Talk:Radical feminism/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Pejorative

The term TERF is viewed as a slur by those it is directed at, but the sources do not suggest that the term is widely considered pejorative. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Evergreen, this is clearly pejorative and intended as such. For example:

• Bennett, Catherine (19 November 2017). "Bullies everywhere delight in coming up with new insults". The Guardian.
• Rea, Samantha (7 November 2016). "How can Juno Dawson call herself a feminist when she's labelling women as TERFs?". The Independent.
• Ditum, Sarah (29 September 2017). "What is a Terf? How an internet buzzword became a mainstream slur". New Statesman.

SarahSV ^(talk) 04:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Those are op-eds. We need WP:RS to describe this term as pejorative if we are to label it as such in wikivoice. I understand that, as the New Yorker source says, the people the term is used to describe consider the term a slur. That does not mean, however, that it is widely viewed as such. Neither the acronym TERF nor the term transphobic are pejorative or offensive in their literal meanings pr origins (compared to something like "fuckboi" or wigger). To adhere to NPOV, we cannot label the term "pejorative" unless that is a widely used descriptor. Over at TERF there's a clear and appropriate effort to ascribe opinions about the acronym to individuals. Such detailed discussion of those opinions belongs there, not here. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Something to note: I'm not sure if anyone tried to claim that "TERF" is understood to be a slur in general. What I added to the article at least explained that many radfems see it that way, which is definitely true (see my response in the previous section). TaylanUB (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd challenge that "many" radical feminists view the term that way. Some, but from my understanding, TERF ideology is rather fringe within radical feminism as a whole. Many queer folks (myself included) align with radical feminism rather strongly. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I see it exactly the other way around. From what I know, there are exactly two prominent radical feminists who openly oppose(d) the so-called "TERF" position: Catharine MacKinnon and John Stoltenberg (Andrea Dworkin's late life partner). The latter is a man who has been starkly criticized over his position by Nikki Craft who was a good friend of Dworkin and curates the Andrea Dworkin Online Library: http://www.theturfwarzone.com/ (And having read about half a dozen of Dworkin's books, all but the first one notably NOT talking about trans issues in any part, I find myself agreeing with Craft in that the attempt to use Dworkin as a token "pro-trans" radfem is rather disrespectful.) We have no idea whatsoever what Dworkin would have to say in the current atmosphere. All we have is a single passage from her first book published in 1974. In which, by the way, she did NOT say MtF transsexuals were women, and in fact suggested that in a post-patriarchy, transsexuals might cease to exist, which would probably get her called a TERF today. What she did say was that transsexuals uniquely suffer under patriarchy, and that they are entitled to a sex change operation as an emergency remedy. (To this day I hold views mostly in line with hers, and I get called a TERF, for the record.) On the other hand, here is an incomplete list of radical feminists who are or may be considered "TERF", mostly from the top of my head: Julie Bindel, Sheila Jeffreys, Alice Schwarzer, Germaine Greer, Robin Morgan, Janice Raymond, Mary Daly, Linda Bellos, Lierre Keith, Claire Heuchan (aka Sister Outrider, writes for AfterEllen now), Victoria Smith (aka Glosswitch, New Statesman and The Independent writer), Sarah Ditum, Meghan Murphy, Robert Jensen, and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie if she could be considered a radfem. Also many of the lesser-known feminists who published for Feminist Current. I have also seen bell hooks being called a TERF over her ideas, although I think the situation was an outlier. I would conclude that the "anti-TERF" position is nowadays a very fringe position within radical feminism whereas the so-called "TERF" position is rather common. TaylanUB (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

