Talk:TERF (acronym)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about TERF (acronym). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Redirect

This term currently redirects to radical feminism. According to this link, a TERF is a Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist: "That group of feminists that claims that trans women aren’t really women, as biological determinism is only a fallacy when used against them, not when they use it against others." Are there feminists that actually self-define as TERFs, or is this a label only used against a certain sub-set of rad fems? Either way, is it worth adding TERF to the radical feminism page? - Hraefen ^Talk 22:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's worth adding if only for the purpose of distinguishing the two. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually I realized Wikipedia wise it's an unsourced WP:Neologism. How many WP:RS mention or describe it all? AfD probably is the best recourse. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: Definitely too new for its own article, but the redirect is warranted imho. There are a few WP:RS that use the term. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Like what RS? I didn't know til right now that news.google brought back their news archive (which allegedly they improved) and the neologism wasn't mentioned once; even the Counterpunch article wasn't in it. Counterpunch happens to be first place I heard the term and the term and where I found it sort of stuck in my head... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This book includes it: ^[1]. I disagree that there should be a redirect, as the RadFem page doesn't include any mention of trans exclusion as a part of radical feminism. I think the article deserves to be here, but if it isn't it should be deleted rather than redirecting. Jonbro (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I just left a message on your talk page that may answer your question. The Guardian, Salon, Jezebel, The TransAdvocate, and Bitch magazine are the ones I found. I did search WP:RSN about The TransAdvocate and found nothing. It does seem to have an editorial staff however. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The term was coined by radical feminists in [2008]. In addition, the guidelines about neologisms do not mention restrictions on the age of the neologism. I don't think chronology would be an issue. MeganBytes (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

In regards to notability. The acronym does have a presence in mainstream media. Recent example is a [A The New Yorker article]. MeganBytes (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

TheTerfs.com is not a reliable source. Since it is considered a slur term, as the New Yorker article and other rs agree, it really should be removed as a redirect. If it is turned into a proper article with WP:RS that make it clear it is a negative term used in political polemics and rejected as a slur by radical feminists, fine. So I'd say we should put it up for AfD and if someone then wants to hurry up and write it in a wikicompliant fashion, fine. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Carolmooredc While some may not like the term, it is no where on par with a race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, ability, etc. -based pejorative term. Negative connotation, yes. As a neologism, it likely does not have enough RS to support a full article, but there no sense in deleting a redirect to an appropriate article section. I could whip together a stub or short article like Fundie has, but I'm sure every word would be challenged and it would get nowhere. A redirect makes more sense. I'll look at my sadnbox (been putting that off for a while...). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I have changed this article to redirect to a section of the feminist views on trans* which deals with feminists who are exclusionary to trans. While this section of the article doesn't specifically mention the acronym, it deals directly with the issue at hand. I think this section could possibly expanded to include some language in regards to the nature of the term. Hopefully this redirect will work for the time being. Jonbro (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Definitely better. I did have my own version of TERF which I think was far more NPOV and newer WP:RS support an NPOV view. But I'll deal with it when and if another version should be put up here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

References

^ http://www.amazon.com/Trans-Bodies-Selves-Transgender-Community/dp/0199325359/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1406593345&sr=1-1&keywords=9780199325351

May I suggest...

A soft redirect to the Wiktionary definition. ({{wi}}) -- œ^™ 07:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That page doesn't even have one decent ref that defines the term, which at least this redirect does. And there's a bunch more I just found and will mention there soon. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: redirect to Sexual slur

The redirect to Sexual slur makes no sense as it does not target or describe sexuality or gender identity. TERFs are a subset of radical feminism, as described in the quote above. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The following edit summary was given: "redirect to sexual slur since this is used to denigrate women who have certain viewpoints on gender". Personally, if it does represent women with a certain viewpoint on gender, I believe that it is could be summed up quite well as being a Trans-Exclusionary one, so it actually seems quite descriptive, at least by that logic --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It all depends on how it is used and when it is used largely in the context of casting aspersions and as an aspersion, it becomes a slur. Thus the various refs where women call it, or where RS mention it is seen as, a slur. As ref'd in another article, with more refs not yet entered. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Note on migration of content

This page previously redirected to Feminist views on transgender topics: The term "TERF". Following ongoing concerns throughout that talk page for content length, and the moderately supported suggestion there that the "terf"-word content would belong better in its own article, I've now perhaps boldly migrated the majority of that content here. Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I suppose this was inevitable. If it localizes the contentiousness about this term here, rather than spreading it to other articles, then I guess that's one point in its favor. Mathglot (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Page protection

May I ask we protect this page from IP edits? Reason for request is due to POV pushing and BRD ignoring (four times in twenty-four hours).

This is my first time requesting this, so I'm unsure of the correct format. WP:SEMI seems appropriate from WP:PROTECT, though I don't understand the wording in the template above ("what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it?"). Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to request pending changes, so that IPs can edit but their changes are vetted before they go live. FYI, the {{Edit semi-protected}} template is for requesting an edit to a protected page. WP:RFP is the central place to request the protection. Cheers, gnu 57 16:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for placing the request (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#TERF), and for explaining why the template I inserted above was incorrect. My eyes skipped the hatnote (which points to where requests are made) on WP:PP and went instead directly to the table of contents (which don't mention how to request at all). I've now no-wikied the incorrect template I added above. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Page now protected, thanks. A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

"…but they have a 'high level of social, cultural, and economic capital'"

This text was added to the "Coinage and meaning" section: …but they have a "high level of social, cultural, and economic capital".

The citation is behind a paywall: https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/13/trans-and-feminist-rights-have-been-falsely-cast-in-opposition

Could a quotation with more context be added to this citation? Could a second source be added? Who says they have this? How certain is the source's claim? Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Added per request. Despite strong historic and contemporary links between many sections of feminist and trans communities, the anti-transgender sentiments expressed by some leading journalists and amplified through the use of social media are extremely problematic. While anti-transgender feminists are a minority, they have a high level of social, cultural and economic capital. [...] Within these narratives, trans and feminist rights are being falsely cast in opposition. Feminist principles of bodily autonomy are abandoned as some anti-trans campaigners query other women’s genitals. Reductive models of biology and restrictive understandings of the distinction between sex and gender are used in defence of this position.

The Economist is an reliable source per WP:RSP. Questions on the validity of the source should be addressed to WP:RSN. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about reliability. Thanks for adding the quotation with more context to the citation. A145GI15I95 (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Should mention assault by Tara Wolf in Speaker's Corner

The article should mention that trans activists yelling "terf" have assaulted a feminist in London. This was covered very widely by the news and its aftermath is why Meghan Murphy wrote the piece calling it hate speech.

In the news:

The Guardian [1]
The New Statesman [2][3]
The Telegraph [4]
The Times [5][6]
The Evening Standard [7]
The Daily Mail [8]

And on Feminist Current (apart from the "TERF is hate speech" article): [9][10]

This was on Wikipedia before. Any reason it was taken out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.203.144.181 (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comment. This article is focused on the word "TERF" itself, as a word. You can find some information about the Speaker's Corner dispute in the article Feminist views on transgender topics § Incidents between trans activists and trans exclusionary feminists. You are welcome to participate in the talk page discussion for that article, if you think more should be added. Cheers, gnu 57 16:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the Speakers Corner incident is notable. And I agree that this article is primarily about the word "terf" rather than the related theories/perspectives. The lines between topics are grey. If you can add an appropriate synopsis here, we could discuss further. And/or, the article Gnu links immediately above, and the article section Radical feminism § Views on transgender topics are both very relevant to the content you highlight. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the incident is not really about the theories, but about the word. The group that attacked the feminist were chanting "when terfs attack, we fight back" when the woman was attacked. Afterwards, they kept using hate speech on social media while defending the attackers and making jokes about it. That's why Meghan Murphy wrote the whole article calling it hate speech. That article is already linked as a citation, but the actual context is left out. Isn't that a big omission? It's also mentioned very briefly on the page you linked. There used to be much better coverage there about it a while ago. Weird that it was removed. 2A02:908:C70:52C0:92C:90AB:4086:3C8A (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Alright, it does seem sensible to add some info here about the use of the word in that context—particularly if the incident led to additional commentary on the word. Where should it go, though? Maybe in the paragraph about deplatforming and violent rhetoric? Cheers, gnu 57 18:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I don't know how/where it was included before, nor when/why it was removed. I encourage you to draft its re-inclusion on one or more of the relevant pages noted above—as a bold addition to live content, on a talk page, or in a sandbox. As to where it might go if added to this article, I don't know, it would depend greatly on how it was worded. Perhaps within "opposition to the word"? Perhaps in a new section "political usage" or "connection to violence" (just brainstormed ideas)? Best regards, A145GI15I95 (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree this incident should be included, because this is an article about the term "TERF" itself, not the people that the term refers to. Not every use of this term deserves to be added to the article. The page on the term Asshole doesn't include every time someone has called someone else an asshole, or even every time someone has punched someone else while calling them an asshole. LokiTheLiar (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

While I've not an opinion on whether content regarding the 2017 Speakers' Corner incident could be added to this article, I see now it is included on one of the other articles we've already mentioned above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics#Incidents_between_trans_activists_and_trans-exclusionary_feminists A145GI15I95 (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS "News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Wikipedia is also not written in news style." ShimonChai (talk) 09:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

"Their inclusion of trans men as women"

I notice there's been a dispute between A145 and an IP in the history on the wording of two sentences. One of them I think A145 is right about: that article definitely doesn't unambiguously say that TERF is not a slur, though it does imply the authors don't think it is right now. The other one, however, I think is contentious: the IP has been editing the clause "calling it inaccurate (citing, for example, their inclusion of trans men as women)" in ways that make it clear that trans activists do not regard this as "inclusion" at all. And I think they have at least a partial point here: I don't think we should be saying "their inclusion of trans men as women" in WP's voice, because while the source certainly says that that is what they claim, the way we are currently phrasing it implies not only that we agree that they say it but that we agree that including trans men as women counts as inclusion, which is a very contentious claim to say the least. LokiTheLiar (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Please don't single me out. Another editor reverted the IP's first addition (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TERF&diff=894550891&oldid=894543603), before it was re-added, and I then re-reverted it (and I noted this and linked to the previous diff in my change log). I assume you meant no ill will here, however.

