Talk:Radical feminism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

New "Radical feminism and transgenderism" section

I have boldly added a section about "TERFs" (trans-exclusionary radical feminists) in this edit. This topic has been discussed in the past but a new source from New Yorker Magazine was recently published and pushed the section over the "neologism" and "not enough good sources" line. I had previously worked on cobbling together a section and had discussed it with Carolmooredc and others here in my sandbox.

Carolmooredc had raised a few issues on the above linked sandbox and I suspect other editors may have similar concerns so I'd like to briefly address a select few.

• TransAdvocate appears prima facie to be WP:RS as it has a managing editor. Per WP:BIASED, a source need not be neutral, only reliable. I admit it's not the strongest source, but all statements where it is used as a source have additional sources.
• Salon and Bitch Magazine articles are not filed as opinion pieces. The Bitch Magazine article is specifically under "News". As with TransAdvocate, they are accompanied by other supporting sources so I do not feel author attribution is necessary.
• I acknowledge that "TERF" is a loaded term. I have done my best to define it neutrally and not be disparaging to either "side". I've also tried to detail the basis for exclusion of transwomen as well as transwomen's response. I've also noted that some of those labeled "TERF" consider it a slur. I've aimed for due balance across the board.

Given the nature of the topic, I suspect this edit will be reverted per bold, revert, discuss and hence my immediate creation of this section. If not reverted, I'd love to use this to discuss how the section can be improved and expanded as there's certainly more to add about radical feminism and transgenderism. I look forward to (hopefully) coming to a consensus on this section.

A friendly reminder to all editors that any and all articles related to transgender issues/topics are subject to discretionary sanctions per this ruling by the Arbitration Committee made in light of the Manning naming dispute and editing and talk page discussion should be made with care. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I support such a section and it's current contents. Tutelary (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to deal with this right now, but here's what I considered a more NPOV version on User:EvergreenFir's talk page in April. When discussing the "radical feminist" position it's helpful to quote radical feminists; a lot more has been written since even last spring. The New Yorker article has some excellent material which needs to be used explaining the viewpoint that needs to be used. And of course the phrase "gender critical" is the one that we should be focusing on. (Time for that article.) Again, TERF is a trans word not a feminist word so it's use as a critical phase not a descriptive phrase needs to be emphasized, and in one short mention only.

Draft, needs work

Radical feminists have long expressed views on transgenderism and transexualism which have become controversial in recent years. In 1979 Janice Raymond's book The Transsexual Empire: the making of the she-male. described transsexuality as a "patriarchal myth". Sheila Jeffreys believes that transsexuality is oppressive to women, and genital reassignment surgery is a violation of human rights, describing it as "mutilation". Some radical feminists have advocated for the exclusion of transwomen from feminist events, a source of much controversy.
Transgender feminist Liz Kaveney wrote in a The Guardian opinion piece that radical feminists are trans-exclusionary because they believe transwomen cannot be counted as women because they were not born biologically female. Raymond's book is considered key in shaping trans-exclusionary radical feminist views.
Transgender activists coined the term “Trans-exclusionary radical feminism” (TERF) to describe a subset of radical feminism which espouses the exclusion of "transwomen" from feminism and women-only spaces. Such activists have accussed “TERFs” of transphobia. The term is considered a slur by some who are labeled TERF, such as Cathy Brennan and Elizabeth Hungerford. Hungerford wrote in CounterPunch: "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." Sam Leith in The Observer noted that "TERF" is an example of the "politics of indignation."

Leith and Sarah Ditum have noted that denying a platform for speech has been extended to radical feminists labeled as "transexclusionary". Ditum writes about feminist Julie Bindel who states that she was "no platformed" because she questioned "the essentialist meaning of transgenderism, because, by positing gender as fixed it flies in the face of feminism.” Transgender activists have worked to have radical feminists events that exclude transwomen cancelled.

That's all for now. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Ray Filar from "thefword" is not a reliable source. Neither is Cristan Williams who is incapable of being objective on the topic of radical feminism and does not have bonafides.

The section is very biased as it mostly consists of accusations with sources, and not explanations for radical feminists' position.

Why does Sheila Jeffreys believe that transsexuality is oppressive to women?

Why do radical feminists believe being born female and therefore receiving female socialization is important in order to access WBW spaces - or be considered a woman in general? (Female socialization is a process of psychologically constraining and breaking girls—otherwise known as “grooming”—to create a class of compliant victims.-Lierre Keith) I believe this as well as a lot of other parts of this article are relevant not only in the section but multiple parts of the RF page. As well as these articles: http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/02/sex-is-not-gender/

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/07/the-left-hand-of-darkness/

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/01/too-many-notes/ The links also mostly show the trangenders' point of view, that is very biased. The Bitch Media and Salon/Jacobin are clearly opinion pieces, so is that of Roz Kaveney, who's article title is enough to show that. Also the last sentence needs to be more specific, there are transwomen who support and are accepted within radical feminism, they were mentioned in the very article you linked to. I'm referring to "These views are... rejected by transwomen.". The New Yorker is a good source that covers both sides, i believe more of its content should be added to balance the section out. Also sorry for the grammar or if i missed something, i wrote this once but my computer shut down and lost everything. (Bridenh (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC))

Please explain why they are no reliable sources instead of asserting that they are not. Again, we cannot call something an opinion piece unless it's labeled as such. Again, I will point to WP:BIASED. TheFWord does have editorial oversight ([http://www.thefword.org.uk/general/about_the_f-word)). If there are issues with the sources, address them, don't just delete them. Issues of source reliability need to be discussed on WP:RSN. Counterpunch is not favored in past RSN discussions and should not be used in conteneous articles (1, 2, 3 to link a few).

I agree we need to cover more if the anti-trans radfem position. It would help balance out the piece, though I don't see how it mostly shows the "trangenders' point of view" since almost all sentences are about radfems. On that note, I disagree with Carolmooredc that TERF is a transgender word. It's a transfeminist word. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to read WP:RS:Questionable and unreliable sources. Also note that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Discretionary_sanctions means that editors who misuse sources, especially regarding biographies of living people, can be summarily sanctioned by admins. Please don't make us argue with you over set policy. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you can outline which source you're referring to, as I'm pretty sure EverGreenFir just contested your 'counterpunch' is not reliable thing, but you're not raising any specific issue. Maybe you could explain why you don't think the source(s) are reliable for the section? Tutelary (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Carolmooredc Do not try to shut me down here. I have shown that all sources I've used have editorial oversight, a minimum requirement. None have a reputation for poor fact checking per the RSN. This moves them beyond "questionable". Counterpunch, on the other hand, has RSN entries questioning its quality. If any admin feels I am acting inappropriately here with regards to the discretionary sanctions, I welcome them to tell me how and why and I will cease the behavior. Again, if you have an issue with a specific source, we can remove it for the time being while a discussion on WP:RSN takes place. All but one sentence has multiple citations or is supported by the New Yorker Magazine piece. Salon passes full muster on RSN. There are no entries about TheFWord or BitchMagazine that I can find, but you are welcome to start one. Again, you can not proclaim an article an opinion piece from reliable sources if it's not marked as such. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

EvergreenFir mentioned the Manning sanctions above. That only applies to whether individuals are called by the pronouns they preferred. The more relevant one is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Discretionary_sanctions. So the sanctions topic already was in play.

