Talk:Radical feminism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

TERF is a slur (don't use as such on talk page)

The term "TERF" (for "Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist") is used as and considered a slur. As Elizabeth Hungerford wrote in counterpunch in 2013:

Replying to another article attacking Radical Feminists: "Allen actually calls for more people to recognize radical feminists as a hate group and then pointedly adopts the term Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist (TERF) to refer to them throughout the article. Make no mistake, this is a slur. TERF is not meant to be explanatory, but insulting. These characterizations are hyperbolic, misleading, and ultimately defamatory. They do nothing but escalate the vitriol and fail to advance the conversation in any way."

Searching the above, it is obvious this phrase is used in this way. (emphasis added later): Some feminists might want to edit this article and some may share a few of the views that some others consider "transphobic", or that they might want to research and write about them without having to worry about there being a slur thrown that them. Therefore I would appreciate it if editors would stop using the term. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on my personal views concerning this but I will not use the word again on the Wiki and strike out (or remove if you prefer) my use of it previously. I apologise for the offense that I caused, I honestly had no idea it was seen as a slur Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's not get into a TERF-war over this, please.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

TERF is a common name used for self-proclaimed feminist groups that exclude transwomen (and transmen). It is a fringe subset of radical feminism. The term itself contains nothing offensive. TERFs may find it offensive as it's often used in conjunction with negative comments condemning the exclusion of trans people, but its used to distinguish them from trans-inclusive groups. That one author finds it insulting, hyperbolic, misleading, or defamatory is their own opinion. I can easily find another author that thinks it's accurate and appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, the word feminist should not be used to describe a person who both holds prejudice against women and expresses this prejudice through contributing to the oppression of said women, so maybe it is the last letter in that word that is seen as offensive? Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That is my sentiment Drowninginlimbo. But they identify themselves as feminists so for the purposes of Wikipedia they should be described as such. That said, I see this subset of radical feminism is not described on this page. TERF redirects here (though Carolmooredc redirected it to Sexual slur even though it does not refer to or describe sexual orientation or gender identity). EvergreenFir (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I’m not going to go into detail as to the personal experiences I have that lead to me adopting the term, I don't want to cause any controversy after my ANI. The term is relatively new and if there is even some consensus that it could be a slur then personally I am going to drop it, at least on here and for the time being. I believe the big issue is that it risks to redefine the Radical feminist by the way of a very small (but vocal) minority. But yes, it is a relatively new term, so we will probably have to wait a little while for sources to come through before covering it in any depth Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting, I searched "terf is a slur" and the results were not quite what I expected. Most results were openly transphobic blogs and some even included screen caps of tweets made by people that I know (with misgendering) as examples of this. Do you have any better sources to confirm that it is considered a slur? Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Ms Hungerford is not a neutral party to the debate, herself being an example of the people described by this label. Dolescum (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Counterpunch article was the only actual WP:RS - as opposed to individual and activist blogs which aren't particularly RS - that I could find mentioning the term. Thus sexual slur seemed most relevant. (Given lack of RS redirecting article probably should be AfD'd anyway.)

In any case, this kind of generalized name that might include other editors doubtless goes against Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Discretionary_sanctions, so hopefully people won't use it any more. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Subsequent use of a variant this neologism on such a major feminist site as Feministing would suggest to me that partisan author is partisan, Carolmooredc. Dolescum (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know what you are saying or if such oblique comments with off wikilinks are helpful. Please use Wikispeak. I don't see a link to a page with the term. And advocacy sites are problematic sources to be used carefully in articles and on talk pages. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The article I linked to uses the term "Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist" quite clearly. The term in question is an acronym of this phrase. To me, this clearly indicates that Ms Hungerford's argument is not widely accepted. I also find it strange that you would complain about advocacy sites when the author of the article you linked to originally is herself an advocate with a known conflict of interest on the matter. Dolescum (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between discussing its use in an article with proper WP:RS and bandying it about as a "slur" vs. radical feminists on talk pages. WP:RS wise, there is a difference between a narrow advocacy site promoting a view through basically self-published articles (thus not WP:RS) and a magazine edited by actual journalists that covers a variety of subjects and scrutinizes what it publishes (WP:RS). Hungerford's views can be neutrally, briefly summarized before her quote, as can those of transadvocates. Also note that Sam Leith in the Guardian makes reference to the battles over the use of the term in On Offence review-a 'coolly thoughtful analysis' of the politics of indignation, The Observer, Saturday 29 March 2014.