By the way, this sentence previously said their inclusion of trans men until as women was appended (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics&diff=next&oldid=892514624).

I disagree that the wording endorses a perspective. But I appreciate the concern. To improve, we could drop the verbose …for example…. Then, would we qualify that the inclusion is in their definition/viewpoint/perspective/theory (and how many instances of "the/a/an/their" are minimal)?

…(citing inclusion of trans men within their definition of women)…

…(citing the inclusion of trans men within their view of feminism)…

A145GI15I95 (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, whoops, missed that. But, I would say we should break the sentence up, and make it: They object to being labeled as TERFs, calling it inaccurate based on their claims that they include trans men as women. They also argue the term to be a slur or even hate speech. As an aside, I would also like a second source for that claim, since the provided source only says that trans-exclusionary radical feminists "are inclusive of trans men" and doesn't actually say anything about "as women", but even other sources we already cite are definitely enough to prove that most trans-exclusionary radical feminists do not include trans men as men. LokiTheLiar (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Sentence is now additionally sourced. Regarding the latest suggested wording: It seems strange to write "their claims that they include trans men"—they don't claim to include trans men, they do include trans men. Maybe: They object to being labeled as TERFs. They consider it inaccurate (as they include trans men, whom they regard as female). And they argue the term to be a slur or even hate speech. A145GI15I95 (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that you're getting the objection here. Trans-exclusionary feminists say that they include trans men, who they regard as women, but nearly nobody who is not them accepts this, because "including" trans men as women is like a Christian group claiming they "include" gay men as sinners. Most trans groups, and even some neutral observers, dispute the claim that trans-exclusionary feminists include trans men in a meaningful sense. I'll go find sources for this. LokiTheLiar (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

My understanding of the objection is this:

- The group called TERFs sees trans men as females, and thus they include trans men in their vision of feminism, and thus they say they're not trans-exclusive, but rather male-exclusive, because they see feminism as a movement for biologically sexed females, not socially gendered women.

- The objection raised just recently here is to ensure we're not saying in Wikipedia's voice that trans men are female, as that would be an endorsement of a non-neutral view. The IP editor has voiced this objection by adding to the article "even though they are absolutely not women" (diff) and "although they are not women" (diff).

A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I didn't follow Loki's objection at first, because AFAIK even people who don't share the view that trans men are females don't dispute that it is the view of the people in question. In the analogy, certain Christians do include gay men in the category of "sinners" (and in that, the Christians even treat the gay men accordingly), even as others disagree. It did stand out to me that if we were going to say anything about whether the people in question actually help trans men, then we'd probably need to use "they say they do X" phrasing; I guess I see the objection that the sentence should already add something about "[whether] including trans men as women counts as inclusion". Could it be reworded to just say they "consider trans men to be women" (and/or should we say "...females"?)...? But no, the reason for using "include" is that the sentence is about whether they're inclusive or exclusive and of whom. How about let's try to assemble references that talk about why considering trans men to be women should/does or shouldn't/doesn't constitute "inclusion", and perhaps also any references on ways in which the people in question treat, help, or hurt trans men, and then use those to figure out whether and how to expand on the current phrasing. -sche (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

A145: close but not quite. The problem is not that we're saying that trans men are female in Wikipedia's voice. The problem is we're saying that "including trans men as women" counts as inclusion in Wikipedia's voice when most trans men would say that refusing their gender identity is excluding them.

sche: Unfortunately, I can find a bunch of arguments by activists about this but essentially no reliable sources. So, for example this Medium piece by a random activist, or this tweet by Graham Linehan and its replies. The most prominent source I could find was an anti-SJ Youtuber mocking the argument on Twitter LokiTheLiar (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

They still include trans men in their definitions, even though trans men refuse the inclusion. How about modifying the inclusion, such as They consider it inaccurate (citing their misgendered inclusion of trans men as women).? A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I still really would prefer "alleged" or "claimed" inclusion. Alternatively, we could do something like They object to the term TERF, calling it inaccurate, and argue that the term is a slur or even hate speech. without mentioning the particular reason. It only appears based on one quote in one article, and is otherwise extremely hard to reliably source information about, which to me seems to indicate that it's a part of the debate that hasn't really filtered into reliable sources yet, which in turn seems like a good reason to avoid too much detail about it. LokiTheLiar (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The text has three cites. It's helpful to offer readers, as briefly as possible, how the group claims inaccuracy of the label. We could also break the trans-men-inclusion parenthetical to a separate sentence, and add the group's further defense that they exclude trans women because they define TWs as male (as opposed to b/c TWs are trans). But I've only seen one reliably published source for that second defense.

You said "most trans men would say that refusing their gender identity is excluding them". I'd instead say "most trans men would say that refusing their gender identity is misgendering them". TMs wouldn't argue the situation to be exclusion, they'd argue that they shouldn't be included. How does qualifying this inclusion as "misgendered" not concisely show this, please? A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I mean, the Medium piece I linked above has the most explicit version of the counterargument, and it says If you’re not actually accepting of what they’re telling you they are and are instead calling them something they find offensive — you’re not actually accepting or loving of that person. The reason "misgendered" isn't enough is that it's not the (only) contested part here. It's like, we wouldn't say that TERF is a slur in WP's voice because that's contested between the two sides of the argument described in the page, so we also shouldn't say that TERFs include trans men because whether or not they do is contested. We shouldn't accept a quote from an activist as a source for a statement in WP's voice when we can find only one reliable source of the claim and several (admittedly unreliable) sources of trans activists disputing the claim. (Especially since the quote from the Inside Higher Ed article doesn't support the whole clause: the person quoted in the article only says that they accept trans men, not that trans men are women). LokiTheLiar (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it just a sort of ven-diagram inclusion (within their definition of females/oppressed people who need feminism) that they're talking about? I suppose we could make that clearer with "within their definition of women", or "whom they regard as female", as A145 suggested. But I really don't see a major problem with the status quo: it's obvious that the idea is coming from them rather than from Wikipedia (whereas if the article were to say "misgendered" or "even though they are absolutely not women", that would be using Wikipedia's voice). The article should neutrally present other people's arguments, not start making its own or drawing conclusions that one side is correct and the other mistaken. Cheers, gnu 57 09:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Loki, I apologize, I didn't look at your unreliable sources, because you admitted they're unreliable. I could also link several unreliable sources that go into further detail on the group's argued defense that they don't exclude trans folk since they include trans men in their definition of women, in their definition of whom feminism covers.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] But I think this is adequately summarized in the reliable sources.

I agree with Gnu's "Venn diagram" assessment. I don't see how "we shouldn't say TERFs include trans men because whether they do is contested" can be argued. The former group includes the latter in their definitions of terms and theory. The latter group may argue against such inclusion (argue it's a rejection of their gender identity and their sense of self), but that can't negate the fact that the inclusion within definitions has already occurred.

Regarding objection to the phrase "as women", would it help to strike those two words? Their meaning seems obvious within the context, whether we include these two words or not.

In writing "misgendered isn't enough", you seem to indicate it would at least be an improvement. I agree with Gnu that we must present sides without taking sides, yet I think the addition of "misgendered" could add enough meaning while maintaining enough neutrality.

…calling it inaccurate (citing, for example, their inclusion of trans men as women)… [status quo]

They consider it inaccurate (citing their misgendered inclusion of trans men).

They consider it inaccurate (citing their inclusion of trans men in their definition of women).

They consider it inaccurate (citing their inclusion of trans men in their definition of feminism and of whose rights feminism advocates).