Also, just because refs haven't been taken to WP:RSN yet doesn't mean they are reliable. And Counterpunch's reliability usually is based on who wrote what and other factors, more than the site itself; it is edited by journalists, as opposed to the advocacy sites people are tying to use. Anyway, let's bring the dubious refs to WP:RSN and meanwhile I'm working on a version that includes truly WP:RS sources and more NPOV info. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I did mention and link Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Discretionary_sanctions specifically in my first post. Also sorry for my snappiness in my previous reply. I look forward to seeing your edits. I think merging your draft with the text on the page would be fruitful. I would like to just note that "TERF" is not just from trans activists, but transfeminists. Also, we need to avoid WP:SCAREQUOTES like used around transwomen. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

These sources are either outdated or arguing against an expired ideology. Rad feminists such as Evelyn Rich used to have contempt for male homosexuality in addition to being anti-trans. Few modern feminists -- "radical or otherwise" -- are anti-gay men or anti-trans women. With the new generation especially, TERF is FRINGE. Steeletrap (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

FRINGE, but significant enough to be covered by mainstream media in depth. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll point out what Carolmooredc said: "Counterpunch's reliability usually is based on who wrote what and other factors, more than the site itself; it is edited by journalists, as opposed to the advocacy sites people are tying to use" i believe this applies to the sources EvergreenFir used as well, the writers of those arent reliable and you're google away from seeing why yourself, i'll point out why later. Either way, it appears EvergreenFir has not even checked the links i posted. One of them was written by Elizabeth Hungerford, considering the section EvergreenFir created, i'm guessing they already know about her. Another article was written by Deep Green Resistance member Lierre Keith, who's views regarding gender abolition mirror those held by radical feminists, i especially recommend her article - it is relevant not only in the transgenderism section but in those about RF beliefs in general. Julian Vigo's 2 articles are about how the clashes came to be and what they are. All of the articles have detailed responses to accusations against radical feminism, even to one of the articles EvergreenFir used - “The hate group masquerading as feminists”, and would be necessary to include in the section so there would be balance and no one-sidedness, which there currently is a lot of. Most of the current links in the section are websites of those that promote gender - which RF seeks to abolish, how can you seriously claim they cannot be biased? You must either 1)Not know enough about the reasons for the disagreements between the two groups or 2)Know them and purposefully only show one side. I noticed EvergreenFir identifies as genderqueer which - and i promise this is not a personal attack - simply makes no.2 much more likely, and is just suspicious in general that they'd edit such a page as RF (by creating a section that portrays the group in a bad way - regarding gender no less) to begin with. I'd prefer to discuss the section with Carolmooredc who does not seem biased regarding the issue, the section should however not be removed, it has potential to explain a big conflict within feminism. (Bridenh (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC))

Bridenh - Consider striking your comments and reading WP:AGF, one of the pillars of Wikipedia. I edit this page because I am a sociologists who specializes in gender and feminist criminology. I am a feminist and a member of SWS and in leadership positions for the local chapter. You are a newer editor and despite your recent edits, I've given you the benefit of the doubt but if you continue to assume ill of me, we will have a problem. Use this talk page to only discuss the article, not editors. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary" radical feminism seeks to abolish gender, without which your gender identity would not exist, I simply said it was suspicious that you would edit a page about an ideology that has such views, which is why I asked Carolmooredc to be a mediator. Most of the section you created is one-sided, with only 2 out of 9 links being neutral towards radical feminism/explaining their views, the others already having made up their minds that it is bad and/or should not exist (even calling them a "cult" and "hate group"). And as shown in Keith's article, the slightest criticism of gender earns one the label TERF, meaning there are no radical feminists who have not been labeled as such (except closeted ones of course). I had good reasons to be suspicious, but I am still not accusing you of anything. Also, please address the other points I made. Thank you and I still believe this can continue to be a productive conversation that can solve the issues regarding a section that - as I previously said - has potential to explain an important, not well addressed conflict within feminism. Bridenh (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

radical feminism seeks to abolish gender, without which your gender identity would not exist, simply said it was suspicious that you would edit a page about an ideology that has such views, Would you please just stop making it about EvergreenFir? It's a bit ridiculous seeing that you keep making it about her, rather than about the content. Please just stop even mentioning her, you're just digging yourself a deeper hole. Most of the section you created is one-sided, with only 2 out of 9 links being neutral towards radical feminism/explaining their views, Please see WP:BIASED. We are not going to disqualify or dismiss sources just because they seem to be biased, but there may be other factors which would disqualify them, being blogs, not reliable, no editorial control, but it does not seem to be the case for this. And as shown in Keith's article, the slightest criticism of gender earns one the label TERF, Not in the least bit relevant to this content dispute unless the article is being used in the article, which I don't think it is. . I had good reasons to be suspicious, No, you don't. It's borderline personal attacks. Comment on content, not the contributor. Tutelary (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see things have become heated, so I put the "controversial" box up there to remind us to keep our tempers. Just a reminder to discuss the issues, not the personalities, especially when one may be drawing large conclusions from small evidences. Let's stay rationale :-)

I think any pronunciations about radical feminism or how the gender critical view will play out are premature. As the New Yorker article notes, in the last couple years transgender activists have become very assertive in advancing their agenda, including through law, and some have become very insulting towards women who disagree.

While some who call themselves "radical feminists" have been most vocal over the years, a growing number of feminists (and non-ideological women) of every sort have taken offense at many of these laws and/or the way women who dispute them are being treated. Having a few google alerts out for the last 10 months or so since I became more aware of the growing conflict, it amazes me how many new blogs and articles expressing gender critical views there are on the topic daily by women.

In any case WP:Reliable sources tend to have a far more dispassionate view than the perspective presented in the "Radical feminism and transgenderism" section (or the article, for that matter). That section and the article should be written from the perspective of what radical feminism is from high quality sources, not from what lower quality, biased sources by contemporary critics say it is.

