upset. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Disagree, Godwin’s Law is useful when talking about social movements against marginalized groups. Snokalok (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Snokalok: Our article on Godwin’s law includes this comment from Godwin himself: Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler to think a bit harder about the Holocaust. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

It is a useful and legitimate comparison in various contexts, both in terms of how we address hate movements more broadly and in examining the specific connections between this movement and fascist, even neo-Nazi, groups as discussed by academics. In fact it's very important to discuss the TERF movement's connections to the far right. As Alison Phipps noted last year, "Recently, the movement has started to show cracks around its burgeoning far-right alliances: a recent fissure appeared after neo-Nazis attended a rally in Melbourne held by English gender-critical hero Kellie-Jay Keen, also known as Posie Parker." --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

legal cases in the UK

In the paragraph talking about how the Forstater case has been used as precedent we state in wiki voice that there has been a successful claim against United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy, this is in reference to James Esses. The only source for the paragraph is this article, which clearly separates out cases that were settled out of court from successful in tribunals. Moreover the idea that it is a successful claim is not verified by the source used, they clearly use neutral language. If we are to follow RS on this it seems we should not use the term Successful claim for this settlement.

@Sweet6970 (involved on main page)

LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

My edit summary said: "It is a successful claim – the settlement only came after legal action". The source says: "After another case that was settled out of court, brought by the student James Esses, who was thrown off his course for expressing gender-critical views, the UK Council for Psychotherapy conceded it was a valid professional belief that children suffering from gender dysphoria should receive counselling rather than medical intervention and people should not be discriminated against for such beliefs. Esses’ case against the Metanoia Institute continues."

Luna, this is a successful claim. The source refers to a ‘case’ that was ‘settled out of court’. This means there was a legal case – which was settled by the ‘defendant’ without a full hearing. This makes it, in practice, more successful than cases which went to court/tribunal, because it means that the claimant did not have to go through the effort and expense of a full hearing. It is in principle possible to have a successful legal claim without even issuing proceedings, if the ‘defendant’ settles after a solicitor’s letter. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand how a settlement can be successful (and as you put it more successful) but a settlement isn't automatically successful. We should follow the Guardians approach on this (as it is the RS) and be notably more neutral and fact based, not make a personal judgement about how successful it was. Ultimately the Guardian do not list these cases together like we have done here. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Officially a settlement is a draw. The case does not come to court. It is not adjudicated either way. It is neither successful or unsuccessful. In most cases we don't get to hear the result of a settlement so we don't know the extent to which either party got what they wanted. It may be that the plaintiff gets a large proportion of what they wanted and both sides save on legal fees but it may also be that the a weak suit is settled for a nominal sum, an agreement to drop the matter permanently and neither side to pursue the other for legal fees. So how can we talk about it? Here is what I recommend:

• When we don't know anything other than it settled: "X sued Y over Z. The case was settled before it came to court." Readers will understand this as broadly positive for X, without us needing to say so, but they won't know how positive because none of us know the details that would inform that.
• When we do know the settlement terms: "X sued Y over Z. A settlement was reached with Y paying X £N, making an apology, undertaking not to repeat Z" (delete as not applicable). Readers will clearly and correctly understand that this is a win for X, unless £N is something like £1.00, without us needing to use the word "successful". If RS coverage of the case calls it a success then we can say that but we need to avoid saying it in a way that implies that X actually won the case.
• When a case is settled after adjudication, maybe while an appeal is pending, assuming that we know the details: "X successfully sued Y over Z and was awarded £M. Subsequently, a settlement was reached with Y paying X £N, making an apology, undertaking not to repeat Z" (delete as not applicable). This is the one case were we really can say "successfully" as X actually won the case. Yes, I know that this is a scenario that very rarely happens.

OK. So why am I writing all this? Irrespective of the details of this particular case, which I don't know, I think it is very important that we don't create a path that runs from as little as a lawyer sending a meritless legal claim to a defendant, and being paid a nominal £500 to drop the matter, to us describing that as a "successful" legal case. It's not! It probably is successful from the point of view of a plaintiff seeking to cause a nuisance to the defendant and have something to crow about but that's not the type of success that we are talking about when we describe a case as being successful or otherwise and we should not risk confusing the readers.

TLDR: If a situation is ambiguous then we should describe it, as briefly as is consistent with the reader understanding it, not label it as we see it. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity. UKCP settled and apologised, and issued statements saying gender critical views are protected, and issued guidance to that effect.

https://archive.is/IyUEz

Last year he reached a settlement with UKCP, which said that gender-critical beliefs were protected and psychotherapists were entitled to hold such beliefs. The details of the settlement are confidential but in a statement it said it breached its own policies and “we apologise to him for the impact of his expulsion, both professional and personal”. It said he was motivated by a desire to protect children.

https://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/news/litigation-pursued-by-james-esses-gender-critical-beliefs/

https://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/news/ukcp-guidance-regarding-gender-critical-views/

There is way to much quibbling over this. Void if removed (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The important distinction here that @DanielRigal is trying to make is that the statement by the UKCP is a private settlement statement, not that of a court of law.