Thank you for this continued dialogue, by the way. I've honestly been trying to understand your position. A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I've added a "perceived" so it flows into "citing their perceived inclusion of trans men as women". Hopefully this will clarify things to a limited degree. Alternatively, we can use "citing their classification/consideration of trans men to be women". Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Please don't change this contested line without pursuing new consensus first. As written above, the inclusion isn't perceived. A145GI15I95 (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Reading the discussion above, I don't see a consensus in support of the status quo version you're defending. The rough consensus among experienced editors are certainly in opposition to stating in wikivoice that "trans men are included in women" as objective fact. Since the statement in question is tantamount to "We are not homophobic because we consider gay men to be women" or "We are not antisemitic because we consider Jews to be Arabs". So you can see how "citing, for example, their inclusion of gay men as women"/"Jews as Arabs" are extremely problematic. Even brief changes such as "citing their classification of trans men to be women" and "citing their claim that trans men are women" are infinitely better in terms of clarity. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The current wording has existed since April 14 (over two weeks). There was a bold change on April 28 (three days ago), it was reverted, re-added, re-reverted, and we've since been discussing. Suggestions for improvement have been offered. No consensus exists yet for change. The article doesn't say "trans men are included in women", it says "their inclusion of trans men as women". This means the group (called terfs) is doing this inclusion—not us editors, not Wikipedia. Would you find any of the three example lines above (in green) to be an improvement over the current text, could you provide feedback on them, or could you offer new concrete suggestions, please? A145GI15I95 (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe making it clear that this supposed inclusion of trans men as women is seen by many trans men as cruel or insulting would help resolve the editing conflict here? I think this academic article, Trans Men Engaging, Reforming, and Resisting Feminisms, could be a strong secondary source for that. Rab V (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

In addition to the three current rewords above, here's a fourth: They consider it inaccurate, citing their inclusion of trans men in their definition of feminism (a classification that trans men refuse as misgendering). A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Minor note but I'd prefer breaking off the parenthetical phrase into its own sentence. Rab V (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I am okay with that last rephrasing and I think I also support breaking off the parenthetical? Don't really have a strong opinion on that part though. LokiTheLiar (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

If we were to expand that new parenthetical to its own sentence, the new sentence wouldn't fit the scope of the "opposition to the word" section, it would belong instead under "responses". More detail there could help, but would it solve the original concern? They consider it inaccurate, citing their inclusion of trans men in their definition of feminism. [...Next section:] Trans men refuse inclusion in any definition of feminism as a form of misgendering. [Possibly different wording, followed possibly by greater detail...]) A145GI15I95 (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd be happy with They consider it inaccurate, citing they consider trans men as women and include trans men in their definition of feminism, (Immediately succeeding) Trans men and supporters reject this inclusion, consider it contradictory and in line with those feminists' transmisogyny. Note this quote from Socialist Worker source: "It is worth noting, however, the divisive and contradictory position they held, wherein trans men were allowed on the land because TERFs considered them “women-born” as part of their transmisgynist ideology."Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 05:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I've added a response to the "inclusion" defense in the appropriate section (diff). Please feel free to add more detail and more responses there. My concern for maintaining structure is that if we dissolve sections into tip-for-tap, we'll have mud (like this article's parent). A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it's good to mention the relationship of trans men to feminism/exclusionary feminists here insofar as it relates to criticism of/defenses of the term—but more detail on that belongs in the parent article instead, which currently has almost nothing about trans men. Cheers, gnu 57 18:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@A145GI15I95: Do you have any specific objection to this reword of mine? calling it inaccurate, citing that they consider trans men to be women (a categorization trans men reject as contradictory and transmisogynistic) Because otherwise I can only see this as stonewalling. You've seen throughout the history of this article numerous people have objected to the "status quo" version you're defending. A minority, mainstream-rejected belief cannot go unchallenged in-line like that, because this is directly equivalent to, for example, "we cannot be homophobes because we consider gay men to be women". Any revision would infinitely less misleading than current one. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to record my opinion: even though I think a smaller change would have been sufficient, it shouldn't be surprising that I'm in favor of Tsumikiria's change and opposed to a revert to the status quo. LokiTheLiar (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to keep all the opposition to the word in one section and all the responses to that opposition in another. (And A145 did add material about trans men to the response section earlier today.) I'm more concerned with ensuring that it's clear that the idea comes from them rather than from Wikipedia, than with whether the rebuttal follows immediately or is given further on. Cheers, gnu 57 02:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

My primary objection is that the contested content was added yet again without consensus. Additionally, "transmisogynistic" applies to trans women not trans men, and (less importantly) use of both "reject" and "contradictory" is verbose. / If you'd like more detail on this topic, again please add it to the appropriate section. / I've been very communicative and responsive here, my actions are hardly stonewalling. / Regarding "numerous" objections: Consensus is not a vote-count. If we were to count votes whether to change it or leave it, we appear tied. This wording was stable for over two weeks. / Here is a new suggestion. Note that it 1) uses the word "inclusion" (crux of their argument), 2) concisely qualifies (casts appropriate doubt on) the inclusion, and 3) states clearly it's their definition, not ours: They consider the label inaccurate (citing their misgendered inclusion of trans men in their definition of feminism). A145GI15I95 (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the wording currently on the page and rough consensus are not in favor of it. Read the source. "Contradictory" and "transmisogynistic" is directly taken from the SocialistWorker, repeat: "It is worth noting, however, the divisive and contradictory position they held, wherein trans men were allowed on the land because TERFs considered them “women-born” as part of their transmisgynist ideology.". In other words, SW is saying that TERFs consider trans men to be women precisely because they have this trans-woman-hating ideology. Merely writing "misgendered inclusion" is problematic because it implies unintention whereby TERFs here are deliberate hatred. "Their inclusion of" is still wikivoice implying that this inclusion is correct or unproblematic, which is clearly not. Plus, we can definitely use anchor to link trans men's response inline to the larger section below, for the reader's benefit. And for clarity, I'd propose a rewrite to the entire sentence: They argue that they cannot be trans-exclusionary because they consider trans men as women - an argument rejected/dismissed as contradictory and stemming from transmisogyny by trans men. They further argue the term is a slur and even hate speech. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I like this suggestion because it makes it clear whom the different ideas are coming from. How about just "They argue that they cannot be trans-exclusionary because they consider trans men as women—an argument rejected by trans men.? And then leave the full details of the rejection to the following section.

By the way, sorry, I've lost track of the different sources a bit: do we actually have any right now saying what trans men themselves think of the claimed inclusion? The article Rab V suggested has a bit of related info:

Regardless of any lack of conflict between feminist and other identities, many men had experiences with feminists who were hostile to trans men. Some feminists denied that trans men were or could possibly be men, and others ostracized them from organizations and larger communities because they were either transgender or men, or both. When some feminists saw them solely as men,even if this did validate their identities, it denied the ways that their trans identity and their time living as girls or women modified their experiences as men. Several men reported that other feminists were quite cruel to them early in transition.

Cheers, gnu 57 05:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I support Gnu's latest suggested wording, my previous suggestion, and the current wording. / Regarding your source question, Gnu, I don't see which article Rab V suggested, but the current line in our article (which begins "Regarding denials of…) includes a book reference supporting the claim of trans men's (and their allies') opinion. A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I also think gnu's wording is reasonable, and I think that we have enough consensus to put that wording in the article, so I'm going to go do that. LokiTheLiar (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Major violation of WP:FRINGE

...or at the very least, a textbook case of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Per numerous reliable sources(NYT, Economist, Daily Dot, New Yorker, Outline, etc), the trans-exclusionist feminists are only a very resourced minority within the radical feminism movement, where the mainstream feminism movement worldwide have long ago rejected its transphobia and accepted transfeminism and trans people, with the United Kingdom being a sort of last stronghold of TERFism. Our article currently overrepresents this minority fringe opinion head first in even greater length than the mainstream opinion, which is a gravely unacceptable violation of our undue weight guideline. Additionally, writing the minority POV in lead equally as the mainstream one without mentioning that it is only a rejected but resourced minority concentrated in one country is intensely misleading and underserving for our readers. As the article is forked from Feminist views on transgender topics, the active neutrality and undue weight towards TERF banner on that page hasn't been resolved for several months. The following must be done:

Tag the page with Template:Fringe theories or similar banner until the false balance issues are resolved.
Trim the opposition section of irrelevant incidents. Major rewrite to reduce WP:QUOTEFARM and reduce it to appropriate weight. Non-prominent or unrepresentative opinions should not be featured at all.
Greatly expand the response section, with explanation on situation in United Kingdom and comparison to feminism movement of the rest of the world. Section rename. Rewrite to reduce quotefarm and improve readability.
If necessary, request WP:NPOVN review.

Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 05:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this article, like the article it was split off from, has a WP:FALSEBALANCE problem, but I think that WP:UNDUE is probably a better banner than WP:FRINGE. Even though I do think that trans-exclusionary radical feminism is at least on the line of being fringe, I would tend towards the side of saying it's not quite fringe both because of the UK situation and because there are definitely a few feminists who are well-known for other reasons who believe in it, which is not usually the case for fringe theories.

I would like to refocus the argument around scientific sources, except there are almost no scientific sources. I've been able to find three relevant academics that have said anything about the topic in any medium (Deborah Cameron, Rachel McKinnon, and the authors of the Japanese paper at the bottom of the responses section), and they're all already on the page. I would like to also link McKinnon's actual paper about the topic, though, especially since we're talking a lot about the response to it but are not actually citing it. LokiTheLiar (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Tsumikiria, what reliable source specifically states that trans-exclusionary feminists are a minority within radical feminism? There are reliable sources that state that trans-exclusionary feminists are a minority within feminism (note that "radical" is missing), but some, like this The Economist one, also note the power that these particular feminists have. Second, what reliable source do you have stating that trans-exclusionary feminist views are fringe? And, lastly, this article is about the acronym/term "TERF." It is a term article. All of this is why I reverted your tags.

As for LokiTheLiar speaking of scientific sources, like I told LokiTheLiar at Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics, except for calling this a social science topic, this is not a scientific topic. There are, however, academic sources on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that this is a scientific topic because linguistics is science and whether a word is a slur is a topic within linguistics.

In any case, I'm at least adding an undue weight template because that definitely needs to be there. Wikipedia's rules make it easier to add a template than remove it, and for IMO good reason. LokiTheLiar (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Nothing scientific about it, in my opinion.

That tag doesn't belong either. Removing a template is also quite easy...when there is no valid justification for the template. It's why, for example, Template:POV states what it states about adding that template. There is no proof whatsoever that the assertion that "TERF is a slur" is WP:UNDUE. And looking at the current sourcing, the sourcing for the term being offensive/a slur is significantly stronger than the weak "Responses to opposition" sources (with perhaps the exception of the Current Affairs source). With perhaps the exception of the Current Affairs source, experienced Wikipedians would no way go by those weaker sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Let me go over the sources in detail, and hopefully it will become obvious why there's a problem.