However, it's a different matter on talk pages. One just has to look at the nasty way the term is used in so many non-RS publications and the way radical feminists object to it in other non-RS publications to know that it is a slur and an insult. I'd assume anyone using the term is going to know that. I can think of a couple terms radical feminists use that also might be objected to here, but would not use them myself. The bottom line is that maintaining civil and collegial editing environment is important. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to be blunt but what exactly about the term is offensive? Both links explained that some people found it offensive but they didn't really give a concrete reason concerning what specifically is offensive about it Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate for me to quote from various NON-RS sources (or more RS if can be found) a) using it in ways that anyone can see is hostile and negative and/or b) claiming it is a slur? Hint: do an internet search of "TERF is a slur" and see what returns you get. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate that. I did search that and as I honestly found the results to be hugely offensive and transphobic, particularly the tumblr blog. I really don't understand how it operates as a slur Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• comment correct me if I'm wrong Carol but it seems you'd like TERF treated in the same way we would another slur like 'nigger' or 'honkey' - in other words editors can discuss the term, what sources say about it, how to include it, etc - but we should not call other editors or other feminists in the real world 'TERFs'. That said, we may need another moniker if we can't use TERF, if at some point we have cause to discuss the subset of radical feminists who make a certain set of claims about trans-people - eg saying that 'trans women aren't real women' etc. do you have a suggestion for a non-offensive way to speak of this?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• ^. I'm also not sure why people would consider it a slur. It's just 4 words jumbled together to describe a set of feminism that excludes transgendered women. "Trans" onsets of transgendered individuals "Exclusionary" means to exclude "radical" obviously radical and "feminist" I'm not seeing the big picture. Tutelary (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

First, let me say as a 65 year old whose lived with a somewhat out, but not ideological or "politically correct" MtF transgender for 18 years, even I was not aware of the development of these hostilities until last summer when I read some articles in Counterpunch. As a long time feminist and radical who has my own independent view on any number of issues that probably only would overlap somewhat with some "radical feminist" views in this article, I can look at the whole thing fairly dispassionately. However, having noted some of the discussions on Wikipedia since last summer and the [[Sexology/Transgender arbitration, it is clear some on both sides cannot. (Thus for example I think we could remove the section below which is a perfect example of an unhelpful and even inflammatory talk page comment.)

Since I'm not sure on various related process to the issue here I'll consult with others who know better before commenting further. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Just want to thank Carolmooredc for their frankness and honesty.

Also, since the I see that section below, I'll say that I've invited a few of you personally to comment on a (rough) draft of a section addressing TERFs and general transgender issues in radical feminism. Any regular watchers of this page are welcome to comment as well. I've been away from WP this weekend, but hope to get someone together to present to you all. If you want to comment, it's at User:EvergreenFir/sandbox2. Keeping it there for now until it's not so rough. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I want to second the comment about your frankness and honesty, I'm impressed by it and I apologise if you felt pressured to reveal personal information through the website to support your argument. I think you have a fair point. I was most likely too preoccupied with trying to understand how TERF could act as a slur that I missed the examples of it is being used as such online. I also support the deletion of the post below. By the way, I had a quick re-read of the article in question yesterday EvergreenFir and it reads well so far, will give it a more thorough reading if I get the time off to do so Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm new to this discussion, but I have been following the debate here for a few days and thought I'd give my 50 cents. One reason "TERF" is problematic is that it's detractors from outside a group naming that group. (For the record, I'm not sure I agree it's bad enough to be a slur though.) But as for what to call this group of instead, maybe look at what they call themselves? "Gender critical" is one term I've seen them use, or they say that they focus on Womyn-born womyn. As a more general point, there seems to be a rush here to describe what critics have to say about "TERFs" (or gender critical feminists if you will) and their views, without clearly describing their views in the first place, using sources written by feminists themselves. For example Sheila Jeffreys and Janice Raymond have written extensively on this topic. (I notice now the sandbox linked above does have some material like that, so maybe I should comment more there.) Sun on a snowy day (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

My points exactly. Now maybe not everyone who uses TERF uses it as a slur, but enough do that its use on talk pages can intimidate some individuals who might want to opine and generally create a hostile environment. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. We should not deliberately omit or inhibit ourselves due to some minority getting offended at what is put into the article. They can make an argument for its removal. (Though I do note WP:BURDEN )As of now, I haven't seen a reasonable objection, and no one dissected what I said earlier. It's just a combination of 4 reasonable words together. "Trans" meaning transgender, "Exclusionary" means excludes, "Radical Feminism" obviously a radical feminist. To try to put this on the same level as a sexual slur I don't think is justified. To deliberately omit it I think is the wrong way to go. Tutelary (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully the above change in title and emphasis on sentence will make it clear that we're discussing here use on talk page. Any use in article should be a separate discussion. My apologies for not making that perfectly clear initially. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

No Mention Of Misandry

Radical feminists are actually sexist women that try to legitimize their sexism and hatred of men with an elaborate philosophy that they call "radical feminism". This should be added into the article as well as the fact that many of these "radical feminists" hold misandrist beliefs. ZZRRZZ (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