Compare that to the actual legal case of Forstater (actual ruling) - which make an important distinction in their ruling that people who may hold such a personal belief - Just as the legal recognition of Civil Partnerships does not negate the right of a person to believe that marriage should only apply to heterosexual couples, becoming the acquired gender “for all purposes” within the meaning of GRA does not negate a person’s right to believe, like the Claimant, that as a matter of biology a trans person is still their natal sex. Both beliefs may well be profoundly offensive and even distressing to many others, but they are beliefs that are and must be tolerated in a pluralist society. - may be allowed to have the belief for themself and that may (in the UK) not be basis for certain things, but the ruling also stresses that while they may hold such a belief in the UK, it does not allow them to express the beliefs in a discriminatory or transphobic nature - This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment under the EqA. Whether or not conduct in a given situation does amount to harassment or discrimination within the meaning of EqA will be for a tribunal to determine in a given case.

So basically, people in the UK may personally hold such philosophical beliefs, but they are not protected from using such personal beliefs as the basis to discriminate against transgender people, such as by misgendering.

This is also for example why the removed comments by the IP editor above fell afoul of our Wikipedia rules against using such language that misgenders transgender people, whether it be in sports or otherwise, as it constitutes disruptive editing/a personal attack against a group of people and as WP:HID explains, by extension of our population, editors. With more detailed explanations at WP:HID,WP:NQP,WP:GENDERID on the nuances. Raladic (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what this response has to do with the discussion which is:

• An article about successful legal claims for gender critical views mentions Esses' case against UKCP (as part of his subsequently case against Metanoia)
• Editors arguing that "settlement" in a tribunal is not a "successful claim".

I think it very much depends what constitutes "success", and this is an overly narrow interpretation for such a blanket statement. For example, Pike v Open University ended with a settlement in which the OU admitted liability, apologised unreservedly, and promised a full internal inquiry. Esses v Metanoia ended with a similar fulsome apology after a settlement.

"Settlement is only a draw" is just unsupported guesswork, frankly. If the employer capitulates and admits wrongdoing before going to a tribunal it knows it will lose, that's a clear win. Judging that case-by-case is over-interpreting events and out of scope. In this specific case the Esses settlement with UKCP is presented in the source with not much detail, as part of an overall picture of successful claims, and is certainly not framed in the text as either a loss or a draw. It is somewhat circumstantial but I'm not sure how you can justify picking it out and treating it differently to the other cases when the author doesn't.

Maybe some alternative to the word "success" is the only way through this, but it seems like a waste of time. Void if removed (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The point was that a settlement is that the article currently doesn't state that this was a private settlement, not the result of a legal court ruling and the section is titled legal cases. A settlement is a private contract that pre-empts a legal case, the UK appears to have a special version called a Compromise agreement of this as linked in the hat note, so I think the point that Luna was trying to raise was that if its included on the article in the current section on legal cases, we should make this clear as it was a private agreement between two parties, which by definition is a compromise or draw, but in any case we should mention it was a settlement as our article is missing this at the moment, so it could be misread as the result of a legal ruling, which it was not. I just re-read the actual statement the institute published after the settlement and corrected the article to reflect the actual statement, please take a look at the edited article. I think this should address the concerns brought and accurately reflect the source. Raladic (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the paragraph I was talking about, I am talking about paragraph 3 in the legal cases section (starting "The Forstater Case has been used"). In that paragraph there is a list on successful claims, which includes a claim against the UK council for psychotherapy.

To address concerns from Void and Sweet, I am well aware that you believe this is a successful claim, I just think we would need a source making the analysis for this to be said in wikivoice. I don't believe the Guardian fulfills this role as it lists this in a completely different section and uses distinct different language. The guardian has 3 different sections on histotical cases: successful tribunals, settlements and the failed tribunal. To include something from section 2 in a list about section 1 feels like we're not following the RS and how they present these various different claims.

My idea to fix this would have been to remove the UKCP from the list, but add it to the paragraph on Esses. I was thinking something along the line of "in December 2023 the UKCP settled with James Esses and issued a formal apology" however I can't find another RS about this case (or even SPS to provide basic facts like the date). If those RS exist it would be great to include, but I can not find them. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I've supplied another RS for the UKCP settlement upthread here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gender-critical_feminism#c-Void_if_removed-20240920174900-DanielRigal-20240920164900

However I think it's incorrect - if you Google the text they attribute to UKCP, it actually seems to be from the Metanoia apology.

Aside from that, I really think we're in the weeds about what is "success" in tribunals. More than half end in settlement. With employers facing high profile losses when claims go to tribunal, inevitably more employers will settle claims. If there is a distinction made in the guardian article it is that this is the way the wind is blowing - fewer claims reaching a tribunal, more being settled, and eventually employers correctly following the law, and the litigation dying down. Void if removed (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)