First of all, there are three sources by academics. Of those, none of them say that TERF is a slur. They run the gamut from "almost but not quite" to "no but it illustrates an interesting tension in the definition of slurs" to "the claim is ridiculous", but none actually endorses the claim that TERF is in fact a slur. (The most sympathetic one is also a blog by an academic and not an academic paper.) This alone is reasonably strong evidence that the page is giving undue weight to the opposing claim, but let's continue.

The strongest sources for the "TERF is a slur" side are the Economist calling it one and Teespring taking down a T-shirt. But here's an area where we could use some context: the Economist first of all is a British publication, and so falls into the caveat about this position being much less fringe in Britain. It's also easy to match it with several sources (the Daily Dot and USA Today have been mentioned before on these talk pages; also see the Irish Times and Pink News) who have described the term in their news voice in ways that make it clear they do not think it is a slur. And then for Teespring, the source we have for that incident says clearly that it was the result of a mass-report campaign by TERFs and that Teespring's removal is somewhat arbitrary since they have many things up in their store which clearly do have slurs, and yet we don't mention any of that and portray Teespring's removal of the shirt in a much more objective fashion. LokiTheLiar (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Eh? Besides the sources specifically addressing the slur aspect, they don't need to endorse the term as a slur to be giving the weight they are giving to it as a slur. And, really, "at worst a slur and at best derogatory" and The Economist stating that they would "avoid all slurs, including TERF" is endorsing the word as a slur.

Currently, the sources included in the "Responses to opposition" section are mostly poor. From what I see of the sources on this topic, the article is not lending undue weight to the idea that the "TERF" is a slur. The undue weight tag should be removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the full t-shirt story, Loki. A145GI15I95 (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with adding more content to the "responses" section. I've added another bit today (diff), as I've just noted above (diff). I've not seen any resistance to adding more items and more details to that section, so please do so (WP:FIXIT). The remaining complaints of this new talk-page section seem otherwise reactionary, as already noted above. I appreciate the swift removal of most of these new tags, and I support removal of the remaining "undue weight" tag. A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Economist discussion

Hello all, two quick comments:

I've just found out that the Economist never publishes the names of their staff: see here. The "London" in the ref was location, not last name. I think the Economist's editorial position should be retained, but attributed to the publication as a whole.
This article was recently spun off from Feminist views on transgender topics. If you'd like to add information on viewpoints and movements, please focus your attention on there, so this doesn't become a redundant fork. Cheers, gnu 57 20:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, so that's why. Although I think if we cannot find the credentials of a writer, we should not feature it prominently in equal validity as content by named experts. I've removed it. If we are representing a publication's opinion as a whole, then we need third-party sources for that, not our own summaries. For example we can say The Guardian's US writers repudiated their UK counterparts for publishing a transphobic editorial, because this is featured in NYTimes. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I was thinking we could take the piece itself as a statement of the Economist's editorial line, because it says

To coincide with the consultation, The Economist is hosting a series of essays from a range of people with interesting and varied viewpoints, insights and arguments on transgender identities.... In the interests of fostering open debate we have set ground rules, both for essays and reader comments: use the pronouns people want you to use, and avoid all slurs, including TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist), which may have started as a descriptive term but is now used to try to silence a vast swathe of opinions on trans issues, and sometimes to incite violence against women. Comments will be open but closely moderated.

If you'd like secondary sources which mention the Economist's banning "TERF", how about this or this? (Also, I would guess H.J. is Helen Joyce, but can't be certain). Cheers, gnu 57 21:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that "TERF is a slur" appears to indeed be the Economist's editorial line. But I think it's a huge violation of WP:UNDUE to list it and not mention that the Daily Dot, USA Today, and several other publications have all endorsed the use of the term fairly explicitly (not to mention all the papers which implicitly endorse it by using it). This is definitely a case where there is a dispute between reliable sources, and the bulk of the reliable sources lean against the Economist. To mention the Economist alone and exclude all the others is a big NPOV violation, akin to mentioning only pro-rent control economists in an article about rent control. LokiTheLiar (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

If other publications have indeed discussed and explicitly endorsed usage of the word, that's important information, please add it (WP:FIXIT). But that's not a reason to remove relevant, sourced, stable content (ie The Economist piece). By the way, could we please try to keep topics separated on this talk page? It's become difficult to follow, thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The way I see it, the Economist should be included because (a) they made an explicit statement about their editorial policy, and (b) it was found noteworthy by secondary sources. Another publication which did the same is the journal McKinnon published in, which we also mention; I've gone looking for others, but so far haven't turned up any. (Plenty of individual writers using or commenting on the term, obviously, but nothing as explicit editorial policy.) It's true that a number of women's publications have come out explicitly as pro-trans, like the ones that signed the response to AfterEllen, but that belongs on the parent page rather than this one. Cheers, gnu 57 01:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

In what way do "the bulk of the reliable sources lean against the Economist"? Where are all these quality sources stating that "TERF" is not a slur? They are not in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

All those reliable sources, NYT, Pinknews, Jezebel, directly call these TERFs out for being TERFs, directly, unambiguously, use TERF to describe anti-transgender feminists throughout those articles. This is a slap in the face against The Economist's manual that TERF is slur and cannot be used. If you successfully framed a word as bad, then the most useful evidence against the framing would be the continual and unabashed usage of it. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

What? Again, this article is about the term "TERF." We do not need yet another Feminist views on transgender topics article or "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism" article. More on that in the #New Sally Hines paragraph section below. I again ask, "Where are all these quality sources stating that 'TERF' is not a slur?" To repeat, they are not in the article. That trans-inclusive sources are using the term "TERF" as a descriptor is not the same thing as arguing that "TERF" is not a slur.

At least try to keep your POV in check. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

If you wanted to be obtuse, there's no news source that I could pull the actual quote "TERF is not a slur" from. However, the reason I call that conclusion obtuse is that while the Daily Dot and Pink News technically never say those words, the context in which they don't say those words is laying out detailed arguments for why TERF is not a slur. The fact that they don't state the conclusion should not be taken as a reason to not include these sources.

I think it's also pretty relevant to this article that this USA Today glossary defines "TERF" as "transphobic feminist". While it technically speaking is not a position on the conflict about whether it's a slur, it is certainly about the topic of this article, and not only that, in context it's an endorsement of the term.

Taking a step back: while I think a statement like "newspapers X, Y, and Z have used the term" is edging too close to WP:SYNTH, I do think that we as editors do not have to, and in fact should not, evaluate the balance of sources based on whether we can put them in the article, and that while it wouldn't be very encyclopedia-like for many reasons to actually include every single news source that uses or permits the use of the word, the fact that many do should be taken into account when we determine the proper weight of the page. I don't think that any of us are fooled when far-right sources say "racist is a slur against white people", even though there are very few explicit rebuttals to that claim in reliable sources, because the overwhelming use of the word "racist" in reliable sources is an implicit rebuttal. I don't think we're even fooled when an opinion piece in a reliable source says "illegal immigrant is a slur", because that term is very commonly used in reliable sources, even though I don't think there's any reliable source that actually refutes the argument. To not use common sense here would lead to absurd conclusions, in this article as in those examples. LokiTheLiar (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You are again using faulty comparisons to argue that Wikipedia should work in a way that it should not.

And there is nothing obtuse about following Wikipedia's rules appropriately. If you want use a WP:Personal attack (like the "obtuse" one) or keep challenging my many years of knowledge of how this site works and is supposed to work, then I suppose I'll have to just prove you wrong every time with an RfC or via taking you to some noticeboard. I don't even know how many times your rationales have been out of step with the general community's at this point. And your comparisons, which are always off, are beyond tiring. I don't mind mention of the USA Today glossary or similar since this article is about the word. But we are not going to include a bunch of definitional text since even our articles about words "must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term. While published dictionaries may be useful sources for lexical information on a term, the presence of a term in a dictionary does not by itself establish notability." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I genuinely did not mean to call you in particular obtuse. That was supposed to be a hypothetical "you" referring to a hypothetical person who made that argument, and I apologize for being unclear.