Finally, I did put Transadvocate as a source up at "Transadvocate" use in BLP, etc last night. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Can we please stop airing personal opinions about a civil rights movement's political rumblings? Let's just focus on the article. Thank you though for creating the RSN. I do agree that the section (and the article as a whole) could use better sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please address the rest of my comment. For example, have we established that the Counterpunch articles can be used as sources? Bridenh (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Counterpunch actually is published by journalists and it's editor is Jeffrey St. Clair. If you go to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and search the source, in this case a search for counterpunch. As you can see there are a variety of opinions depending on who wrote the article and whether they are an expert on the topic. In any case, I think a noted feminist speaking on feminism in Counterpunch is more than adequately RS, even if a majority of individuals who choose to populate this page or go to WP:RSN disagree. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

If the "majority of individuals who choose to populate this page or go to WP:RSN disagree" that Counterpunch is a reliable source, then please accept that consensus is against you on this issue. betafive 17:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

There have been discussions about its reliability, which show that it depends more on who wrote the article and what its about. All of the authors of the articles I recommended are reliable and relevant not only in the transgenderism section but other parts of the page as well. Bridenh (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Not really, it all depends on whether the source has editorial control or not. If it does, then it can be assumed that it is a reliable source. We also shouldn't be trying to exclude sources based on some technicality, either. Somebody does not need to have a Ph.D or have extreme experience to author a RS. It's reliable. In addition to the section below, I am all for restoring the edit that was removed by Steel, given that it's directly on point and the fact that it's from the 1970's is not a qualifier on whether it should stay or not. Just because something is historical does not mean it's not valid. Tutelary (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary - For clarity, are you saying you view Counterpunch as an RS or not? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

For this specific scenario and what it's being used for, yes. Tutelary (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I reverted North because it is established that TransAdvocate has editorial control and operates in a news oriented format, and to RSN, is reliable to that regard. Tutelary (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Non-involved editor User:NorthBySouthBaranof has reverted you all again per WP:BLP policy. I think further reverts on a clear policy issue really will necessitate a report to WP:ARBCOM. Again please read the relevant policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources (which includes link to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources). And remember the first sentence of WP:BLP policy is: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. i.e., not just actual biographies but any mention of living persons. Also, this is besides the issue of the the paragraph not being written as an NPOV view of radical feminist views but as a POV presentation of those views by opponents. But that will take more work to correct. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted but included an independent, reliable source as such. I still hold that Transadvocate is reliable per this instance but will cede that as a compromise. Tutelary (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

An op-ed by an identified transgender activist is not an independent reliable source which can be used to impose a pejorative label upon someone else as a statement of fact. It is a fact that a person calls someone a TERF - it is not a fact that a person is a TERF unless that label is self-identified or widely applied by independent reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a reliable source and I invite you to go to RSN if you disagree, Huffington Post has editorial control over their own site, and especially over that post. In addition, it's not being used as a label against anyone, and I don't know who added the specific names but I invite that they be removed. Tutelary (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed "Radical feminists are acting like a cult" and "The hate group masquerading as feminists" as per WP:BLP, TransAdvocate as per WP:SPS - Cristan Williams is an activist and the site is an advocacy site - WP:NPOV, and the Huffpost article because it is an opinion piece, eg. "that we are "men invading women's spaces"" - no source and WP:NOR radical feminists claim men (not transwomen) will use the loosely described GID laws to enter women's spaces (as mentioned in the UN letter), "Whenever a trans individual such as myself is critical of TERF ideology, we are labelled "misogynists" or "Men's Rights Activists"" WP:UNSOURCED, "Nature has many variations of physical gender that occur naturally, in fauna and flora. Quite simply then, logic dictates that Cathy Brennan's definition of gender does not stand up to basic real-world scrutiny" that is sex - I'm not even sure what this one is... plain ignorance? This is an "independent, reliable source"? From a person who expresses their personal opinion on the matter, throws out accusations - no sources, and doesnt know the difference between sex and gender? Also per WP:BLP, or more specifically per WP:Eventualism, do not re-add the unreliable sources while we haven't reached consensus.Bridenh (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, and the reliability of TransAdvocate has just been affirmed by RSN and Huffington Post has long been considered a reliable source, as well as the guardian. Note: Read WP:BIASED before you remove again. Additionally, unless it's in the Wikipedia article, we don't need to source it specifically. We have no editorial control over what other newspapers/other sources do/use in their opinions. Tutelary (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I would just like to add that in the current wording the source cannot be used because of mandated attribution per WP:NEWSBLOG, but in general when taken to RSN, it's reliable but everything depends on context; such as this special situation. Tutelary (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you actually read what I said? The site it was posted on isn't the only thing determining reliability, i recommend you re-read WP:BLP again. "Please remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately." "What counts as a reliable source?... 2.the creator of the work...Any of the three can affect reliability". "Questionable sources... Such sources include websites and publications expressing views... that are promotional in nature," (Transadvocate is an advocacy site) "or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions" (As in the HuffPost source because of the aforementioned reasons you did not address). "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities". "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced... that relies on self-published sources..."

Who mentioned anything about bias?? Do no edit war before even reading what other editors say or comprehending it if that's your problem. You have not even attempted to address any of the actual points I've made and continue replying to a strawman. Again, where did i mention anything about bias? Who/what are you even replying to? Please step back and closely take a look at the argument again because what you said about bias and neutrality has been resolved multiple posts ago. Bridenh (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

With the above reply I saw that you seem to have a problem with the sources which had a biased title to them, which is why you mentioned the Guardian's article about the supposed 'hate group' and such. Biased titles do not entitle you to remove the sources to the article as long as the sources are otherwise reliable. Why I linked to WP:BIASED is that you constantly seem to indicate that TransAdvocate is an advocacy site, which I am not disputing. What my point about that is that being a biased source does not entitle you to dismiss the source, but other factors other than being biased may entitle you to do so. So TransAdvocate, even if it is an advocacy site is reliable as long as there are not factors that dispute this; such as being a group blog, or having other questionable articles on-site to meet WP:QUESTIONABLE criteria. Which also leads me to my next point is that WP:QUESTIONABLE sources are often sources which have a sketchy reputation for fact checking and seem sketchy in general. A site promoting a certain type of foreign prescription while also enduring Obama as the antichrist would be an example of a 'questionable' source. The Guardian is generally a reliable source and the information that is being supported by the ref you seem to not dispute, only the ref itself. Now, I'd like to hear your specific complaint about the Guardian source provided and why it does not live up to what I've claimed it to be. I also acknowledge that a ton of things confer reliability. For example, if The Guardian hired Stephen Colbert for one day only and invited him to write a 'Commentisfree' article and then he wrote it about how Aliens were coming down to Earth, the reliability of The Guardian in that specific instance and context would be seriously in question, and would no doubt be unreliable for any supposed alien attacks. So let's see what it's being used for. Currently, it's supporting this sentence (along with two other sources). Some radical feminists argue that transwomen cannot be counted as women because they were not born biologically female. I'd like to know how The Guardian source being there is in anyway a violation of BLP that you confer to do so and why you're reverting on BLP grounds, and specifically, what would be beneficial to me is what BLP you are mentioning? Additionally, I am aware of BLP and in fact, I just reverted a BLP violation on S.E. Cupp's page, so I follow it and understand the reason for it. I hope we can solve this dispute accurately, efficiently, and without the use of personal attacks. Thank you, and awaiting your response. Tutelary (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Bridenh - "Promotional" means trying to sell something in this case. Also, the Guardian article is an opinion piece by Roz Kaveney (it's posted in "Comment is Free" which is their opinion section I think). But there's no BLP concerns since no individuals are mentioned in the sentence the source supports. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The opinion of an outside, previously-uninvolved editor:

TransAdvocate is a reliable source for its own opinions and those of its writers. It may be used as a source for those opinions, which are likely notable within its area of concern. Its opinions about living people may be situationally usable, but it cannot be a source for disputed factual claims about its opponents; for example, we may not describe any person as a "TERF" without self-identification, but we may discuss notable third-party claims that a person is a "TERF". NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It has editorial control over its own content and uses gonzo style journalism; the characteristics of a reliable source. They also report in a news like format, cementing that. Though I do agree with you that there is a certain COI with biased sources. For example, Fox News' reports about MSNBC being a 'liberal paradise' may be a COI as they have a benefit to point it that way, and may not be a suitable (but reliable) source for statements of this because of their bias. It all depends on the context. Tutelary (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I echo NBSB's analysis, and take it a step further. The opinions in TA should be mentioned in a RS until such time TA has established itself as being a reliable source and/or being notable for its opinions. Who are these people and why should we care what they think? We care what they think because a RS says who they are and we trust the RS to believe the opinion is important (but not necessarily affirming the opinion).Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

If we put that criteria into every single reliable source which has never been used before, none would get approved to be one as we'd be waiting for the initial use of a reliable source as undisputed. Tutelary (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not say i have a problem with the articles because of their biased titles, the articles and authors are the problem, I said the title was enough to indicate the article is not reliable. The reason is the lack of sources for claims and opinions as in the case of the HuffPost article because of the aforementioned reasons. Should I quote every sentence from the articles that are unsourced claims/opinions? Because I'm afraid that'll be a really long reply. "TA has established itself as being a reliable source" A significant amount of people at RSN disagree. Bridenh (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

the articles and authors are the problem, That is the bit that you're saying which I'm just not getting. You've demonstrated your distaste for the sources provided by saying that they are advocacy sites and with that comes your implication of bias for them. But you haven't demonstrated any other issues with them other than the potential bias. I have no problem admitting that these sources have a POV and inherently are biased in that nature. Every source has a POV which it's trying to portray. (Except maybe government funded major studies or peer reviewed stuff which comes with a lot of qualifiers and makes sure every single hole of POV is attempted to be patched.) The reason is the lack of sources for claims and opinions as in the case of the HuffPost article because of the aforementioned reasons. Should I quote every sentence from the articles that are unsourced claims/opinions? Well, we're not going to be picking apart each reliable source, because if we did we would be here all day. The source's unclaimed sources and potential opinions do not need to be cited, as they are allowed to engage in original research that we as editors do not need to. You're more than welcome to attempt a RFC to change the policy to allow that each source's individual claims be disputed; though I'd imagine you wouldn't find much support for it. Though it's a given given the situation we have; we are mandated to have sources backing up our claims. We however, do -not- need sources backing up the source's claims, and indeed, that would be exponentially hard to find. All in all, to better further this discussion, I'd like to ask you what sentences in the current Wikipedia article you find problems with; maybe we can discuss that and remedy them. Tutelary (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The way we show that articles in reliable sources has a bias is to identify the author and their bias, so we could say "So and so, a transgender activist/writer/whatever, wrote in an opinion piece in Salon...etc". This prevents readers from being deluded into thinking we're presenting a mainstream factoid.

The BLP problems having been solved with Transadvocate, then it's a matter of being precise in the use of the reference so it does not appear that we are referencing the Encyclopedia Brittanica, but is clear it is an advocacy site stating its opinion. Of course, use of such sites/opinions should not be WP:Undue, especially in relation to the presentation of higher quality sources and the opinions of radical feminists themselves. The current problem. I've been collecting some good sources for those and will list them here after finish another research project. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The sheer problem with the opinions of radical feminists themselves. would be WP:PRIMARY sources, and would need secondary sources for any interpretation, lest original research occur. Though maybe we could do something with directly quoting them? Still might be a bit iffy. Tutelary (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Generally secondary sources are where you start for general notability of a view, after which primary quotes supporting those points can be used. As I've said, the basic research in the article is a bit haphazard at this point. Willis obviously is over-used. But opinion pieces from Transadvocate also must be quoted only if some more reliable secondary source points to the issue in question. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The changes made: more history and quotes added; further explanation of Janice Raymonds' and Sheila Jeffreys' positions; change from "transwomen enjoy male privilege" to "transwomen have enjoyed male privilege" because post-transition they do not hence past tense; change from transfeminists to transgender activists as the latter is more inclusive; added content about the feminine essence theory and the radical feminist view of gender. There currently isn't enough about gender abolition - one of the main goals of radical feminists. All of the changes are well sourced, do not edit war - reach consensus first by articulating any problems you might have. Bridenh (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement in giving actual facts about what feminists think, though a lot more could be said and ref'd and needs to be put in the main article on the topic.

Per conclusion at WP:RSN that Transadvocate is a self-published source that can only talk about self, removed the ref which was about what feminists think, which already was adequately ref'd. Left ref on Terf since relevant to what Transadvocate thinks and took off the unreliable? tag. Hope that's a sensible compromise well within policy guidelines. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted Bridenh's bold edit for the following reason:

• It's a false dichotomy to espouse a minority view, and to completely transform the paragraph which was originally sourced to Forbes, The Guardian to being entirely sourced by the New Yorker, which has its own biased which need to be called into question. You adding two more paragraphs for this one source is WP:UNDUE weight towards this source. Indeed, in the source itself, it even describes these views as the minority viewpoint, and they should be given as much weight as such.
• The wording, During the event Robin Morgan gave a keynote speech in which she called Elliott "an opportunist, an infiltrator, and a destroyer--with the mentality of a rapist. is anything but NPOV, I don't care that we're using small snippets to quote people, but that is just plain dangerous in terms of BLP (I'm pretty sure she's still alive.. Some radical feminists have advocated for the exclusion of transwomen from feminist events, a source of much controversy and some violent reactions from transgender activists. is deliberately a non-NPOV sentence, and is framing the opposite side as 'violent', which is also wholeheartedly unacceptable. Additionally, only sourced to one source, a magazine.
• The 'female brain' section is sourced to http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/21/55123/ but does not mention Radical Feminism or TERFs; it's original research to include.
• I'm reverting specifically per WP:BRD. Bridenh did a Bold edit, I'm Reverting, and here Discussion will ensue. Tutelary (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments on revert and how to improve paragraph with new and old material:

1. "It's a false dichotomy to espouse a minority view". This is an article about radical feminist views, not about transgenderism. Therefore it is the purpose of the article to explain that alleged minority view. (And "false dichotomy" is irrelevant to minority view in this case and probably just about every other.)
2. Looking just at edit diffs, I didn't realize material had been removed which also may be relevant. However, the strength of the New Yorker article is that it is a neutral overview. Other overviews from more neutral sources can be added, but until they are presented, New Yorker is the best. Note that both Brennan and Kaveney are advocates and therefore their interview or opinion material should be used to support or flesh out what the more neutral source says, not to frame the paragraph.
3. The quote on Elliot not a BLP problem since it's from an RS, but for NPOV it certainly could be described more than quoted. The reaction of other radical feminists also helpful to know. Don't see link so dont know what magazine quoted in the book it allegedly came from. Basic Books is quite reliable.
4. Yes, a source using phrase "female brain" would have to be found. A simple new editor error.

Did you have a problem with applying SPS to Transadvocate per the WP:RSN discussion?

I personally still haven't had a chance to play with the main article, so keeping my editing pretty reactive at this point. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it's obvious that some of my statements made were not understood, this is my fault.

# What I was meaning about that, is that the TERF viewpoint here is the minority view here, and that it being given it's own two more paragraphs to consider when there's only one source technically being used for their view points is unacceptable. It violates the proper WP:DUE weight for that source. The sourcing in the earlier version appropriately espoused their minority view with appropriate due weight and was balanced for the most part. The newer version that Bridenh brought forward does not.

# The version that Bridenh also introduced a bunch of quotes, which could be fine as long as they were not overly cherry picked to present the other view point in a bad light. The quote about the person being a rapist is one of the ones that I have an obvious problem with. We do have to strive to balance the aspects in the paragraphs. And yes, I understand that minority view points should be given due weight, but not too much weight which is what I'm disputing in Bridenh's version.

# ...hell no it's not. BLP issues can be from misquoting, over quoting, more undue weight, biased content, or a bunch of other different things. In this case, it's another person calling another person the destructive label of a 'rapist'. That -is- an unambiguous BLP violation and it should be omitted in favor of BLP--again, I'm pretty sure she's still alive in this case. Even if she weren't, it's bad practice to call another person a rapist without a conviction, which is why WP:BLPCRIME comes into play. Even if all the reliable sources in the world called Obama a Muslim, we would not include that into the article because it's obviously untrue, lest he public admit it.

# Agreed. For the Transadvocate bit, you can omit it again and you have my blessing, just because I feel it's getting caught up and preventing us from moving forward. Tutelary (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

First, we've already discussed on this talk page TERF being a slur we should not use to discuss radical feminists/individuals or other editors. Two existing sources mention it's considered a slur and I just added another and have seen several more lately. So let's not use "terf" or "trannie" or other slurs to describe individuals and their view points, OK?

Again, this is not an article about transgenderism, it's an article about Radical Feminist views on it so you can't try to remove secondary sources describing them using excuses like "minority viewpoint" or "only one source technically being used for their view points is unacceptable." There are other sources (including some I mention in box above and a whole bunch more since New Yorker article). But until they are put in, it is perfectly acceptable to use the strongest one for the description of the views, as opposed to cherry picked quotes from advocates on either side.

As for "minority viewpoint", it really depends on a) minority of whom? Feminists or general public? and b) on what issue, legal right to have a sex change operation or legal right to walk around naked and erect in the women's locker room? - and many issues in between that spectrum. Since the New Yorker article came out, several publications have come out opining that some radical feminist viewpoints actually mirror the "majority" of American's viewpoint (however the articles may phrase it). Do we really want to start quoting all those too to parse what is and isn't a minority viewpoint? Seems like more complicated than need to do here. On the other hand, I guess it is relevant now that I think of it.

A quick search of books google shows that the Robin Morgan incident is mentioned in several books and is notable.[1], [2], [3], [4]. However, as I said above, not all quotes of those alleged phrases have to be used; a more general description of her comments, which some sources provide, would be fine if someone wants to write it up as part of the history. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, but what would you have me refer to them by? Also, I don't think that people can suddenly conjure up words to automatically be 'slurs'. It seems to me that they just don't want the term used as it portrays them in a bad light.

gain, this is not an article about transgenderism, it's an article about Radical Feminist views on it so you can't try to remove secondary sources describing them using excuses like "minority viewpoint" or "only one source technically being used for their view points is unacceptable." There are other sources (including some I mention in box above and a whole bunch more since New Yorker article). But until they are put in, it is perfectly acceptable to use the strongest one for the description of the views, as opposed to cherry picked quotes from advocates on either side. What I was attempting to say is that the fact that the New Yorker was only being used as a supplementary source to help support another sentence, suddenly being expanded to two or so more paragraphs even though it is just one source but having a lot information needs to be examined. Plus, it takes up at least half or more the page now. Also, I think I made myself misunderstood here again, I've been a bit stressed. But what I said by minority view is that even in the New Yorker, the 'best' source for this, even describes TERFS (or the viewpoints that they deem, again you need to find me a better term then) to be in the minority view. Such views are shared by few feminists now, but they still have a foothold among some self-described radical feminists, who have found themselves in an acrimonious battle with trans people and their allies. It should be very well mentioned that they are in the minority view point.

ince the New Yorker article came out, several publications have come out opining that some radical feminist viewpoints actually mirror the "majority" of American's viewpoint (however the articles may phrase it). Do we really want to start quoting all those too to parse what is and isn't a minority viewpoint? Seems like more complicated than need to do here. On the other hand, I guess it is relevant now that I think of it. Yes, please cite those sources, as the sources that have been presented have said that TERF's viewpoint (again, need a better term) is in the minority.

A quick search of books google shows that the Robin Morgan incident is mentioned in several books and is notable.[6] , [7] , [8] , [9] . However, as I said above, not all quotes of those alleged phrases have to be used; a more general description of her comments, which some sources provide, would be fine if someone wants to write it up as part of the history. I've no doubt it's notable and was probably the first great divide between feminists, but we can't say that someone's a rapist in this article. We'd need to omit that bit and maybe rearrange some things around to make it truly BLP complying. Tutelary (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

T wrote: I don't think that people can suddenly conjure up words to automatically be 'slurs'... However, please note that the same reliable sources used to make it acceptable to use TERF in articles also say it's considered a slur. I think you know perfectly well it is used by some transactivists as a slur or insult and not an analytical phrase.