EvergreenFir please tell me if you need more time to respond to the above. Otherwise I will assume agreement and edit the page accordingly. TaylanUB (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that if there is a separate TERF page, this page should not emphasise it. Moreover, I think it still is relatively new and probably a lot of radical feminists have not chimed into this conversation. Personally, i think about contributions in the late 1960s like cell 16 and SCUM manifesto as radical feminism. This new fourth wave / gender critical stuff is just emerging and difficult to write anything meaningful about yet.Fred (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Frederika Eilers: any opinion on the page issues raised by TaylanUB? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement, Evergreen. I agree with you that its a drop in the bucket. I'm not sure if it is widely considered pejorative or not. I think we should be careful because the people who came up with TERF may not necessarily use radical feminism in this sense, rather it might be a larger sense like in opposition to liberal feminism. A really good overview was published recently, but it's not Open Access. While the Goldberg piece was influential, it really was motivated by Jeffreys' book. Awkward-Rich wrote (827) "The tension between lesbian separatist and trans communities has its roots in the women’s movement of the 1970s and 1980s, best demonstrated by the conflict surrounding the publication of Janice Raymond’s The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male (1994), which she first published in 1979." So I wonder if TERF is a misnomer (or imprecise), and the tensions are really with the lesbian separatist. Makes me want to read Susan Stryker's book too. But this is really outside of my area of expertise.Fred (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Fred, I don't believe "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" is imprecise or a misnomer. Whether the acronym TERF is imprecise or not, is a subtly different question; and whether either one is pejorative, or a slur, is yet another. Whatever tension that exists now surrounding the topic, has evolved from when the term was first created.

When the term first saw the light of day in 2008, it was clearly neither pejorative, nor a slur. It was created by some radfems to refer to other radfems with whom they disagreed about attitudes toward transgender individuals, and rather than write a paragraph each time just to describe who they were talking about, they came up with the term "trans exclusionary radical feminist" as a simple, descriptive term they could use to talk about the topic in a reasonably concise way. The acronym was introduced simultaneously as a parenthetical term, so that they wouldn't have to type the longer, rather unwieldy expression every time they needed to refer to it.

In my opinion, the impression of whether someone is using a slur or saying something pejoratively that might otherwise be taken in a neutral fashion has a lot to do with past history, present context, who the speaker is and what class they belong to vis-a-vis the listener, and with paralinguistic phenomena such as tone of voice, facial expression, tempo, and body language. Also, a term like "trans exclusionary radical feminist" falls into the "descriptive type" in Christopher Potts's typology. Adam Croom says that people employ "descriptive types in order to pick out descriptive items", whereas they use expressive types "to express their heightened emotional state." The four-word term clearly seems descriptive, and it's hard to imagine an emotional charged encounter with picketers carrying placards or shouting the descriptive term. The abbreviation, it seems to me, can go either way. Clearly in the blogs where the abbreviation was first used online, it was simply a alternate version of the longer, descriptive expression, and used purely for convenience, without expressive intent. Although I've never heard the acronym spoken, I can imagine it being used either as a descriptive type, or as an expressive type, such as in two groups yelling epithets at each other, where the expressive sense would be clear. In print (or online) it could also be either one, and in the end, it depends on the intent of the speaker. I think where there is mutual suspicion among antagonistic groups, it's easy to imagine TERF being read as a slur regardless of intent.

When one reads a Wikipedia article, the assumption is that everything is written as a descriptive type and not as an expressive type (even when dispassionately explicitly discussing words that are slurs, since they are being mentioned descriptively, not used expressively). Some words which may be slurs in one context and not in another have articles on Wikipedia which may be disambig pages (faggot, tranny) or articles (she-male). Everyone is aware, I think, of the pejorative senses of these words when used in certain context, by certain speakers, but as long as the article takes a dispassionate attitude and calls out the pejorative sense, which these all do, if there is a legitimate usage of the word, then it may be used so; and I'm not aware of any campaign to suppress these articles (though I may have missed it, but wouldn't support suppression).

It seems to me that TERF is in this same category: it's clearly used sometimes in a purely descriptive way, apparently also sometimes in a pejorative way, and as long as Wikipedia sticks to the first usage (and notes the second) I see no reason why we can't use it as a descriptive term. Having said that, there are some words that are seen so negatively, that they can barely be used at all in spoken or written language (I can only think of two, and one of those is less opprobrious in the U.K.) but my sense is that TERF is not close to being in that category, although it's hard to make that call, since there's relatively little data to go on. Mathglot (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Globalize

The roots of radical feminism lie with Simone de Beauvoir and Monique Wittig, neither of whom get even a passing mention here.