That criticism will need sourcing, and close adherence to what the sourcing says, before being added. That includes the part about radical feminism being sexist, since that word is defined as usually '... against females' and only sometimes '... against either gender'. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean it needs sourcing? The article is full of source material. You can't simultaneously say sourcing is lacking for misandry, then list half a dozen feminist who call for a matriarchal system of governance. That, literally, is incoherent of course because calling for a matriarchal system of governance is a prime example of misandry. That was some truly ridiculous philosophical gymnastics preformed right there, really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.51.193 (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I sympathize with you, as it might be frustrating at times to see an article in your eyes as 'out of shape' and other such things. What sources would you bring to the table to add such a thing? Though BRD does apply, just don't forget to use the 'D' portion of it afterwards. Tutelary (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit warring

Creating section in hopes of user discussing changes here. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I've cited problems in the above section and I'm more than willing to discuss in detail why I don't think they belong and with some discussion, could turn to the other side. Tutelary (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

1."postmodernist theorists often argue that the radical feminist ideas on gender are essentialist and that many forms of gender identity complicate any absolute opposition between "men" and "women"" this is plain ridiculous considering radical feminists want to abolish gender and do not believe in "gender identity" considering the theory has no basis in science. They believe (read:know) humans are a sexually dimorphic species (which postmodernists sometimes blatantly deny), and that there are only men and women - who cannot change their SEXes, people with disorders of sexual development are intersex. +there is no source, it is clearly wrong either way.

2."Many radical feminists today still believe that transsexuality is oppressive to women, and genital reassignment surgery is a violation of human rights." no source, and blatant slander.

3."Echols and Willis have both written that radical feminism was, ultimately, dismissive of lesbian sexuality" this might've been true over 30 years ago - something not specified, radical feminism has evolved to a point where political "lesbianism" is dismissed as it reduces lesbianism to "a special friendship" to quite a radfem, the source is on tumblr where basically the only group of radical feminists can communicate - considering they have been silenced and made to leave all other spaces. A significant number of radfems are actual lesbians, which radical feminism currently prioritizes and considers them and WOC the backbone of the movement.

4.Roz Kaveney is not an academic, and certainly not someone to offer objective critisism on radical feminism. Deletion due to bad source. But also, as previously mentioned it is impossible to change one's sex, therefore transwomen are biologically not women, this is a scientific fact, not something radfems believe simply because of bigotry. If there are any more questions feel free to ask. -Bridenh (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest we don't get into debates here as to what or what isn't "technically" a woman; woman is a word in the english language whose meaning is socially determined and changes over time, and none of us has a monopoly on that definition.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to start a debate regarding its meaning or to offend, i apologize if i came off that way. But 'woman' already has a meaning that has been well established and consistent. "an adult female human being", or the longer definition "Woman, female, lady are nouns referring to adult human beings who are biologically female; that is, capable of bearing offspring." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridenh (talk • contribs) 08:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

yes but especially in the context of transgender people we should be careful here, this isn't a radfem blog nor the unfiltered internet, we have many transgender editors here, and making statements like 'transwomen aren't technically women' is only likely to cause drama. By your same definition, women born infertile are also not women, and women with extra chromosomes are not technically women either. What exactly does 'technically' mean? Whose definition are you using of 'woman'? Despite the fact that we still have male and female bathrooms the actual diversity of sex and gender is quite impressive in the human species and there are and always have been people who don't fit neatly into one of those two boxes, but if we stretch the border of the box they fit quite nicely. That's the societal negotiation that is happening now. 'Woman' is not some law of physics, it has strong biological components but also components that are socially constructed.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

"This isn't a radfem blog" - do you mean a TERF blog? There are many trans-positive radical feminists. I agree about what you are saying about trans editors, that kind of transphobia is definitely is not the sort of thing we should be encouraging (but I would say the same about misogynistic editing also) --80.193.191.143 (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

bridenh, I see you changed technically to 'biologically' now, but what is biologically a female? Someone with XX chromosomes? Again, natural human variation creeps out of the boxes we attempt to place it in. I'm not suggesting that biologically a female is not a useful concept, nor is 'able to bear children' as this ability to bear children has major social consequences, I'm simply saying we should nonetheless be careful about being essentialist wrt biology, since there are humans who look male but have XX chromosomes, and there are females (those who identify as such) with XXY chromosomes, and for transgender people which is a very broad umbrella we don't really know amongst them the contents of their chromosomes, there are lots of different biological happenstances which can lead to someone being put into a transgender box. It's why my general feeling is we should stay away from such claims on Wikipedia, of what is 'really' a woman and who is 'truly' female, as the answer is quite complex and mixes up issues of biology with socially defined identities which as noted before are being renegotiated as we speak.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"humans who look male but have XX chromosomes...females with XXY chromosomes" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex .People with disorders of sexual development are a very small minority, humans are still a sexually dimorphic species as all mammals - meaning we're either male or female and people with a disorder of sexual development are intersex. Most transpeople are not intersex, and intersex people have spoken out multiple times regarding transpeople using their condition for themselves. "we should stay away from such claims on Wikipedia" but they're already well explained at wikipedia? Look up the pages Female, Male, Woman, Man, Sexual dimorphism etc etc... (btw if you wish to continue this conversation i recommend moving to another page because sexual dimorphism is largely irrelevant here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridenh (talk • contribs) 11:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

what i meant was, claims that 'person X is truly female' or 'person Y isnt biologically male' --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Intersex folks are not that small of a minority (1.6% of population). About same number as redheads. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Revert

My edits will be the bolded because i find your points will be easier to adress this way. ~Bridenh— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridenh (talk • contribs)

Again, there are several problems within this revert and the reason why I did not comment earlier was because of my wikibreak, and that it was manually reverted so I didn't get a notification for it. Let's see what the problems are

Within the New Left, in the beginning of the movement radical feminists were accused of being <- You need citations in order to add the 'in the beginning of the movement' else are you committing original research.