While I don't think anyone's done a survey representative of individual "feminists" (as opposed to those of feminists working in various organizations and academia issuing statements left and right) to show what the true majority and minority positions is on the many various issues regarding transgenders. In any case even if radical feminist views are the minority view, it doesn’t mean that editors remove RS secondary source evidence of what the radical feminist view actually is in order to promote the "majority" view. That's just advocacy.

Both the use of slurs and abuse of Wikipedia policies to promote agendas are covered by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology as extended by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute. I'm quite willing to bring the slur issue to Arbitration immediately if it continues. (You did check the past discussion of this issue here, didn't you?) The other issues can wait til there are alternative versions using the range of good RS available which I'll be listing soon. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty far from what policy dictates. If you feel that you need to seek immediate clarification, so be it. Please keep us in the loop here. SPECIFICO talk 00:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology sections, especially "Wikipedia is not a battleground" and "Discretionary sanctions", extended by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute sections, especially "Equality_and_respect" (slurs against individuals assumed to be female, obviously) and "Advocacy". Since ridicule, slurs and death threats have repeatedly been made online using the phrase "TERF", which can be quoted, it will be quite clear it isn't a phrase that should be bandied about on talk pages to describe individuals who are the subject of an article who have, or are assumed to have, certain views. No clarification needed. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there any way to get an RfC type thing on this issue? I'd love to know what the admins and even ARBCOM think. I know that it's your position that it's a slur, but it's not held by many. Honestly I have no idea where such an issue would be brought thought. ANI doesn't seem the appropriate place. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Carol's view makes no sense to me. She says she will immediately go to Arbcom for clarification. She should do so and perhaps that will put the matter to rest. SPECIFICO talk 03:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Seek clarification. However one can't unilaterally declare something a slur without strong sourcing. Is there another term that so-called TERFS would prefer?Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

1.Regarding Two kinds of pork's question: They use the term gender critical, as shown in Janice Raymonds' recent interview (which should be used in the section), Lierre Keith's article: "The book and other materials never even mention the words “transgender” or “queer,” let alone include calls to dehumanize or harm anyone. They do, however, contain a feminist critique of gender... That’s it. That’s why they attacked us." (the reason I included that last line is because the silencing and attacks on radfems by trans activists are relevant in the article and should be mentioned, its not "painting them in a bad light", it's a common thing that happens) and in Elizabeth Hungerford's article: "By equating the speech of gender critical feminists with “bullying” and “contempt,” Allen materially misrepresents the positions taken by the women she references in her article. Allen actually calls for more people to recognize radical feminists as a hate group and then pointedly adopts the term... (TERF)... Make no mistake, this is a slur..." Note how the two are used interchangeably.

2.Also, the fact that radfems condemn the term cis should be mentioned - they dont believe in "cis privilege", only male privilege as women dont get any privilege for being women "Gender-conforming males are rewarded for masculine conformity... for women; it is the opposite. Women’s gender conformity does not protect us from oppression on the basis of gender. “Cisgendered” women are still routinely targeted... The concept of “cisgender privilege” falsely posits men and women as social equals in regard to gendered oppression. It is an inaccurate explanation of how gender norms operate as a sex-based social hierarchy that devalues women...", and also that they refuse to claim a gender: "I don’t have a gender. I’ve no intention of having a gender. I don’t do masculinity which is the behavior of male dominance, and I don’t do femininity which is the behavior of female subordination." - Sheila Jeffreys.

3.And regarding the minority view thing, Tutelary herself seemed to misrepresent the quote she used: "Such views are shared by few feminists now". The views are not held by the majority of feminists (which are not radical), but most radical feminists do have these views as being gender critical appears to be one of the main components of radfem - addressed at their conferences as much as anti porn/prostitution views (which there are also not enough of on the page). I recognize I could've addressed these things better but this is all I currently have time for.Bridenh (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Bridenh: Thanks for examples of gender critical, more on what needs to be in the article, and specifying these are views held by a majority of radical feminists; this reinforces my point that that the article is about radical feminist views. Criticism of those views - whatever they are - belong in the article but should not frame it.

Also, two kinds of pork obviously hasn't read the article or he would see four sources saying that it is considered a slur. How "terf" is used as a slur and attack phrase, and even in death threats, is clearly known by most editors here; otherwise search the term. I'll save examples for Arbcom if it continues to be used inappropriately in the article or on the talk page to characterize individuals and groups. (Yes, its existence as a phrase can be described as it is now, as long as it's not used in WP:OR fashion.) Reliable sources detailing slur uses can be added to the article.

Here are more sources calling the radical feminist viewpoint on gender in general "gender critical" (or critical of gender):

• "These feminists refer to themselves as 'radical feminists' or 'gender critical feminists.'" Bitch Magazine, already a source
• "gender critical women" and "gender critical thinkers" is used in the previously mentioned Prof. Raymond's article
• "The gender critical approach establishes that 'being a woman' is not a matter of an individual’s identity."The New Statesman
• Even the Transadvocate, which would not be RS in this context, writes about: "'gender critical' TERF".Transadvocate
• "...major figures from the second wave, such as Ti-Grace Atkinson, Kathie Sarachild, and Michele Wallace, signed a statement titled “Forbidden Discourse: The Silencing of Feminist Criticism of ‘Gender,’”..." Mentioned in New Yorker; actual statement, something that also belongs in article.

In short, feel free to use "gender critical" to describe these positions. Do not use a well-know slur or attack phrase which clearly goes against Arbcom's two relevant rulings. Just finishing up another project now. I may have time this week to beef up more of the whole article. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Bridenh and Carolmooredc - You're gonna need some serious sources to support the claim that most radical feminists are anti-trans. I know many who embrace much of radical feminist thought (myself included), but are not anti-trans. There's a huge huge difference between critiquing the gender binary and wishing to abolish it and rejecting transgenderism, cis privilege, and being anti-trans people/transphobic (or trans-antagonistic as I've seen it elsewhere called). I agree that we need more on how some do not believe in cis privilege. Again, that would primarily be those who reject the notion of transgender in the first place, so-called "TERFs". But that is not most radical feminists from that I can tell.