Either this article should be retitled Radical feminism in the United States, which is all it talks about now (and that solution would be fine by me). Otherwise, under the current title, there is an extreme undue bias towards the U.S. history of radical feminism which needs to be balanced with appropriate mention of other countries, with France at the very top of the list.

As a side-note, even with respect to the U.S., there are gaps. Betty Friedan is not mentioned, who predates most other feminists mentioned in the article. She was an early mainstream feminist (definitely not radical) but to a not insignificant extent, radical feminism grew out of opposition to her writings and actions, and to those of other, early second-wave mainstream feminists of her ilk. Radical feminism didn't come out of nowhere, and it's important to set the background and context for these developments, and Friedan should be right up there, with her exclusionary attitudes towards lesbian feminists in NOW. Those struggles, and how they evolved, were one of the threads that influenced or led to the U.S. thread of radical feminism. Mathglot (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Mathglot, if you want to write such a section and you have the sources making the link to radical feminism, please go ahead. The tag is intended for issues that haven't been resolved through writing, or where you've tried but have been stopped. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I will if I get the time. In the meantime, please leave the maintenance template there while the issue remains unresolved. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Mathglot, the issue is resolved. You're welcome to add the material. Not only is no one preventing it; you are being encouraged to add it, assuming you have good sources. There is therefore no justification for the tag. It isn't reasonable to tag articles if you're able to fix them but choose not to. If we all did that, most (if not all) articles would be tagged all the time. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Expanding on the term "TERF"

Since the previous discussion didn't result in any reasoning for why this content I had previously added should be removed, I've just re-added it. I'm starting a fresh section if someone still thinks it's objectionable, as the previous talk section got kind of derailed I think? I would appreciate it if we could focus on the exact added content, and no tangential issues, if someone thinks it's objectionable. Taylan (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Saying "didn't result in any reasoning for why this content I had previously added should be removed" is incorrect and moving toward WP:IDHT. Your addition is WP:UNDUE and relies too heavily on opinion pieces. Yet again, you're doing WP:SYNTH by claiming a link between the term TERF and a few violence episodes. WP:RS must make that link, not editors regardless of how obvious you find it. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. This article only needs one sentence about the term TERF. We have a whole section at Feminist views on transgender and transsexual people for people that want more detailed information/opinions. It's WP:UNDUE here. Kaldari (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If anything, NOT mentioning the radical feminist opposition to the term "TERF" would be undue here, as the page is ABOUT radical feminism. Can you explain why radical feminist positions on the term "TERF" should not be expanded on within a page about radical feminism? Taylan (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

A summary of opinions of radical feminists regarding the term TERF is warranted. I'd have no problem with adding a line or two that this subgroup of radical feminists think the term is pejorative. But that's not what you're adding. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

(Will respond in the branch of the discussion below, as it's essentially the same topic.) Taylan (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I went over this before, and you haven't addressed it then either: this page talks about radical feminism, and the content I added was about the views of radical feminists, sourced directly with opinion pieces by prominent radical feminists. The fact that they are opinion pieces seems entirely irrelevant to me, as the topic *is* their opinions. At no point have I tried, for instance, to present their opinions as fact. One point I can see you arguing is that the phrasing "the term was associated with..." implies some factual causality; if that's what bothers you then I can reword it to say more clearly what's meant with this "association". (In case of the Vancouver Women's Library, the word was painted on the walls by the vandals, of which a picture exists at Feminist Current; at Speaker's Corner, the group whose members assaulted MacLachlan was chanting "when TERFs attack, we fight back", which is heard at least in the video linked by Feminist Current, though I think other sources mentioned it as well.) In a previous discussion you also claimed that "TERF" positions are fringe. That too I countered by pointing out that a fairly vast number of radical feminists hold "TERF" positions (I listed about a dozen names), in contrast to 1-2 prominent radical feminists ever having expressed opposition to said positions. In light of these facts, can you explain more clearly why you think my additions are WP:UNDUE, why opinion pieces by prominent radical feminists shouldn't be used to explain the opinions of radical feminists, and how I'm doing WP:SYNTH? Taylan (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Your edit did not ascribe individual opinions, but instead used opinion pieces to make statements in Wikipedia's voice. You cannot do that. You claiming there is an association is SYNTH because you are not relying on WP:RS to claim there is an association (causal or not). Find some reliable sources that make this claim, or propose that we say "some radical feminists claim there is an association" and cite the opinion pieces. IMHO, we should not be using biased sources (which aren't bad per se) to make claims about violence; Feminist Current and TransAdvocate should be avoided here. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much clearer the section could be. Perhaps the second clause of the first sentence should be changed to say "often been perceived as a slur by radical feminists", or the word "often" dropped or substituted? As I said, I can change the claim of "association" with more detailed statements of fact. The assault at Speaker's Corner was well-documented by several sources, with video footage on Feminist Current. I just looked at the FC article about the Vancouver Women's Library again, and apparently it was not about the vandalization but the prior harassment during the opening; I can go into detail about that. In any case the article contains direct recountings of events, and Feminist Current is certainly reliable enough to trust it on direct retellings of events. (Tell me if I'm missing something.) The last sentence could be reworded so as not to include the phrase "noting the number of people", if you think it implies some sort of non-factual claim or original research? All in all, how about the following:

The terms TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) and transphobic have been used to refer to radical feminists who hold these views, although "TERF" has often been perceived as a slur by those it's used against.[77][61] Radical feminist journalist Sarah Ditum said that the term is used to silence feminists through guilt by association.[78] In February 2017, a group of people harassed attendents at the opening of the Vancouver Women's Library after the library refused to remove books that were perceived to contain "TERF" viewpoints.[79] In September 2017, some members of a group that could be heard chanting "when TERFs attack, we fight back" in protest against a feminist gathering about gender at Speaker's Corner in London, physically assaulted a woman partaking in the gathering.[80] Meghan Murphy, noting that some people were defending or celebrating the physical assault on the grounds that the assaulted woman was a "TERF", opined afterwards that the term should be considered a form of hate speech that is used to incite violence against women.[81]

Honestly, I see the same pattern as ever unfolding here that I've complained about before: it might not be intentional but I think you're applying an extreme amount of scrutiny to the content I'm trying to add because you feel ideologically uncomfortable with it. To be honest, the situation sort of reminds me of a section from the introduction of Andrea Dworkin's Our Blood...

I was not supposed to say, for example, “Women are raped.” I was supposed to say, “Green-eyed women with one leg longer than the other, hair between the teeth, French poodles, and a taste for sauteed vegetables are raped occasionally on Fridays by persons.” -- Dworkin

That about sums up how I feel on Wikipedia sometimes when I try to edit transgender-related pages, at least adding content mentioning radical feminist viewpoints. Taylan (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

To editor EvergreenFir: I would appreciate it if you were to respond to this. It's a serious deficit that the article doesn't expand on radical feminist positions on the "TERF" issue, but I don't know what changes you think would need to be made for the content I've been trying to add to be acceptable. Taylan (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how to respond with that Dworkin quote. I think the addition of the book store and speaker's corner are UNDUE. Might need an rfc. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we can ask for Mathglot and Aircorn to chime in on the content I wanted to add, before we make an RFC. Taylan (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

A short sentence, or even better addition to the current sentence, explaining the rad feminist view on the uses of TERF is all that is needed. No need for the extra detail, that can be debated at the "views" page where it is more WP:Due. AIRcorn (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Radical feminists who hold theses views have been called transphobic and trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs). Some feminists say the use of the term TERF is hate speech or a way to silence women through guilt by association.

I am not sure why we put TERF first instead of spelling it out first as we do with other acronyms. This wording is just an example and can be tightened or changed as seen fit, I just took it from the two disputed versions. AIRcorn (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Quickie comment, since I was paged: generally agree here with Aircorn, esp. the part about spelling it out.

The whole topic of when something's a slur and when it isn't has everything to do with context and intent, so even if it is sometimes a slur, doesn't mean it always is. Recall that many terms which originated as slurs, were later reappropriated (cue N-word, tranny, queer, peckerwood, etc.). However, this term seems to have taken the opposite trajectory: i.e., started out as a descriptive term, then got reappropriated (dys-propriated?) as a slur. If we're going to go into more detail than Aircorn proposes here, then the origin of the term (created by radfems as a simple descriptive term) should be included.