Queer and postmodernist theorists often argue that the radical feminist ideas on gender are essentialist and that many forms of gender identity complicate any absolute opposition between "men" and "women". Again, you need citations here. How do we know what they're saying? Personal accounts are not valid in this regard, Wikipedia operates on reliable sources, not what individuals say about their own movement.

^So then we're removing the "Queer and postmodernist theorists..." one...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridenh (talk • contribs)

as a "patriarchal myth". Many radical feminists today still believe that transsexuality is oppressive to women, and genital reassignment surgery is a violation of human rights. Sheila Jeffreys for instance, describes 'transgender' surgeries as 'mutilation.' One citation and assigning the word 'many' and then giving one example is not defining the collective entirety of Radical Feminism to being transphobic. That's the definition of WP:UNDUE weight.

and this one^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridenh (talk • contribs)

Radical feminism has been observed as being transphobic, for example in 1979 Janice Raymond's book The Transsexual Empire described transsexuality as a "patriarchal myth". Many radical feminists today still believe that transsexuality is oppressive to women, and genital reassignment surgery is a violation of human rights. Sheila Jeffreys for instance, describes 'transgender' surgeries as 'mutilation.'

The citation is a self published blog, and is not permitted per WP:SPS.

^and this one. I agree with that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridenh (talk • contribs)

Echols and Willis have both written that radical feminism was, ultimately, dismissive of lesbian sexuality. On the one hand, if the central struggle was to take place within personal heterosexual relationships, as envisioned by the Redstockings, lesbians were marginalized. On the other, political lesbianism granted lesbians a cultural feminism]]vanguard role, but only if they would play down erotic desire. Those lesbians whose sexuality focused on genital pleasure were liable to be dismissed by the advocates of political lesbianism as "male identified". The result, through the 1970s, was the adoption by many of a "sanitize[d] lesbianism", stripped of eroticism. I actually have no problem with this but I sought to include it as for you to know my thoughts on it.

^This was written in 1983, it does not speak of modern radical feminism - which must be pointed out.

PS. I wrote none of the paragraphs you have problems with, those are actually the same ones i have a problem with as well for the reasons you specified, meaning we mostly agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridenh (talk • contribs)

Tutelary (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Then you continue to readd them back even after I revert them, even if you have a problem with them. I'm not trying to be mean, but are you looking at what you're reverting in that instance? You're continuing to add 'in the new left' and keep citing stuff about queer theory. Before I move to dissect anything further, I'd like to know what you're attempting to do with your edits so we can better discuss it and hopefully come up with consensus. My week long wikibreak complicated things, and I'm sorry for that. Tutelary (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Bridenh Please sign your name after each comment. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

"and keep citing stuff about queer theory" Im the one who keeps removing the queer theory parts (as well as the other 2 problems you pointed out and i agreed with - considering they're the very same problems i've had from the very beginning). You're the one who keeps reverting my edit to a version which has the parts you have problems with. Mine dont, except for the "in the beginning of the movement" part. Not to be mean but i dont think your reading comprehension is all that well. Please re-read my posts well because you dont even seem to be aware you're the one bringing back the queer theory and generalizations regarding transphobia parts you're blaming me for, i keep removing them because of lack of reliable sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radical_feminism&diff=615450404&oldid=615330666 Bridenh (talk)

Yeah, I have no idea why I kept doing that. I believe it was that 'in the beginning of the movement' thing which got me confused. Nonetheless, sorry about that and

Resolved

. Tutelary (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Removal of actual feminist views from section

I just noticed at at this diff Steeletrap removed the tiny bit there is on actual feminist views writing "rmv undue detail of anti-trans views from 1970s feminists". Raymond's views still are discussed today and Jeffries has a new, widely discussed book out. And there is more info about actual past and current feminist views on the topic that could be in the section (not to mention the article on the topic). This is an article about radical feminist views, not trans criticisms of them with no mention of what they actually are. Please edit in an NPOV manner. The paragraph should be put back in. A far better one could be written, even if one only used the New Yorker article as a reference, though there are lots more out there. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

See that I was not the only one who started a section on this. Where's what I just wrote:

Steeletrap removed some content in this edit saying that it was undue. However we have multiple sources mentioning these influential writings. Their age should not be an issue. These writings are key to understanding the current issues and I feel they need to be included in some manner. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume you mean you were about to start a section and saw mine? Or did I miss yours? Can't see it above. I did notice your comment to Steeletrap, but had forgot to look at any changes in main space before posting so did not realize it might be related to that.