That being said, I would like to accuse you of something very much like stonewalling here, because you keep accusing me of being "out of step with the general community" and threatening that you would win a dispute when the only RfC we've actually had on any topic was inconclusive. I don't want to claim my views are the consensus either, because I don't think we have a consensus, but I do think that also means your views are not consensus, and I would like to politely request that you stop pretending like they are. LokiTheLiar (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm the one who asked, "Where are all these quality sources stating that 'TERF' is not a slur?" So for you to state that your "obtuse" sentence was made in a general "you" sense is being disingenuous. Of course it was referring to me. Your whole post was a response to me. If you wouldn't keep making comments or edits that are out of step with the general community's views on how Wikipedia is supposed to work, I wouldn't state it. Stating that the general community would agree with me is not a threat. It's a fact, based on years of experience. For example, as is clear to others, it is a fact that your "Many feminist media organizations" addition is out of step with how things are supposed to be done on this site. WP:STONEWALL states, "Status quo stonewalling is disruptive behavior in opposition to a proposed change when substantive argument based in policy." Your arguments are often not based in policy or on a Wikipedia guideline. They are often odd interpretations of a policy to support your argument, addition, or proposed addition. No one would find me pointing out your errors as disruptive. You generally stick to your arguments even when more experienced editors point out why you are wrong. Even in the "Many feminist media organizations" case, you had rebuttals. And that RfC? It was started by you and doesn't really address the issues at the beginning. For editors not familiar with the topic and/or article, more background material/context is needed for them to make a choice on "lacks NPOV" and "undue weight to (trans-exclusionary) radical feminist views." That is, unless they read the talk page and/or article. RfCs started by me tend to go differently. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

New Sally Hines paragraph

What does the new "Sally Hines" paragraph (diff) have to with the word "terf", please? The word isn't mentioned once in the paragraph's single source (which is behind a paywall, but I found a free copy, which I would post here in full for everyone, but I'm afraid that'd be a copyright violation).[21] A145GI15I95 (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be great content for the parent article rather than this one. gnu 57 01:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, to be clear to User:Tsumikiria, this article is about the word "TERF", not about TERFs. That's Feminist views on transgender topics. I agree we should definitely move that section to the parent article. LokiTheLiar (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I was just coming to this talk page to state that the current "Responses to opposition" section shouldn't include the "Regarding denials of trans-exclusion based on inclusion of trans men in feminism" piece and the Sally Hines piece...since neither is about the word. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I definitely share concerns that we keep this article's content relevant to the word itself. I think the "it's misgendering" response to the "we're not exclusive, we include trans men" defense is acceptable as a response to an objection to the word. But the Hines paragraph, as I stated above, looks very out of place. A145GI15I95 (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I see. But this article shouldn't be limited to the word. Ideally, this should be a page titled "Trans-exclusionary feminism" whereby TERF is one of the major sections, as an alternative way to resolve the UNDUE FALSEBALANCE problems. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 05:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

As the hatnote says, all of that content is currently in Radical feminism § Views on transgender topics and Feminist views on transgender topics. This page was created very recently as a spinoff, to discuss only the word, as a word. I would be grateful if you would participate in the discussion on reworking/expanding those pages (particularly the main "Feminist views" one): that's where all of the general information on viewpoints belongs. Cheers, gnu 57 05:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Tsumikiria, I would love for that article to exist, because it would, in my opinion, solve many of the problems of the parent page. However, it currently doesn't and this isn't it. I agree it would be good if you went over to the parent page and argued for the creation of that page over there. (Or heck, there's nothing stopping you from just making it; I don't think anyone disagrees that it's notable, and while there's certainly at least one person has opposed its creation over on the other page, I don't think there would be a consensus to delete.) LokiTheLiar (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

As I noted at that talk page, I would oppose that creation. "It would truly be a WP:Content fork issue. Like WP:POV fork states, 'In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a 'POV fork' of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.'"

Having both a "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism" article and a TERF article would be completely unnecessary content forking, especially since so many sources about trans-exclusionary radical feminism are specifically about that term (as a simple Google search shows). And then there is the redundancy issue, which would not be a simple redundancy issue that is expected. Trans-exclusionary radical feminism is mainly attributed to radical feminism. Common sense and WP:Content forking tells us that trans-exclusionary radical feminist content that is not redundant to radical feminism content should be covered in the Radical feminism article. It is the term "TERF" that is WP:Notable, not the concept. Again, a simple Google search shows this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

And we do not create false balance. As for you not thinking that there would be consensus to delete? Maybe not among the few involved in these discussions. But among the Wikipedia community in general? There very likely would be consensus to delete after I demonstrate, via the sources (although anyone is free to Google themselves), that the sources are mainly about the term, not the topic. The article might not be deleted, but it would be refocused to be about the term...just like the sources are. Any sources not using the word "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" to add material about trans-exclusionary radical feminism would likely be argued as WP:Synthesis. Don't believe me? Do see Talk:Slut-shaming/Archive 1#RfC: Is it WP:Synthesis to use sources that do not identify the topic as slut-shaming to make claims about slut-shaming?. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware you would oppose the creation; you are in fact the editor I was thinking of when I mentioned there would be at least one person opposed. However, I disagree. For one, I don't think you've presented any serious evidence that it would be a POV fork or meaningfully redundant. For two, the topic is clearly notable (here's three articles from reliable sources that are directly about trans-exclusionary radical feminists), and for three it's a much more coherent topic than is currently presented on the Feminist views on transgender topics page. The existence of Feminist views on pornography and Feminist views on prostitution did not prevent the creation of the articles sex-positive feminism or feminist sex wars. LokiTheLiar (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

No duh that I was the editor you were referring to. As for evidence, I don't know what evidence you are expecting beyond what WP:Content forking states and what a simple Google search of TERF and Trans-exclusionary radical feminist show. Those Google searches show that the terms are mainly about, well, the terms. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Two points:

1. Your searches actually cut against your point. On the first page of your TERF search I count five sources that are about the ideology to three that are about the term (not counting Wikipedia). (The only two reliable sources on the first page are about the term, but then that situation reverses on the next page.) Similarly for the search of the full phrase I count seven which are primarily about the ideology (five reliable) to two which are about the term (one reliable). A couple of these talk about both, but even so your assertion is simply false.

2. Even if you were right, this whole counting thing would be entirely irrelevant, because the important criterion for making a page is not the relative number of sources that appear on a Google search but the absolute number of independent reliable sources about the topic. It wouldn't actually matter if those sources were the minority of sources on Google as long as they exist. Heck, it wouldn't matter if there were no sources on Google at all as long as sufficient sources existed in some form; the internet is merely the most convenient place to look for sources, and not the only place. LokiTheLiar (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Your search results must somehow be different than mine. On that first page for "TERF," I see the following pages: "Urban Dictionary: TERF," "TERF - Wikipedia," "Feminist views on transgender topics - Wikipedia," "Are You a TERF? – Rachel Anne Williams – Medium," "10 TERF 'arguments' that need to stop – Cursed E – Medium," "The TERFs" (from theterfs.com), "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism - RationalWiki," "What is a Terf? How an internet buzzword became a mainstream slur," "TERF | Geek Feminism Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia," "I'm credited with having coined the word 'Terf'. Here's how it happened." Why are you counting sources such as Medium when I've already been clear with you that those WP:About self sources are not WP:Reliable sources? The only WP:Reliable sources on that page are about the term. When we look further past page 1 (meaning so on and so on), we see that most of the sources are also about the term. On the first page for "Trans-exclusionary radical feminist," it's more of the same. That there exists articles talking about the dispute between trans-exclusive and trans-inclusive feminists doesn't negate the fact that material specifically titled "TERF" or "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" are mainly about the term; this is especially the case for "TERF" (without it being spelled out). And although there are sources like this The New York Times opinion piece or this HuffPost piece, most of the articles (the reliable ones) speaking on trans-exclusionary radical feminist views are not specifically about trans-exclusionary radical feminist views. They are about the dispute between trans-exclusive and trans-inclusive feminists. And we already have the Feminist views on transgender topics article for that.

The most important criterion for creating a Wikipedia article is WP:Notability. And WP:No page is a part of that. When sources are mostly about a term, it's not exactly best to attempt to make the article broader than that. Furthermore, there have been a number of cases on Wikipedia where topics that have support in different reliable sources are deleted; this is sometimes because the different reliable sources don't indicate true notability. Sometimes they don't meet WP:GNG. Sometimes they should go beyond WP:GNG; for instance, in the case of Wikipedia:Notability (events). This isn't about Google. When it comes to Wikipedia, Google is simply there to help assess matters, as it always does in cases of notability, whether or not to move an article, and other Wikipedia issues.

And going back to content forking, it's a fact that having both a "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism" article and a TERF article would be a content fork violation. That is what I was arguing with regard to content forking. I cited the relevant aspect of the WP:Content forking guideline above for everyone to see. As we know, "TERF" stands for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist." So it makes no sense to have an article called "TERF" and another called ""Trans-exclusionary radical feminism." We wouldn't, for example, have an article called "Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender" in addition to the LGBT article. Sure, we have a LGBT community article and an LGBT social movements article, but that's obviously different. Editors would vote to merge the "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism" article with the "TERF" article in a heartbeat. As for the "TERF movement" or "TERF ideology," it's just trans-exclusive material with the label "TERF" on it. Again, we already have the Radical feminism and Feminist views on transgender topics articles for those views. The "TERF" article should remain focused on the term. Even the TERF material in the Radical feminism article is focused on the term. Well, before going into the views specifically. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Gnu, thank you for moving this Hines paragraph to the more appropriate article. Tsumikiria, please join the talk page there for discussions of theory. A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Since you've taken this page off your watchlist, I'm going to be brief, since this is mostly to inform other editors why I disagree and not to actually argue any more.

I think your example about LGBT is interesting, because if you go not too far away we have an article about the term gay and an article about homosexuality. This is basically the exact situation we'd be in with this article. (I agree if we make an article about the movement, we should probably rename this article to "TERF (term)" or something like that for clarity.)

As for the counts: I agree that most of those sources aren't reliable, which is why I gave separate counts for both all and reliable sources. On the first page of "TERF" there's a Guardian source and a New Statesman source, both about the term. On the second page, there's a NYT opinion piece about the ideology, a USA Today piece which is about both but focuses on the ideology, an Insider Higher Ed source which is about a controversy surrounding the term, and two explainers from Huffington Post and TransAdvocate which are about the movement. The stuff in the trans-exclusionary radical feminist search is largely the same: a bunch of explainers about the movement. Some of these explainers also do explain what the term means, but that doesn't mean they're (primarily) about the term. Because of this and the sources on the parent page, I think that the movement is more than notable enough to have its own page. LokiTheLiar (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

It's off my watchlist, but I have checked back for a reply from you. At the Feminist views on transgender topics talk page, I pretty much asked you to ping me if you reply to me, but I also stated that it's best that you don't go and start making late replies to my comments. It's not right if you know that I won't be there to reply back.