What may be going on with it is a type of linguistic interference (not linked, cuz article only talks about a different sense of that term) a.k.a., "the Gresham's law of semantic change" in which bad meanings drive out the good. Will try to come back with more detail later. Mathglot (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Aircorn's greentext looks good to me. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and not sure if I was clear, I was in too much of a hurry: I also agree with greentext as well. Mathglot (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Added Aircorn's greentext, using existing citations plus the Feminist Current citation to make it clear where the "hate speech" claim comes from. Taylan (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Etymology section removed

I removed the one-sentence Etymology section, which claimed as the etymology of the term "radical feminism", that "The 'radical' in radical feminism means 'root', not 'extreme'...". This is a minority opinion of the author of that piece, Mary Bucholtz (cited here). The roots of radical feminism as a term go back to at least 1967, where SDS women (i.e., "radical women") were teaching courses on women in Chicago, and maybe further. Mathglot (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Notes

Adding examples?

Some recent examples could be added for additional context, like the Cathy Newman debacle, ban of the Red Pill in Australia, ban of grid girls and walk-on girls as well as other clashes between radfems and the society at large. Maybe even add a whole section about infiltration of academia (women's studies, gender studies...). It would help to put things in perspective, to show how the ideology interacts with the rest of the world. Nikolaneberemed (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"Trans inclusion" isn't well-defined

Andrea Dworkin is listed as "trans-inclusive" despite never having expressed the belief that transwomen are women. She is mentioned as a contrast right after the mention of LOOT's decision to become female-born-only, even though it cannot be deduced from any of her writings whether she would have supported or opposed such a move. She never once publicly commented on this move by LOOT or the similar decision by Michfest, even though she lived through that era. From the three citations given at the end of the sentence mentioning her: 1) one contains nothing other than Stoltenberg's statement "when I met Andrea in 1974, her views were trans-inclusive," 2) one contains a quote by Dworkin which does not indicate whether she supports or opposes the notion whether transwomen are women and whether they should be included in women-only spaces, and 3) one is from a piece by Cristan Williams, who is extremely opinionated on such topics and should probably not be used as an RS for factual statements; besides, the link returns a 404 so we can't check what exactly Williams wrote. As such, I see calling Dworkin "trans-inclusive" to be very badly sourced. The only thing we really have is Stoltenberg's statement, and he was heavily criticized by Nikki Craft who claims more or less the opposite as him. (Currently can't find an RS about it but she stated that they cooperated on a trans-critical article with Dworkin.) A smaller but similar problem is that the paragraph beginning with "the argument against trans-inclusion..." implicitly conflates any critical position by radfems (as mentioned in the paragraph before it) with "anti-trans-inclusion."

My proposals:

• Mention Dworkin's expressed support for transsexuals wanting SRS to get it, and possibly mention her statements about "multisexuality" but don't throw her under a "trans-inclusive" label as it cannot be deduced from any RS or her own writings whether she a) saw transwomen as women or b) supported their inclusion in female-only spaces.
• Slightly change the phrasing so as not to implicitly conflate all possible trans-critical viewpoints with the specific positions of a) not seeing transwomen as women and b) opposing their inclusion in female-only spaces.

Comments? Taylan (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Mathglot, do you have any suggestions on how to improve the situation, or comments on my proposals above, since you had undone my edit removing Dworkin from the "trans-inclusive" list? Taylan (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Taylan, I borrowed Koedt/Levine book to go through and fix up that section (as well as others) but I've run out of time before having to run off on a trip. I can respond more when I'm back. Hopefully other editors can respond in a more timely manner to this question in the meantime, and you can reach a consensus. Sorry I'm in a bit of a rush and can't do this justice now, but I will when I can. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot, thanks for the trouble. Unfortunately my main concern is yet unresolved. Dworkin is simply listed as "trans-inclusive" even though she never stated that transwomen are women and never stated support for transwomen entering female-only spaces. I think she should simply be removed from that sentence. From my experience outside of Wikipedia, it seems to have become a bit of a trope to use Dworkin as a token "pro-trans" radical feminist, even though it's a highly questionable assertion. Wikipedia shouldn't be contributing to such misinformation. Taylan (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The following passage from Woman Hating seems to support the claim that Dworkin was trans-positive:

"[E]very transsexual has the right to survival on his/her own terms. That means every transsexual is entitled to a sex-change operation, and it should be provided by the community as one of its functions....We are, clearly, a multi-sexed species which has its sexuality spread along a vast fluid continuum where the elements called male and female are not discrete."