In any case, a pretty obvious editing problem which needs to be reverted and hopefully improved, source and content wise. (Just real busy myself on something else right now.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I think I was typing mine as you posted yours and saw it when the page refreshed.  :) I am hesitant to revert it myself as I was the original writer and don't want to appear to edit war. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The two should be merged in one section to avoid confusion and that does seem to be what you did. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

{od}Back to the topic at hand, I see at this diff User:NorthBySouthBaranof seems to have put that material back as it was, though it's a little difficult to tell exactly what's changed without careful study. I still think it's poorly written as commented elsewhere, but have bigger fish to fry for now. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Need links/quotes for "women governing" sentence

Obviously this article needs going through with a fine tooth comb. I reverted This diff where the matriarchy link was replaced with the female supremacy link, which just redirects to matriarchy. Unless the editor can show that all those sources use the term female supremacy, it's obviously OR and POV.

In an case, I do request that all those sources have links to the material or relevant short quotes from every one showing that "matriarchy" is the term used. Otherwise, we should use whatever terms each of the women use, in order to avoid WP:OR. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I am that editor and I was using Reflinks to fill in a reference and did not notice it. I don't mind that it was reverted and apologize that it was even changed to begin with. Though it ponders me why it was changed...maybe I'll ask the person who made reflinks. Tutelary (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring vs: WP:BURDEN on "transfeminist" and "allies" WP:OR

In this diff I clearly write "neither source says transfeminist or allies use term; transwomen used by most reliable source". If I missed those explicit phrases "transfeminist" and "allies" being used to describe individuals who use the term TERF, do tell. The onus is on those who put in the material to bring it to talk page. See WP:BURDEN.

In the first reversion the editor at least admitted to WP:OR writing: not just transwomen; felt original was likely accurate, but replacing with more general "transgender people and allies". Nevertheless another editor removed the WP:OR tag that says it is "original research" and writes The content is well-sourced and any concerns should be explicitly stated for discussion. This goes against WP:BURDEN and looks like edit warring. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted this edit due the wording that it added. It attempted to euphemize certain parts of the article and inserted wording to do this. For example, changing 'believing' to 'knowing' and adding 'that is not radical feminism' without a source. They also removed sourced content without regards to what it said. I think that if there is a good reason to be doing this, it can be readded. Tutelary (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I sent you an email before finding this page (sorry I'm new). I would appreciate it if you could post it here. -Bridenh

@Bridenh: I did not get it. But please, discuss your changes and why they should stay here. I've reverted you again due to such. My above comment is still relevant. Tutelary (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

please point out the specific parts that have problems, i cant write out the entire huge email i sent you again -@Bridenh:

I did not get an email from you. I double checked by spam folder and into 20 days into the rest of my inbox. Anywho, I'm pretty sure email clients have 'sent' boxes, in which you can get your email if you did indeed send it to me. You can get it from there. Tutelary (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

im asking for the specific parts that have problems, because some of the edits i made are minor/unproblematic, specify what the problems are so i can address them -@Bridenh:

I think you are in the wrong "revert" section. Again, read WP:Burden and WP:Original research. You can't "synthesize" what you think they mean. It was something like source says "allies are upset about some radical feminists" - you can't change that to "allies use the term terf." And if no one says "trans feminist" you can't use it. You have to use the source's language - or find a source that says what you want. Feel free to move you question and my response to last revert section where it belongs. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

ARBCOM thread

Apparently there is discussion about the slur elsewhere. For the benefit of those who are unaware of this, the discussion is here: [1]. SPECIFICO talk 20:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I actually just started a clarification request which can be found here. Carolmooredc, my apologies for the overlap. I was unaware of this other discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Time for WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard??

Obviously there are a bunch of content issues here, more than my mind cares to get around at this exact moment. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard is the place to bring content disputes for those who care to outline and resolve the disputes, as opposed to keep them going for months. Any takers? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: this regarding the recent edits by Bridenh and Tutelary? Or the section as a whole? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we're closer to resolving it, I still have a problem with 2 of the edits, but I feel we'll resolve that much easier as they are smaller problems.Bridenh (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the status of all of this at this point. My one new reference and my fixes to transadvocate as a source are being repeatedly lost in the reverts.

However, earlier looking at the postings above I was reminded of (Talk:Radical_feminism#Locked), User:Tutelary where the Admin wrote: "I think of this lock as not just a lock but also a warning to everyone that your edits may be scrutinized." (Note that at that time User:Tutelary was User:Ging287.)