Carol - You're really gonna need to get ARBCOM to comment on use of TERF. There is clear disagreement by a number of experienced users on this issue and you really cannot unilaterally decree this. I've been more careful in my use of it as a courtesy to you, but until we hear from the ARBCOM on the issue, it's really a grey area. If you are too busy to contact them, I will be happy to do it and point them to the various conversations here. I do hope that if you do contact them that you point them here and represent the "other" side of the issue for balance. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

[Insert:The various processes at ARBCOM allow everyone to comment. If people stop using the phrase, there won't be a need. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Carol, please provide evidence indicating that "radical feminists" are anti-trans. According to all of the polling data I've seen, feminists are much more likely to support trans equality than the general public. Paleo-libertarian feminists are probably anti-trans, but that's neither here nor there. Steeletrap (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

To say they are "anti-trans" is a gross misrepresentation of their beliefs. They are gender critical, gender abolitionists. Read the recent interview by Janice Raymond with Counterpunch (which should be added here), she dispells multiple myths in it, as well as the "anti-trans" one.Bridenh (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

[To Bridenh} Exactly. They have certain radical perspectives that lead to certain conclusions about transgender ideology and demands along a range of issues. But there is not one coherent viewpoint. Some radical feminists are more sympathetic to some transgender demands than others. Radical transgender activists do often react to even mild criticism with extreme hostility, threats, attempts to shut down feminist and women's conferences, etc. as outlined in the New Yorker article and one or two articles listed above and others not even listed yet. You don't even have to be a feminist to be called the slur term "terf". And obviously some feminists overreact back. Hopefully overtime sensible heads will rule. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Personally I find it easier to excuse the anger of a severely marginalized group than hate speech coming from relatively privileged people. Still, to claim that most radfems are on par with so-called "TERFs", we're gonna need a very strong source. My personal experience is that most radfems critique gender structure and patriarchy, but are welcoming to trans and non-binary people; they don't exclude and discriminate against those people. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I am re-adding most of the content from my edit and am about to list the reasons why it's more reliable than the previous edit nearly sentence by sentence, the ones not addressed have most likely stayed the same:

1.It explains the beginning of the dispute.

2.It has a quote from a notable radical feminist from a speech made at the event where it began, because I'm bad at adding sources, I copy-pasted it from another wiki page, it is well sourced and relevant. *

3.Janice Raymonds' views in previous version were badly sourced, in mine they have a source we've established is reliable and they are better explained.

4.Regarding Sheila Jeffreys, the previous edit was preposterous. I would like a source for the "transsexuality is oppressive to women" claim as it reeks of original research, and so does "genital reassignment surgery is a violation of human rights", there was however a radical feminist - maybe Jeffreys or Raymond - who did say the "transgendering" of non-gender conforming children was a violation of human rights, I'll try to find the source, I currently don't remember from which article it was and have no time to read them, so for the time being I'm not going to add that in, I encourage you to do so if you find it. She did however describe genital reassignment surgery as mutilation, and that is mentioned in my edit.

5.Second paragraph first sentence, I added "and some violent reactions from transgender activists" this is well-sourced and undeniable. You'll have to give a better reason for it's removal than WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

6.Added RF views of gender and why they are incompatible with transgenderism.

Things to be added: more sources (I'm bad at this so It'll take some time unless someone helps out, I have them bookmarked and could post them), RF and gender-critisism/abolition, views on the terms "cis" and "cis privilege" and more.

Also a note to Tutelary, read the edits carefully, address your concerns and attempt to reach consensus before making drastic changes even though you don't have a problem with the entire edit. Fix the problem, do not revert completely when you have no problems with a lot of it. The quote is also "mentality of a rapist", there were no accusations of someone actually being a rapist. However I can understand why you'd find it problematic, despite the relevancy and reliability of the quote, with a well detailed reason for it's removal I could easily agree.* And as for WP:BRD:"Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement." Your revert was unnecessary because of the aforementioned reasons WP:ROWN.

And a reminder, this is about radfem views on transgenderism, not transgenders' criticism of them. Presenting more views from radfems than from trans activists is not "bias", its called staying on topic.Bridenh (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Well for starters, point 5 is not well sourced. This, published in a local paper at the time of RadFem 2013, implies that Men's Rights groups were responsible for making threats of violence, not trans activists.

Secondly, the statement this is about radfem views on transgenderism, not transgenders' criticism of them. looks to my eyes an effort to present those views without critical appraisal from differing perspectives. As I recall, the ethos of wikipedia is to show our users, not tell them. In that spirit, surely both sides of this rather heated debate should be presented to allow readers to draw their own conclusions.

Regarding point 4, the actual text used in the abstract of Ms Jeffries 1997 article in the Journal of Lesbian Studies is : "transsexualism should be seen as a violation of human rights". This looks like splitting hairs over language from my viewpoint. Dolescum (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually the reason I said "this is about radfem views on transgenderism, not transgenders' criticism of them" is because one complaint seems to be that there are more views from radfems than trans activists presented, which only makes sense considering the page we're editing is called "Radical feminism". The views are not presented without critical appraisal as there are mentions of trans activists' disapproval of them and links to their articles.

"transsexualism should be seen as a violation of human rights" actually does not appear to be a quote by Sheila Jeffreys, but rather what someone who described her book seems to believe.

Regarding Tutelary's edit, specifically the removal of this from the section because of "OR": "Radical feminists reject the notion of a “female brain”. They believe that the differences in behaviour between men and women are a result of different socialization and believe that - in the words of Lierre Keith - femininity is “ritualized submission. In this view, gender is less an identity than a caste position and transgenderism is an obstacle to gender abolition.” Please explain how that is OR when the articles its sourced to says:"Radical feminists reject the notion of a “female brain.” They believe that if women think and act differently from men it’s because society forces them to, requiring them to be sexually attractive, nurturing, and deferential. In the words of Lierre Keith, a speaker at Radfems Respond, femininity is “ritualized submission. In this view, gender is less an identity than a caste position." "We believe that gender is a destructive hierarchy, which harms women and needs to be abolished... We disagree with “identity politics” which is counter to our goal of abolishing gender." ??

Point 5 is actually well sourced (New Yorker):"A few years ago, though, Vogel says, some protesters committed acts of vandalism—stealing electrical cables, cutting water pipes, keying cars in the parking lot, and spray-painting a six-foot penis, and the words “Real Women Have Dicks,” on the side of the main kitchen tent." Tutelary removed it because of NPOV, which I'd like an explanation of considering it is well sourced and presented simply as a matter of fact, because it is. The problem doesn't seem to be the way it's mentioned - if it is then do rephrase it, the problem seems to be that some people don't want this acknowledged at all. Bridenh (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The abstract of an article is a short summary, written by the author of the article, to summarize the content of their submission for other academics. It's to save others having to wade through the entire piece in order to determine if it's relevant to their own work. Your claim that those are not Jeffrey's words is laughable.

The text you use to support your use of the word "violence" would be far more accurately specified by the word "vandalism". To use a word the Oxford English Dictionary lists a synonym for "Murderousness", "Sadism" and "Barbarity" to describe the destruction of some objects is wildly inaccurate, frankly. Furthermore, those claims are made in the voice of Lisa Vogel, the woman behind Michfest, rather than the New Yorker itself. Much like if the Republican party where to make the claim that the Democrats were enacting "Tax and Spend" policies, we'd need more substantive evidence to report that as objective fact in the article rather than an accusation. I shall adjust the text accordingly.