Unless someone is trying for some reason to create a wedge between pro-trans positions and positions against binary gender (and what would motivate anyone split hairs like that?), I'd call her position trans-inclusionary. Newimpartial (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that "trans inclusionary" is commonly understood to mean "sees transwomen as women" and relatedly "wants transwomen to be able to enter female-only spaces." Andrea Dworkin never expressed such views. That's what I mean with "trans inclusion isn't well-defined." There is a false dichotomy (either all-support or all-oppose) which can mislead the reader. Taylan (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Missing content in the article

There are a few things missing from the article that should be included such as:

• There needs to be a mention of sex-positive feminism in the article since it arose largely as a response the perceived anti-sex (sex-negative) views of radical feminists. This led to the feminists sex wars, which also needs to be mentioned in the article. Yes, I am aware that not everyone on anti-porn/anti-sex work/allegedly anti-sex side of the debate identifies as a radical feminist not does everyone on the other side identify as a sex-positive feminist either. But radical feminists did/do make up large majority of the movement anti-porn/anti-sex work/allegedly anti-sex.
• The abbreviation radfem is common in certain circles of radical feminism and should be mentioned in the article.
• Accusations of radical feminists being man-haters could be fleshed out more in the article rather then just a brief mention. This has long been a charge against radical feminism and has either been denied by radical feminists as existing at all in the radfem movement or some acknowledge it by claim it strictly a fringe/minority view within the movement.
• Related to the above, is the argument made by a minority of radfems that PIV sex (Penis in Vagina sex) is something all woman should abstain from in the current patriarchal society, if ever. Some go on the blatantly describe it as rape. (see this link: https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/ ). The debate within the radfem movement whether PIV sex is always or generally rape/sexual assault/sexual violence and accusations made from outside the movement that this attitude is more common the many radfems argue it is, if the acknowledge it at all. Obviously, we would need to fine reliable sources to discuss this view within the movement and the blog I linked to above (or similar sources) does not meet that standard but that dos not mean RS's do not exists covering the anti-PIV radfem minority view. Remember, while this is described as fringe viewpoint within the movement by many redfams themselves does not mean it can't be included in the article so long as undue weight is not given to it. Also keep in mind that their are radfem's that openly state an anti-PIV sex position (see above blog) and those that critics claim imply such a view despite not outright stating it (such as Andrea Dworkin). A common argument made by some radfem's is that women in patriarchal societies, such as the U.S., cannot truly consent to sex freely under such conditions and this is what makes heterosexual sex at least problematic (if not outright rape). All of this should be include in the article if RS's can be found to cite.
• Separatist feminism is not mentioned in this article even though it's considered notable enough to have it own article on Wikipedia. As such, it deserves at least a brief mention in this article with a link to the main article on it.

--2600:1700:56A0:4680:344D:B73F:9E4F:473 (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you'll be able to find many reliable sources re. "all PIV sex is rape." That's just a common straw-man-through-over-simplification. What you wrote at the end is more like it: some radfems have argued that true consent can only exist in the context of equality between the sexes, which doesn't currently exist, and as such heterosexual sex is metaphorically akin to rape. The book The Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism contains a chapter by a radically abstaining radfem group; you could use that as a reliable source: http://radfem.org/the-sexual-liberals/ Taylan (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Andrea Dworkin.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

"Templates for discussion" heading/banner/tag/warning

This article has at its top, in fine print, what appears to be a malformed warning, stating:

‹ The template below ([[Template:{{subst:Radical feminism}}|{{subst:Radical feminism}}]]) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›‹ The template below (Globalize) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

It's dated 2017-December, and it links to a current discussion with no mention of this page. Would there be any harm in deleting this banner from this page? A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I see now this small-print warning is because this article has a lack-of-worldwide-view warning, and the template for that warning has been proposed to be merged with the "globalization" warning. This is separate from the 2017-December date. The fine print itself is correct. A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Worldwide view (globalize) banner/template