Non-RS and RS infer or even state that men's rights activists support transgenders (and themselves in some cases) being allowed into all-women's conferences, rest rooms, locker rooms, prisons, etc. and both paint dissenting Radical feminists as bigots and actively and even viciously harass them. So individuals working from a Men's rights perspective obviously could be disruptive. Above Tutlary brought up that "the model should be the Mens Rights article" regarding minority vs. majority viewpoints, again making me a bit discomfited. So that issue does complicate the WP:DRN at this point. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This is no place for personal disparagement. I suggest you strike your remarks. SPECIFICO talk 22:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's review: An Admin blocked the article because of April 12-13 edit warring in which User:Tutelary was involved, and Tutelary commented above under the name User:Ging287. The Admin explained "An editor brought the Men's rights movement up in their edit. Any edit to any article relating to that topic is under probation." I thought that included the talk page, and I'm sure it would if some guys came here banging their chests about men's rights. There were other issues with Tutelary and that Admin regarding men's rights that had me wondering, but the Admins comments clarified it all for me.

Note that WP:General sanctions (which lists Mens Rights under community sanctions) doesn't tell you how to deal with issues, so one assumes one uses WP:Dispute resolution which includes the talk page. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Carol, I'm not sure how it's relevant that a 5 month old full protection was used for a short time on this article. Also I'm not sure how it's relevant that my old username is relevant at all. I changed it for privacy reasons. All I did related to 'men's rights' on this page was a mention of the MRM article--and the model of it's content. I even elaborated on this, describing that they do explain the person's position wtihout it becoming a mouthpiece for the minority view, giving it appropriate due weight. And Carol, there has been dispute resolution occuring, and it's rather annoying that Bridenh keeps ignoring WP:BRD in this case to continue restoring his favored version. Tutelary (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we would have to leave it for an admin as to who was reverting who the most. In complex cases like this where editors not 100% involved can get very confused, a draft should be worked out on the talk page as I tried to do once before and was ignored.

Also, because as alluded to above, there are accusations that transgenders and men's rights individuals sometimes work together and some RS may yet be introduced on that, it's just important to understand the ground rules on when Men's rights sanctions get introduced as an issue here. All in all another reason attention to civility and not using phrases in ways that can be perceived as hositle and upset others helps. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You appealing to Bbb23 in an attempt to get me topic banned/banned from this editing area anything but civil. Given Tutelary's history there, on your talk page, re: Memills, at RSN discussion and elsewhere, I have to wonder if Tutelary is imposing a defacto men's rights viewpoint on the transgenderism part of the Radical feminism article. Bringing up past discussions about me in an attempt to frame me as an MRA is quite insulting, Carol. In this case the issue is that men's rights activists support transgenders (and themselves in some cases) being allowed into all-women's conferences, rest rooms, locker rooms, prisons, etc. and both paint dissenting Radical feminists as bigots and actively and even viciously harass them. What a fun strawman. The only person bringing "Men's rights" into this conversation is you. I only mentioned the article's format and expression of due weight. Your points also of trying to get Men's rights sanctions applied here is also disheartening. Maybe you should focus on the actual content rather than attempting to dissuade and dismiss the person contesting it. Tutelary (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I do have to wonder. But he set me straight on policy, and I accept that. Anyway, if the inflammatory issues are settled, I can finish some other projects and make a database of relevant refs. I find it frustrating dealing with refs that just pop up in articles and aren't necessarily the best available, especially when I've read or saved or at least have Google alerts to at least a couple dozen sources. So if we are finished here... those who want to continue working on this current draft should make everyone else's life easier by working on a draft here OR going to WP:DRN. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: Dispute resolution might not be a bad idea at this stage. I'm getting the impression that passions are running high in some hearts and discussion about the article is generating more heat than light at this stage. Finding a way to cool things down would probably be of great benefit to all of us. Dolescum (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, I don't have time or energy to get my head around all the editing issues, so probably not a good person to start it. But will take a look if no one else does and see if I can distill it down to maybe two or three that could be discussed constructively. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Cases of misrepresentation and OR

If you believe these should remain on the page, give good reasons for it, otherwise I'll remove them because of the following:

1.Second paragraph: The introduction is where the main beliefs/accomplishments are listed, not criticism - which goes in it's own section. This article also appears to be the only where this is so. WP:NPOV. 2.Theory and ideology, second paragraph: "These other categories of oppression may include, but are not limited to, oppression based on gender identity..." WP:OR. This seems doubtful, if there is no good source that specifically states this (and there currently isn't;expired) I'll remove it. There's more but for an easier debate I'll leave it at this. Address by number.Bridenh (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Taken from an article on The F Word, a large mainstream UK feminist site.

Feminist discourse has provided me the vocabulary to articulate the injustice and oppression I have experienced. It has crystallised how race, faith, disability, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, trans identity and so on can further exacerbate the oppression women experience.