Having a Homosexuality article and an article about the term gay is not at all the same thing as having both a Trans-exclusionary radical feminist article and a TERF article, and I think you know that. But if an editor wants to try to WP:Game the system on that matter, that editor will be sorely disappointed when the two articles are merged. I would see to a merge in that regard. A Homosexuality article and the article about the term gay (which also covers its initial usage, "gay" to mean "stupid" or "lame," and "gay" to mean "LGBT community") are not the same subject. No matter how you slice it, trans-exclusionary radical feminist and TERF are the same subject. Even our term articles are about a subject.

Except for "aren't reliable," we won't be agreeing on the counts matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn Sorry for not pinging you; I genuinely did not see that. That's also all I'm going to say for now; I don't have any more interest in continuing this argument with you than you appear to have in continuing this argument with me. LokiTheLiar (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

NB: Talk discussion on related redirects

Just a note here that a small discussion has begun regarding how to handle "TERF" and "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism/ist" redirects at the Talk:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism page. A145 (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight tag

The article is currently tagged "This article may lend undue weight to anti-transgender feminists' opposition to the word". Does this tag have consensus support? The section in question has shrunk, and the other two sections (defending the usage, and responding to the opposition) have grown since its addition. A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree the problem has gotten better but I don't think it's really fixed yet. I think that tag and the tag about expansion of the responses section are still necessary for now. LokiTheLiar (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I trimmed the opposition section down but response section has effectively shrunk as you moved the usage to the coining section. We are making progress, but the section expansion tag on responses is definitely going to be pertinent in a long while. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 02:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that word-counting of the "Opposition to the word" vs "Responses to opposition" is appropriate; the power of arguments stands on its own (what more should be said?). If we're to regard each section as being either pro- or anti-transgender (I don't think we should), then the combined word-count of "Coinage and usage" plus "Responses to opposition" against "Opposition to the word" gives a weight of roughly two-to-one. A145 (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that "the power of arguments stands on its own" is not Wikipedia policy. We don't present both sides and let the reader decide, that's WP:FALSEBALANCE. We present the sides as they have been covered in reliable sources. Now, the opposition section is IMO pretty similar to how it's been covered in reliable sources, but the responses section is definitely missing material. For one, there have been actually a lot of other sources that repeat basically the same arguments as in this section (some examples), leading me to think we should probably be summarizing these arguments in a similar way to how Feminist views on pornography does it. And for two, there are a lot of uses of the word "TERF" in mainstream sources that I think common sense demands we take into account when determining the proper weight of this page: even if we can't exactly list every time "TERF" has appeared in a mainstream news source, the fact that news organizations have mostly come down on the side of "this is a word we let people use in our paper" is relevant. I'd like to get more explicit statements to that effect but in lieu of that I still do think we need to be accounting for that. LokiTheLiar (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I encourage editors who'd like to see more responses to opposition to the word to add such content if it exists. I disagree with the claim that the size of the "responses to opposition" being comparable to the size of the "opposition to the word" section makes the article as a whole unbalanced, when the majority of the article affirms the word as valid/inoffensive. A145 (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Minority, resourced (capital)

Does this content—feminists who exclude trans women, a minor but resourced faction within feminism (diff)—belong in the lede? I could be wrong, but it seems not directly related to the word "terf". It's also a bit of a bold claim, worthy of additional sourcing, please (its only source appears to be the Hines piece again[22]). Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I'm firmly against pitting this as merely supporter versus opposition in lead because this directly imply they're of equal validity when they're not, creating a false impression of balance. We should definitely note that anti-trans feminists, which are the primary/predominant group being described by the word, are the minority. TERFs being socially, culturally and economically resourced is exactly why they've been able to frame the word as a slur and have this argument proliferate in the United Kingdom. This is pertinent information directly related to (the opposition of) the word. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

When we say "minor faction / minority within feminism", do we mean at a high level (authors, academics), are we talking about advocacy or activists groups, or is this meant to describe the masses of lay folk? It's genuinely unclear to me. The "resourced / high level of capital" claim in particular is bold (as each side has claimed to be the underdog). Having more than one source, with quotes in their citations, for controversial statements, increases credibility and understanding, especially if it belongs in the lede. A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think each side has claimed to be the underdog? Most of the "TERFs are a minority" citations are from trans-inclusive feminists. What I think is actually going on is that American feminists say that TERFs are a minority, while British feminists say that TERFs are alarmingly powerful. LokiTheLiar (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding which side has a "high level of social, cultural, and economic capital", see for example this article (which I found just now on Google) in The Washington Times—"The money behind the transgender movement" ([23]), which seems to claim the trans movement would be nowhere today without old, rich, white men pulling strings (I don't know, I've not read it). And regarding which side is the "minority", see for example this article in NewStateman—"Are you now or have you ever been a TERF?" ([24])—which begins "most people hold beliefs which could see them labelled a 'TERF'". Additionally, it's not hard to google and find blogs and comment sections arguing it's the terf-labeled side, not the trans side, who gets unfairly ignored and mistreated as "underdogs".[25][26][27] To be clear, I'm not arguing one position or the other. I'm saying it's a strong claim that deserves more than one source. A145GI15I95 (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The "American feminists say that TERFs are a minority, while British feminists say that TERFs are alarmingly powerful" statement is contradicted by The Economist source calling trans-exclusive feminists a minority while also stating that they have "a high level of social, cultural, and economic capital." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

An archive of the Hines/Economist article's text is visible at https://archive.fo/7fvsg. The author cites no evidence to back her claims. A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Many WP:Reliable sources don't cite a source, and that includes most of the sources in this article. As has been discussed times before on this site, WP:Reliable sources does not state that reliable sources need to cite sources. And WP:In-text attribution exists for a reason. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A145: I would not consider an opinion piece in The Washington Times a reliable source, especially one which talks about George Soros; read that last paragraph of the lede of its article for why. The opinion piece from the New Statesman, besides also being opinion, appears to be conjuring up a silent minority which the author has no evidence for and says itself "That their position is misguided and morally repugnant is pretty much taken for granted". And obviously neither /r/gendercritical nor any of those forums or blogs is a reliable source. For further proof that trans-exclusionary feminists are disproportionately influential (at least in Britain) see the sources I link below. Several of them say or imply that trans-exclusionary feminists are much less influential in America, so I agree we should not imply that. LokiTheLiar (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22: So, it's also technically true that anti-trans feminism is still a minority in Britain, it's just a larger and more influential minority. (Have you noticed that most of the trans-exclusionary feminist editorials we've been finding come from British media? The Economist, the New Statesman, the Guardian, and so on. In contrast, everything from America that hasn't been written by Michelle Goldberg has been neutral or positive.) If you want proof of the divide, here is some proof. Based on all the reliable sources that say both that TERFs are disproportionately powerful in Britain and also that they're quite marginal in America (the NY Times and the Outline say this explicitly) I think that it's reasonably clear that Sally Hines' statement was based on her own experience as a British feminist and should not be taken as a worldwide perspective. LokiTheLiar (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The question above was whether either side (not whether reliable sources) claim underdog status. I know blogs/comments/tweets are unreliable, and I've seen you link unreliable sources on talk,[28] so I thought this would be acceptable here (not in our article, of course). / Regarding The Washington Times: I don't see consensus against them on our noticeboard. / Regarding the MacDonald piece: It's not labeled an opinion piece, and it cites evidence; the Hines piece reads more like opinion and cites no evidence. / I appreciate the comments here that the US and UK have different situations, and I'd welcome seeing more info on these nuances in our article if possible. A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Does this revert (diff) have consensus backing? The change (now reverted) was from they have a "high level of social, cultural, and economic capital" to they have been said to possess a "high level of social, cultural, and economic capital". Reason for the addition of "said" was to improve NPOV, as one source has said this, and without evidence. Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, my point is that the WP:Reliable sources guideline is clear about what qualifies as a reliable source. It states nothing about sources needing to cite sources. To repeat, "As has been discussed times before on this site, WP:Reliable sources does not state that reliable sources need to cite sources." An opinion piece comparison is irrelevant because that is handled per WP:YESPOV and WP:In-text attribution. We can take this to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources if we must.

You stated, "Several of them say or imply that trans-exclusionary feminists are much less influential in America, so I agree we should not imply that." No, they don't.

A145GI15I95, "said to possess" is a WP:Weasel words violation. The piece should simply be given WP:In-text attribution instead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"No they don't"? What? I can quote two of them saying that very clearly. The NYT source states In America, however, TERFism today is a scattered community in its death throes, mourning the loss of its last spaces, like the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival, which ended in 2015., and the Outline source states It’s vanishingly rare that I think any country should take advice from the shitshow that is the U.S., but with regard to feminism, at least American leftists don’t tend to Lean In to bigotry quite as much. Please at least read the sources I link before dismissing them. Also, I'm honestly not sure what we would be taking elsewhere. I don't think that you're saying my sources are unreliable, and I'm not saying your source is unreliable. Do you mean we should go there to resolve the issue of whether there's a source conflict or not? Because I think that's reasonable and in fact a good idea.LokiTheLiar (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The source stating that "TERFism today is a scattered community in its death throes, mourning the loss of its last spaces, like the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival, which ended in 2015" is not the same thing as stating they have no power. Again, The Economist states "anti-trans viewpoints are a minority position within feminism" and "while anti-transgender feminists are a minority, they have a high level of social, cultural and economic capital." So it also calls them a minority. The source stating "It's vanishingly rare that I think any country should take advice from the shitshow that is the U.S., but with regard to feminism, at least American leftists don’t tend to Lean In to bigotry quite as much" is not the same thing as stating that trans-exclusive feminists have no power. You are reaching a conclusion not stated by the sources. Regarding Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, I simply meant that if one wants to argue that WP:Reliable sources need to cite sources, we can take the matter there for more opinions.