This article has a lack-of-worldwide-view banner/template. It's dated 2017-December (sixteen months ago). It's noted (in the edit-view text) that the complaint is lack of a French view. The previous discussion appears to be here. It had four contributions from two editors across two days. I would agree with User:SlimVirgin that if User:Mathglot (who apparently added the tag) wishes the content or title be changed, they should put forward such edits. Otherwise, I think it's time we remove this tag. A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, the tag is still valid. There is no policy about removing tags after an elapsed interval; on the contrary; there is policy not to do so. The section "Views on transgender topics" does include, in passing, names of some women from Britain, Canada, and Australia, but these are trivial mentions and it doesn't go into any detail. (Not that it should: per WP:SS this section should be shortened to a paragraph or so; there is already an entire article about this subject, and it doesn't need to be duplicated here.)

There is no policy-based obligation for the person who notices a defect in an article, whether it be copyright violation, lack of sources, inaccurate translation, missing or inadequate lead, or lack of global view to fix the problem. To the contrary; it is a service to the Wikipedia community to add such tags because they automatically categorize the article in a maintenance category which allows them to be easily found and worked on by the community. In addition, the banner calls attention to the issue, for regular editors who visit the article, as to one way the article may be improved.

Per policy on WP:Article titles, The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles. The current title fails WP:PRECISION, because in reality, the scope of the article is "Radical feminism in the United States", but that is not its current title. That mismatch must be resolved, sooner or later, in order to be in line with article title policy; there are two ways to do that:

1. add content on radical feminism from a more global perspective, in line with the scope of the current title, or
2. alter the title to be better aligned with the current scope, such as to Radical feminism in the United States.

With either of these solutions, the tag could be removed. However, your wish to remove the tag simply because some time has elapsed without bringing the article into accord with written policy is not sufficient. I could just as well put the burden on you and say, "If User:A145GI15I95 (who apparently wishes to remove the tag) wants to do so, they should put forward such edits as makes the current content consistent with the title per Wikipedia policy," but that would be wrong, too, as there is no policy-based reason for it. Just as there is no policy-based reason for the person who notices a defect, to fix the underlying problem.

But I'm sympathetic to the fact that this has gone on so long without resolution, and I don't want it to remain this way forever, either, as the article in its current state violates written policy. It's high time one of the two solutions is implemented. If nobody steps up to implement #1, then #2 is easier. That opens a path to create a stub parent article in Summary style with the former name of this article containing a brief summary of radical feminism in the US, and a {{Main}} link to the renamed article, which becomes a Summary-style child article to the parent. The parent article could then be expanded at leisure with brief sections on other countries, including France and others (Germany comes to mind), as there wouldn't be a burden to write lots of material about other countries in a summary article.

A move to "Radical feminism in the United States" seems uncontroversial to me, but others may feel differently. Therefore, if we want to go that route, it should probably be listed at Requested moves and the proper procedure followed, rather than just do the move on our own, so please don't just carry out the move yourself without consensus.

In the meantime, while the tag is still valid, it must remain. Mathglot (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The tag should be removed. No one is being prevented from adding more material; anyone wanting to do so is encouraged to do it. The article certainly isn't exclusively about the US, but a lot of feminism (radical and otherwise) did emerge in the US, or was more readily embraced there. Mathglot, you added the tag in December 2017. As I wrote at the time: "It isn't reasonable to tag articles if you're able to fix them but choose not to. If we all did that, most (if not all) articles would be tagged all the time." SarahSV ^(talk) 20:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, you did write that at the time, and it wasn't policy then, and it isn't now, either. It's really just your own opinion, isn't it? Mathglot (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, let me say that I admit I'm not among the most Wiki-educated of editors. I've seen others elsewhere speak of "hit-and-run" edits, and I don't wish to offend or blame anyone here, but this seemed like such a case, given the lack of action and limited discussion. Secondly, the content includes issues and persons from not just the United States, but also the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and even some content from without the Anglosphere. The tag appears to be invalid, and anyone may add further global content. A145GI15I95 (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the term you were looking for, might be "drive-by tagging" (there is also, "Tag bombing), and that involves people tagging left and right, and never participating in a discussion about it, and often not even specifying the |reason= parameter in the tag so you really have no idea at all why the tag was placed, or have any way to evaluate if it is still needed. But that isn't the case here. Maintenance tags should have accompanying Talk page discussions, and you rightly linked to the one now in the archives. Now, we have another one, here. So this isn't a case of drive-by tagging.