Behold, a description of the intersectional theory of oppression that is currently dominant within feminist discourse and is encountered by anyone who spends an hour reading their writings. Dolescum (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately radical feminism is not currently dominant within feminist discourse, that's a good article to use maybe on the liberal feminism page, but certainly not here. I doubt a source that confirms radical feminists support the gender identity concept at all even exists. My other point remains unaddressed. EDIT: just noticed the source that supports that entire paragraph does not exist. Bridenh (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

That source certainly is valid here. I suggest you review WP:FRINGE. Attempting to limit the sources to those approving of Radical Feminism is in effect a breach of NPOV. Oh, also WP:CRIT specifies that criticism should be Integrated throughout the article in reference to your desire to focus on accomplishments first.

The text in question certainly is in the article, I checked that link before posting. I suggest you search the document by hitting Ctrl+F in your browser and searching for 'trans'. If you are unable to load the article, please try using a proxy instead. Do you have any further questions? Dolescum (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

First, we'd have to investigate if The_F-Word_(feminist_blog) entry is RS or not in general, but there's no doubt higher quality sources could be found.

More importantly, she's talking about "feminists". See Category:Feminist_theory. There are a few dozen varieties represented by articles. And there probably are only a few ideas they will all support. So it's definitely OR to use that source to speak about the subset called "radical feminism."

I mean, I have my own definition of "radical feminism" which is really more like "libertarian feminism" but I do NOT try to define radical feminism that way. I only use quality sources that talk explicitly about what the great majority of radical feminists have said it is. If that has changed through the years, fine, as long as we use quality sources to discuss it all. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware that there are "feminisms", Carolmooredc, but from what I've seen most of the larger sites seems to operate with a "big tent" approach where's there's a loose consensus on the major issues. Certainly, there's debate on the comment sections but then that's largely a given for any movement for social change. My main reason for hitting The F Word is it seemed fairly popular with the feminists I've spoken to here in the UK and I could pull the content fairly quickly as I have previous experience of the site. The F Word has seen some use already on wikipedia as a source though I've not turned anything up at RSN's archives.

As an offhand thought, I quickly ran google over feministing.com, and pulled an article mentioning "the oppression trans folks face", if that's any help in persuading you. This should go to RSN too, nothing in the archives (unless I'm messing up what I'm feeding the engine!).

I'd argue that "feminists who are radical" are not equivalent to "radical feminists". From what I've encountered, the term "radical feminism" refers specifically to an ideological subset defined by the writings of Dworkin, Jeffreys, Raymond, Daly et al and the use of that term is guarded quite jealously within feminism by its adherents. That same subset of beliefs are treated quite critically by most of those in other streams of feminism and my point would be that the article should reflect that.

Anyway, enough of me blathering for now. Dolescum (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You posted this before I got around to addressing your previous one so I'll do it now and add some more...

"I suggest you review WP:FRINGE" Radical feminism is currently fringe feminism, fortunately this isn't about feminism in general, and radical feminism surely cannot be "fringe" on a page about radical feminism? What is your logic?

"Attempting to limit the sources to those approving of Radical Feminism is in effect a breach of NPOV." Actually misrepresenting someone's views is NPOV as well. And no one said there shouldn't be criticism, there's a special section dedicated to it, the introduction is for... well, an introduction. The placing of criticism there, even before an explanation of said groups views is NPOV especially considering how radical feminism is extra disliked - even by fellow 'feminists', and "coincidentally" the only feminism page where this is so.

"My main reason for hitting The F Word is it seemed fairly popular with the feminists I've spoken to here in the UK" well that's nice but I doubt either they or The F Word hold radical feminist views. Just in case you didn't realize the problem, (among others) its presenting liberal feminist views as radical feminist. "some radical feminists propose that... others acknowledge the simultaneous and intersecting effect of other independent categories of oppression as well... oppression based on gender identity". This implies that there are radical feminists who even acknowledge gender identity at all, libfems - yes, radfems - good luck finding a source that supports that claim. I'll humor you and wait a bit before removing.Bridenh (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Bridenh, thanks for a more expansive response for me to engage with. Okay, let me start with your second paragraph. The lead section is both an introduction and and a summary of the article of as a whole, just like the abstract of an academic paper (check out MOS:LEAD). If there's strong criticism in the article wikipedia's manual of style states that the lead should reflect that.

To move on to your third paragraph, you originally asked for a source for gender identity being viewed as a source of oppression. Yes, I presented a liberal feminist source, as the criticism is made by liberal feminists and libfem ideology, as you note above, is the predominant consensus. The objective is not to present those views as radical feminist views, merely to demonstrate libfems hold those views and that the criticism has been made by libfems.

So, on that basis, when you originally asked to remove libfem criticism, my logic is that you wish to present only radfem views. That came across to me as cherrypicking sources so we ended up potentially violating WP:PROFRINGE.