In any case, I'm taking this article and the Feminist views on transgender topics article off my watchlist, which I know will relieve you and certain others. There are too many contentious topics that I need to worry about, and just being involved with the Feminist views on transgender topics article and now this one...I can see that both will take too much of my time. I don't like being on Wikipedia debating day in and day out. I do not want to substantially contribute to either article and become very attached. I know that my draft of the Feminist views on transgender topics article would be a substantial improvement to that article, but I don't have the time nor patience to deal with POV issues that would continue to happen at that article even if my draft was implemented. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Like before, this is mostly going to be about explaining my position to other editors briefly now you've taken this article off your watchlist.

Saying those sources don't prove that TERFs have "no" power is a strawman. The claim at issue is that "they have a high level of social, cultural and economic capital" is true in the UK only, and that they are significantly weaker in the US. I think describing TERFism as a "scattered community in its death thrones" in the US does contradict, and in context is intended to contradict, the idea that they have a "high" amount of social, cultural and economic capital in the US. I'm also confused at your emphasis; while it's clear that to some extent the piece is based on the author's opinion, she does go into her reasoning (and, as you say, reliable sources don't have to cite sources). Moreover, in context the opinion being offered is that she thinks that Britain ought to take advice from the US in this instance, and then offers her reasoning being that TERFs in the US are weaker than in the UK. LokiTheLiar (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no straw man. The sources do not state that those feminists have no power. WP:Synthesis understands what I mean. So should you. You have no proof of "in the UK only." As for my bolded emphasis, yes, it's about that author's opinion since that author specifically states "I think." And although I stated, "WP:Reliable sources does not state that reliable sources need to cite sources.," I also stated, "An opinion piece comparison is irrelevant because that is handled per WP:YESPOV and WP:In-text attribution." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The addition of "said to possess" was intended as a more WP:IMPARTIAL tone. It doesn't "[create] an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated" (definition of WP:WEASEL), it does the opposite. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Since I missed this earlier, I'm replying now: WP:IMPARTIAL does not excuse "said to possess." Use of "said to possess" is the type of wording that WP:Weasel words cautions against. It doesn't need to give every example for editors to get the point. If the "said to possess" wording hadn't been changed, someone would have eventually tagged it with Template:By whom (even with the inline citation). And the "while they lack influence in American feminism" piece, which was changed to "while they lack influence in mainstream feminism" in the Feminist views on transgender topics, is WP:Synthesis. And the Inside Higher Ed source is a weak source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of wiki-links.

The following wiki-links in this article's prose have in the last two day been removed, re-added, re-removed, and re-re-added (diffs: [29][30][31][32]):

…was used to [[Dehumanization|dehumanize]] women who…
…criticized Linda Bellos' 2017 [[deplatforming|disinvitation]] from…
…who are critical of [[gender]].
…[[Normalization (sociology)|normalization]] of the term…

Reasons for removal in logs have read "this is not how in-quote linking should be used", "deplatforming is OR", and "linking in quotes incl. indirect ones may not imply additional meaning; whose attempt? attempt by how? rm wikivoice".

The above statements have not been made in quotes. They present opportunity for lay-readers to learn more about terms that may be considered more specialized to this sociological topic. This repeated removal violates BRD, as these were stable, boldly removed, reverted, and not discussed. I ask please we not re-re-remove them without talk here. Thank you. A145 (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The link to deplatforming should definitely not be there, because since that's not the word you're making the link out of, and the page you're making the link to is charged, it's IMO clear editorializing with a link. I'm also against wiki-linking inside of a quote unless it's a technical term that is only used inside that quote (which gender is not). "Dehumanization" I'm on the fence on, but I think I'm against it on balance since it's also inside a quote. "Normalization" I think I would be for on balance; I don't think there's a good reason not to link it and it is a technical term. LokiTheLiar (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It is wildly inapproriate for you to link your idiosyncratic personal intepretations of Bellos's uninvitation being a form of deplatforming against her in-page. The source does not say that at all, making this linking based on personal POV rather than plain summary. Dehumanize, gender and normalization are all common words, and linking them inside indirect quotes is still a form a inappropriate in-quote linking whereby the linking itself is used to editorialize and validate the quoted content, a form a NPOV violation. One case for an example: "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a country..." should not have that "democratic" linked. You certainly should not add them back without a broad consensus. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

'TERFism' in quotes, bold, and italics

The word "TERFism" was added in quotes, bold, and italics by one editor.[33] The bold and italics were reverted by a second editor,[34] re-added,[35] re-reverted by a third editor (me),[36], re-re-added,[37] and re-re-reverted.[38]

In the logs, no reason has yet been given for italics. Reasons given for bold have been "bolded per MOS:BOLD, it was a redirect from TERFism, as the term has now been widely used as a search term" and "bold redir search term". I don't see how MOS:BOLD is applicable here. It's also worth mentioning that the redirect was created by the first editor at the same time as this addition.[39]

I've asked in the logs several times on this and other disagreements that we discuss such matters per BRD, which seems to have been ignored. I'd like to ask again here on the talk page that we honor BRD: If you change something, someone changes it back, bring it to talk. Thank you, A145 (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that I would like some proof that this is actually "widely used as a search term" before I'd support the use of bold for it. Google says that there are definitely many people who use the term but I don't know if that means we should highlight it. IMO it's a variant of "TERF" and not really a separate term. LokiTheLiar (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it a significant alternative title? I don't think so.

Google says that there are definitely many people who use the term

No, it doesn't. There are barely 107 uses on the internet; that is functionally equivalent to zero, given the size of the internet. (There are also two in books, and four in Scholar.) Even if used very occasionally as a search term, it's still not necessary to bold it since any WP search for "Terfism" will turn up TERF (as well as LGBT slang, Teespring, Transphobia, and Radical feminism) whether it is, or isn't a redirect to it. Insignifcant alternative titles should not be bolded, and per WP:DUEWEIGHT, terms that are only a tiny minority (this is an ultra-extreme-double-secret-probation tiny minority) should not be mentioned at all. The NYT usage by Lewis isn't enough to trump its rarity. The term should be removed from the article; the section on Lewis loses nothing by not mentioning it. Mathglot (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

This is somewhat of a devil's advocate, but I don't see 107 as much lower than the 121 results that "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" gets, or the 128 results TERF gets. Any Google search is going to be influenced by the fact this is a somewhat niche subject to begin with.

The thing I was asking for was evidence that there's a lot of people who get to this article specifically by way of searching for "TERFism" or by clicking on the redirect from TERFism. I doubt there is, which is why I don't think putting the term in bold is a good idea. LokiTheLiar (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Although comparing a 4-gram to a unigram can be problematic, you may have a point, there. I may have to do some more searches. Mathglot (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Avoiding loss of material

I haven't been on Wikipedia much for some months, and have just seen this new article. I think it's a good idea that it split from the parent article. I tried to improve the section on the word itself, back in January, and am concerned that some of the sources and material I added seems to have disappeared. I'll put three here.

It does surprise me that the TERF article as it stands today makes no reference to the thorough discussion of the word by a prominent socio-linguist (though I welcome the addition of the Japan-based scholars):

The term "TERF" (or "terf") is highly contested. Sociolinguist Deborah Cameron wrote in 2016 of how it has evolved, from all-caps to lower case, and from functioning as an acronym to an ordinary word. She concludes that it "does not meet all the criteria that have been proposed for defining a word as a slur, but it does meet most of them at least partially," and given that it is used "in a kind of discourse which has clear similarities with hate-speech...it seems to me impossible to maintain that it is ‘just a neutral description’."^[1]

There's also the meta-discussion of academic philosophers. The article today mentions PPR but not the wider coverage given by IHE:

The term became a bone of contention amongst academic philosophers. In 2018, Inside Higher Ed documented how the use of the word in an edition of Philosophy and Phenomenological Research led to a letter of protest from feminist philosophers^[2].

Something from Sarah Ditum is in the current article, but not the publications where they appeared, which I think is helpful to the reader:

Writing for the New Statesman in 2017, she said that "TERF" became a mainstream slur after initially starting out as what was mostly an Internet buzzword.^[3] In a piece for Feminist Current, she stated that the term is used to silence feminists through guilt by association.^[4]

I think those are the main things. I have no appetite for trawling hundreds of diffs. Nor do I wish to get into lengthy discussion, no matter how good tempered, as this talk page is already too long for me to absorb. I will drop them here, in the hope that other editors - who may not have seen them before - can possibly find some use in them. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The reason the Deborah Cameron piece was removed is that it's a blog by an academic, not an academic paper. It's not even on a relatively more reliable shared blogging site like Language Log, it's just Cameron's personal blog. Since we were able to find better academic sources, we removed the relatively unreliable Cameron piece. I wouldn't mind too much adding it back as long as we made it clear that it was on her blog and not peer reviewed.