Regarding the content: other than mere trivial mention, I see no substantive content about anything outside the United States. If it's important to you, I wouldn't have an objection to retitling it using "Anglosphere" (although I think that's an uncommon word), or "..in the English-speaking world". Although there's one thing I don't get: what exactly is your objection to just leaving the tag there until the situation resolves? That's what policy calls for.

Finally, if the tag bothers you that much, why not just add the missing content? In France, that would maybe start with Monique Wittig (though not chronologically), and include one or more of Nicole-Claude Mathieu, Madeleine Pelletier, Luce Iragaray, Colette Capitan, Caroline de Haas, and there are French feminists who have taught on both sides of the Atlantic and thus can offer a unique perspective, such as Wittig, Hélène Cixous, and Anne Emmanuelle Berger. This is something on my list to do, but I have a long list. I'll probably get to it eventually, but in the meantime, if the tag is that offensive to you as to raise a debate about it here, and you don't like the rename idea, just add some content and you can get rid of it. Some more possibilities:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I've had my say, and based it on policy. I have other stuff to do, now. It would be better if whatever action is taken, is based on policy. I don't have anything else to add. Mathglot (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

As I recall, Mathglot said at the time that he wanted to add something about the origins of radical feminism in France. I don't know what that refers to or I'd add it myself, so I encourage him to do it, but the article ought not to remain tagged in the meantime. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the encouragement, and here's right back atcha. You have access to the same sources I do, so have at it. This marks the third time you've stated your preference; I think the policy is, that after you've restated it five times, you win, and you get to take the tag out. You're almost there. Happy editing, Mathglot (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

…if the tag bothers you that much, why not just add the missing content? I don't agree the content is necessarily missing, I don't see the tag as warranted. ¶ If it's important to you, I wouldn't have an objection to retitling it using "Anglosphere"… I neither believe the page needs to be re-titled. ¶ It appears the tag was added, and the only response has been objection to the addition. Consensus would appear to be against the tag, no? A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe that two opinions offered without recourse to guideline or policy trumps one opinion backed by article title policy links. That's why, for example, Rfc results don't tally votes, they tally arguments weighted by their strength and validity. You haven't offered an argument other than your opinion, afaict, but I'm WP:INVOLVED, so it's not my call. You might try posting at WT:RFC, WT:CONS, or the Village pump (policy), and request more experienced editors to have a look and see what they think. Mathglot (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

While I may not have the savvy to link readily to Wiki docs, that doesn't reduce my statements to mere opinion, anymore than linking to docs would elevate statements to untrumpable facts. The complaint is that the article lacks a necessary worldwide view. The responses are that it doesn't, that the article has enough of a worldwide view to be free of the tag with respect to the subject matter. I'm sorry, but consensus appears to be against the tag. A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia policy states that an unaddressed tag should remain indefinitely until its issue has been resolved. Let's remember that a template is not an indictment against the content of an article. Even with some inclusions of English speaking writers from countries outside of America, the article focuses mainly on writers from the United States with few outside voices and none from outside the English-speaking world. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and any article lacking non-Western perspectives could benefit from having an expanded viewpoint. To state a lot of feminism (radical and otherwise) did emerge in the US is ignoring feminism that occurs outside of the United States specifically and the English-speaking world in general. User:Mathglot has no obligation to address the content of their tag in a timely manner, as that is not and has never been how Wikipedia policy functions. It seems like the debate here is whether this article is "good enough" in its current state, and I would say that while it is fine, passing over its clear lack of a global perspective is doing the article is a disservice.

TL;DR: Mathglot doesn't have to add anything, and y'all don't have to add anything, but there's no time limit on a tag and the issue brought up in the tag is a valid issue to be addressed. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 05:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)