By all means add sourced explanations of radfem positions to the page. Please just leave the libfem stuff in so we can present context to readers. Dolescum (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not ask to remove libfem criticism, I asked to remove libfem views which are presented as if they were radfem views. Read carefully. Bridenh (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC

Archive.org has a backup of the dead link in section 2 of your complaint. It's an anarcho-feminist site. I've reinstated your changes to the ideology section for the time being. I'll go source hunting when I'm less tired. My apologies for not spotting you'd switched to point 2 of you original post. Dolescum (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:Original research reads: To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. This mean you can't say anyone writing about "feminists" is writing about "radical feminists". The policy is clear and it's annoying to have to go to WP:ORN or WP:RFC so that we can drag other editors away from their other tasks to explain the policy to those who want OR views in the article. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Assuming you're referring to my assertion that Radical Feminism is a specific ideological subset, how about Chapter 9 of this work? There's an expanded version of that chapter available here if google books proves annoying. Amazon listing for a hardcover copy has the ISBN. Dolescum (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding of what the problem is, the paragraph implies there are radical feminists who believe there is oppression on the basis of gender identity. Or even believe in gender identity as a concept at all. I requested a source and quote that support this, because considering radfems are gender critical and gender abolitionists, it is not only doubtful, but irreconcilable. Bridenh (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Could I ask you to check the current text of the article, please? Dolescum (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes thanks, just did. Regarding the criticism in the very introduction, I listed why it's not only unnecessary and NPOV to put it there, and will quote myself "no one said there shouldn't be criticism, there's a special section dedicated to it, the introduction is for... well, an introduction. The placing of criticism there, even before an explanation of said groups views is NPOV especially considering how radical feminism is extra disliked - even by fellow 'feminists', and "coincidentally" the only feminism page where this is so." you responded that its a summary of the article, which still doesnt address most of my problems with it being there, especially how there is no such type of summary on other feminist pages, for example.Bridenh (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Then if you admit that the source is reliable, there should be no problem in not removing the criticism, but as you mentioned, putting it 'later' into the criticism section. Tutelary (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I pointed out the content of MOS:LEAD above in regards to that section. I repeat, it is a violation of NPOV to give undue weight to fringe viewpoints. The broad consensus in the rest of western society differs from Radical Feminists, vide other feminists, laws, medical consensus and academic consensus. Readers scanning the lead should be made aware of that. I repeat, this resembles an attempt to promote fringe views. Raising the matter again looks like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

That said, we could discuss changing how that criticism is presented, rather than simply deleting it. How does that sound? Dolescum (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Dolescum, I initially was looking at a different section and wasn't paying attention to it. I also believe that I am on the wrong side of your pointy stick. (not intending to use that you're arguing out of place, violating WP:POINT or WP:STICK, just used as an analogy) I am against what Bridenh and Carol are arguing for. Indeed, minority viewpoints should not be expressed of 'undue weight' and should be managed appropriately. If BridenH and Carol are both in agreement that this is a fringe set of feminism, then all sorts of fringe things would subsequently apply to the article. So I'm not sure whether they want to make that statement. As it sits, any significant criticism of the topic at hand, especially academic or otherwise should be provided in the lead as long as the sources making those statements are in good content and reliable. That is my viewpoint. Tutelary (talk)

Tutelary, I left my indent level identical to yours in order to signify I was replying to Bridenh. I'd have indented under you (such as this post) in order to signify a reply to you. I'd like us all to start threading our replies if possible, I noticed last night I was getting a touch confused as to who was replying to what while discussing with both Carolmooredc and Bridenh in a single thread. I'm hoping this could help keep things a little clearer.

If you read my post, you'll see I agree that the criticism should remain in the lead, like yourself, but I do think there's room for us to discuss presentation. Dolescum (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there must be contextualizing presentation of mainstream views in the lede. Readers go to an encyclopedia for an overview of the subject, hence WP policy concerning due weight and treatment of fringe views. SPECIFICO talk 20:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain how radical feminist views are "fringe" views on a page about radical feminist views? "The broad consensus in the rest of western society differs from Radical Feminists" the same could be said for others, yet this is the only one where it is mentioned. I'll repeat again because no one has addressed my points, "no one said there shouldn't be criticism, there's a special section dedicated to it, the introduction is for... well, an introduction. The placing of criticism there, even before an explanation of said groups views is NPOV especially considering how radical feminism is extra disliked - even by fellow 'feminists', and "coincidentally" the only feminism page where this is so. You responded that its a summary of the article, which still doesnt address most of my problems with it being there, especially how there is no such type of summary on other feminist pages, for example." That is bias in editing. Bridenh (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a question of perspective Bridenh. Notice the lead sections of Cold fusion and Gravitational shielding, a couple of other fringe topics, also have statements expressing criticism because mainstream consensus is against them. I thought this was explained above, that the context of Radical Feminism's place in mainstream thought is as important for our readers. There is a clear preference here that we should retain the criticism and you have edited the article against the apparent consensus to remove this yet again, Bridenh. I'm pretty confident that you are engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If you remove the criticism against consensus again, Bridenh, then I'm going to escalate the matter (with a heavy heart because I think you could make some valuable contributions) to WP:EWN. Please stop. Dolescum (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)