Additionally, perhaps you should ask for explanations of Tutelary's motives from Tutelary, as I am not a telepath. Dolescum (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Bridenh, you have been blatantly ignoring the well accepted WP:BRD process when it suits you, and I have been following it. You made a bold edit, I reverted, you do not get to revert again. You should not revert when you know one or more editors have a problem with your specific wording and that it is your responsibility to get consensus for your edits, not the other way around. In the event of a dispute, the WP:STATUSQUO prevails. Let me go through step by step exactly what I have a problem with.

Actually the reason I said "this is about radfem views on transgenderism, not transgenders' criticism of them" is because one complaint seems to be that there are more views from radfems than trans activists presented, which only makes sense considering the page we're editing is called "Radical feminism". The views are not presented without critical appraisal as there are mentions of trans activists' disapproval of them and links to their articles. This article should not become a mouth piece for those with the opposing view, just because it is focusing on their views. In the same essence, maybe the model should be the Mens Rights article, which demonstrates their points but not endorses them, and very limitly gives them the mouthpiece; to the minimum that it's required to being encylopedic. Same here. This is a minority view and should be elaborated on such.

Regarding Tutelary's edit, specifically the removal of this from the section because of "OR": "Radical feminists reject the notion of a “female brain”. They believe that the differences in behaviour between men and women are a result of different socialization and believe that - in the words of Lierre Keith - femininity is “ritualized submission. In this view, gender is less an identity than a caste position and transgenderism is an obstacle to gender abolition.” Please explain how that is OR when the articles its sourced to says:"Radical feminists reject the notion of a “female brain.” They believe that if women think and act differently from men it’s because society forces them to, requiring them to be sexually attractive, nurturing, and deferential. In the words of Lierre Keith, a speaker at Radfems Respond, femininity is “ritualized submission. In this view, gender is less an identity than a caste position. I removed it because in two of the cited sources, they make absolutely no mention of a female brain whatsoever, and only in the Counterpunch source did they finally do that. Additionally, I have my own doubts about the Counterpoint source as it is going to very general detail and should be the only weight applied to that sentiment. You can't have one source say that the viewpoint is this when it's plainly obvious that they are generalizing. The source is not always gospel in this case, and I have my doubts. The Forbes source and Counterpunch don't mention 'female brain' at all. That's OR.

Point 5 is actually well sourced (New Yorker):"A few years ago, though, Vogel says, some protesters committed acts of vandalism—stealing electrical cables, cutting water pipes, keying cars in the parking lot, and spray-painting a six-foot penis, and the words “Real Women Have Dicks,” on the side of the main kitchen tent." Tutelary removed it because of NPOV, which I'd like an explanation of considering it is well sourced and presented simply as a matter of fact, because it is. The problem doesn't seem to be the way it's mentioned - if it is then do rephrase it, the problem seems to be that some people don't want this acknowledged at all. I seem to have confused my own ce as npov when it should've been applied to OR in this case. Though it's a case of both. You put into the article that it was done by transgender activists, but the source says absolutely no such thing. It says 'some protesters', making no comments about their POV or their idealogy. It's OR to attribute it to transgender activists, plain and simple, and attributing it to an author does no such thing. Tutelary (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, regarding Point 5, that entire paragraph reads:

In the summer of 2003, Serano joined about a hundred people at Camp Trans, a protest camp near the Michfest site, which has run intermittently since 1994. Serano said that relations with Michfest attendees were often unexpectedly cordial. A few years ago, though, Vogel says, some protesters committed acts of vandalism—stealing electrical cables, cutting water pipes, keying cars in the parking lot, and spray-painting a six-foot penis, and the words “Real Women Have Dicks,” on the side of the main kitchen tent.

The context makes it quite clear whom Vogel is accusing of vandalism, though that is little more than hearsay without stronger sources to support the claim. Dolescum (talk) 05:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

^Re-adding that, rephrased accordingly. Bridenh (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's original research. The source cited does -not- mention transgender activists, so you cannot connect it to it as the soruce has not made that connection. Tutelary (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph literally right above the comment you replied to makes it crystal clear its about transgender activists, either something is wrong with your reading comprehension or you are being purposefully disruptive, in which case I'm going to have to ask for a sanction as frantically reverting/edit warring and attacking ad hominems is what your contribution has so far been. Bridenh (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It does -not- mention transgender activists, I do not see that wording anywhere in the article for the vandalism. If it is, quote it. Being in 'Camp Trans' does not mean they were transgender activists, or vice versa for being in the opposite 'camp'. It's original research to connect the dots, and your edit warring outside of consensus is plainly disruptive, Bridenh. Tutelary (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Not on this issue, as the paragraph Dolescum quoted makes it quite clear whom exactly Vogel is accusing of vandalism. Bridenh (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Then you should be able to entertain my request for a quote of where exactly the wording 'transgender activists' appears in the source article. If it doesn't, then it shouldn't be in the article. If it does, but it's for a different context, that's original research as well. Tutelary (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Camp Trans consists of trans activists - Serano being one. So if the problem is the people who are accused then do rephrase it, but whether its phrased as trans activists or trans protesters, its obvious who's accused. Bridenh (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

How are you making the connection of 'Camp Trans' = Transgender protesters = the one who vandalized. I'm not seeing it. Tutelary (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Camp Trans is a well known protest of transgender persons and allies against Vogel's polices regarding entry to Michfest, Tutelary. The matter has been ongoing for years. If Vogel mentions protestors, it's implict she means Camp Trans. Dolescum (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly + Vogel claimed they committed multiple acts of violence including "spray-painting a six-foot penis, and the words “Real Women Have Dicks,” on the side of the main kitchen tent." Where is the disconnection? Bridenh (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Where is the disconnection? Where the 'transgender activist' bit comes in. I don't care about the camp names, I don't care that Vogel said something, we need the connection to 'transgender activists vandalizing something'. The source doesn't state that, so neither can the article. Tutelary (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me show to that quote, again, with bolding: {{In the summer of 2003, Serano joined about a hundred people at Camp Trans, a protest camp near the Michfest site, which has run intermittently since 1994. Serano said that relations with Michfest attendees were often unexpectedly cordial. A few years ago, though, Vogel says, some protesters committed acts of vandalism—stealing electrical cables, cutting water pipes, keying cars in the parking lot, and spray-painting a six-foot penis, and the words “Real Women Have Dicks,” on the side of the main kitchen tent. The text "A few years ago, though, Vogel says" is a clear reference to the prior sentence describing Serrano's experience at "Camp Trans, a protest camp". A protest camp contains protestors, yes? :) Dolescum (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If you (Tutelary) have such a problem with 'transgender activists' it will be rephrased to 'transgender protesters'. But consensus is against you. Bridenh (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)