We are using the Inside Higher Ed source, we're just not mentioning it specifically because there's no reason to do so. We don't say "the New York Times said" every time we cite the New York Times, either.

The Sarah Ditum stuff was cut down significantly because we don't need the opinion of every single activist separately if they're all saying the same thing. TBH I would like to summarize each position even further and remove most of the names. LokiTheLiar (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

References

^ Cameron, Deborah (6 November 2016). "What makes a word a slur?". language: a feminist guide. Retrieved 21 January 2019.
^ "Philosophers object to a journal's publication 'TERF,' in reference to some feminists. Is it really a slur?". www.insidehighered.com. Retrieved 21 January 2019.
^ Cite error: The named reference ns-terf-ditum was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference fc-terf-ditum was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Sentence NPOV and run-on length

This sentence has been changed and reverted and changed and reverted (latest diff).

Most-recent wording: Anti-transgender feminists' attempts to deny their trans-exclusion by arguing they cannot be considered so because they categorize trans men as women has been refuted by trans men and their allies as contradictory, divisive, fetishistically infantilizing, transphobic, and a part of transmisogynist ideology.
Current wording: Attempts to deny trans-exclusion through the categorization of trans men as women have been refuted as contradictory, divisive, fetishistically infantilizing, transphobic, and a part of transmisogynist ideology.

I've two concerns with the most-recent wording:

The most-recent wording is a run-on sentence (its assemblage of phrases inhibits legibility).
It's not NPOV to declare one side as "anti-transgender" while citing their claimed defense of not being trans-exclusive. We could alternatively say "the group labeled TERFs", but I thought it better to avoid a label.

Thank you, A145 (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I tend towards the more recent wording but I would prefer "trans-exclusionary" instead of "anti-transgender" for consistency with the rest of the page. (While they do argue that it's inaccurate, it's not an NPOV violation to use the term that is overwhelmingly used to describe them, and this applies even if it's unambiguously inaccurate. So, for example the page "Iroquois" primarily uses the term "Iroquois" for the group of people who call themselves Haudenosaunee.) I also think it's important to mention that it's trans men and their allies that refute it, because that's important information for a reader about the weight of the claim. Who is making these arguments is not irrelevant information. LokiTheLiar (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

TERFs' denial are the subject of that sentence. Removing mentions to TERFs only serves to obscure the important _who_ was doing the denial. Although for more clarity, it can be rewritten into "[TERFs]' attempts to deny their trans exclusion - mainly by claiming that for their categorization of trans men as women they cannot be considered trans-exclusionary - has been refuted trans men and their allies as contradictory, divisive, fetishistically infantilizing, transphobic, and a part of [TERFs'] transmisogynist ideology."

And "anti-trans" is NPOV, interchangeable with "trans-exclusionary", while "the group labeled TERFS" is avoidant and sympathetic. Specifically, "anti-trans" is has mainstream usage supported by most reliable sources (NBC, Guardian, NYT, PRA, Prospect, Outline). Considering that we should not create false balance where the mainstream ("inclusionary") and the fringe TERFs ("exclusionary") are portrayed in equal validity, properly describe them as "anti-trans" would achieve much more clarity without implying that the fringe TERFs was equally opposed to the mainsteream. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it obscurement. It's clear in the current wording to whom we're referring. The repeated additions of the label in one sentence add unnecessary wordiness, and they appear as if done for overemphasis (pushing POV). It's simply not NPOV for us to call the group in Wikipedia's voice "anti-trans" or "terf", when the group (and some neutral parties) have offered reasons why they aren't anti-trans, and when they've offered reasons why they find "terf" to be a slur, as detailed in this very article. I could support "trans-exclusionary" as a middle-ground label, if a label is needed. I don't see why you've included brackets in your example text. I'd reduce verbiage again as Claims that their categorization of trans men as women would negate any status as trans-exclusionary have been refuted by trans men and their allies as contradictory, divisive, fetishistically infantilizing, transphobic, and a part of transmisogynist ideology., but I think the current wording reads more clearly. A145 (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

FWIW I would also say that the shorter wording obscures important information, though I didn't say that explicitly in my previous comment. IMO clarity is much more important than brevity: it's important to note who is attempting to deny that they're trans-exclusionary.

Also, like I pointed out above, even if they could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that those labels were inaccurate it would still be Wikipedia policy to use them because Wikipedia goes solely by the common name with no heed whatsoever paid to whether it is accurate. (Again, see Iroquois: no reasonable person could argue that "Iroquois" is an accurate name for this group of people, and yet it's the one Wikipedia uses because it's the one most people use.)

That all being said, I believe we all think the compromise wording of "trans-exclusionary" is reasonable, so let's just go with that and cut this argument off here. LokiTheLiar (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: Per here, should I conclude that you prefer the explicit use of "anti-trans" over "trans-exclusonary" in pursuant to the sources? Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 07:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Kinda, but that preference isn't strong unless we're quoting a source. I don't support trying to remove instances of "anti-trans" from the article but I also don't have a strong preference between "anti-trans" and "trans-exclusionary". LokiTheLiar (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

May I invite Loki or any other editor than Tsumi and me to offer additional rewords, please? A145 (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

How about: Trans-exclusionary feminists' claim that they are not trans-exclusionary by arguing that they do not exclude trans men because they categorize trans men as women is rejected by trans men, and has been called "divisive and contradictory", "transphobic", "fetishistic", "infantalizing" and "transmisogynistic" by trans men and their allies. LokiTheLiar (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Or simpler, focusing on the subjects: Anti-transgender feminists' claim - that they are not trans-exclusionary because they categorize trans men as women - has been refuted by trans men. Trans men and their allies have called this denial "divisive and contradictory [...] part of their transmisgynist ideology", transphobic, and "fetishistic, often infantilizing". As this point, we do have consensus on 1) TERFs, The subject of this denial, must be noted 2) "anti-trans" is a widely-used neutral term to describe TERFs in practice. Additionally, since the source for this particular paragraph used "anti-trans", it is naturally more preferable and clearer to the softened "trans-exclusionary". I believe this use of dashes would solve flow problems in my previous rewrite. Thanks. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 02:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Tsumi, you're quick to declare consensus when you see it in your favor. There's WP:NORUSH. Not everyone here checks their watchlist everyday. There are more editors here than you, Loki, and me. Give the others reasonable time, and remember WP:CONSENSUS is not a WP:VOTE. I can support Loki's direction, but I'd suggest this reduction of verbosity: Trans-exclusionary feminists' claim that they are not trans-exclusionary by inclusion of trans men in their definition of women is rejected by trans men and their allies. This claim has been called "divisive and contradictory", "transphobic", "fetishistic", "infantalizing" and "transmisogynistic". A145 (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The rough consensus holds when you're in a clear 1AM situation on both pages. Both your initial "concise" version and this rewrite again inappropriately wrote in wikivoice that TERFs "includes" trans-women in men (clearly an insulting one-sided "inclusion"), and omits the important information of who was doing the refutation. There is no way this shy, blurring language was the one we're going to use. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Additional sources

It occurred to me to look for more mainstream sources, particularly news, and see how they gloss the term "TERF" (or, increasingly, "terf"). Sometimes it is merely an attempt at a definition, highlighting its contentious use, but in several cases it is the use of the word (rather than the views it purportedly stands for) that has become the story, or at least part of the story.

Manchester Evening News: Tweet using 'slur' for feminists while 'defending trans rights' sparks internal police investigation. This story refers to something that Greater Manchester Police tweeted, and after reflection, deleted.

"The message states: “Hello. The word TERF is not an offensive slur, It is a description. At GMP we stand against hate crime and the Trans community are victims of horrific attacks globally and in the UK. We would like to see you at the event and Hopefully you can gain insight into Trans Rights. Liam” The comment sparked outrage amongst feminist activists who say ‘TERF’ is an offensive term."

Slate: Do I Have to Give Up Lesbian History to Participate in Queer Culture?

"TERF, as an insult, has become so far removed from its original activist intentions (rightly criticizing trans exclusion in feminism) that, at this point, it’s also a word for anything that queer millennials deem uncool. Things I’ve seen called “TERFy” on Twitter and Tumblr include tampon ads, the word “female,” the non-word “womxn,” Janelle Monae’s “Pynk,” the Venus symbol, bangs, Jill Stein, Cardi B, and … trans women. This blanket TERF-ing, which weakens necessary criticisms of transphobia, is today disproportionately applied to anything even remotely second-wave-y."

New Statesman: Are you now or have you ever been a TERF?

"The term TERF - “trans exclusionary radical feminist” has become internet shorthand for “transphobic bigot”. The odd thing is that most people hold beliefs which could see them labelled a “TERF”."

PinkNews: What is a TERF? Debate over transgender rights and Gender Recognition Act explained

"Is TERF a slur? One of the debates surrounding the term TERF focuses on whether the term is an offensive slur on par with homophobic and racist insults—which aim to stigmatise people on the basis of who they are and how they look—rather than a description of a set of beliefs, such as “racism.” It’s hard to disagree with the claim that TERF has assumed a negative connotation, but this has to do more with the nature of the beliefs defined by the word, than the word itself. Another question is whether the term is necessary to describe and challenge transphobic views? While all trans-exclusionary feminists are transphobic by definition, not all transphobia is perpetrated by TERFs. The Economist, which recently published a 10-part series of essays on transgender identities, sided with those recognising TERF as a slur, banning it from its articles because the word “may have started as a descriptive term but is now used to try to silence a vast swathe of opinions on trans issues, and sometimes to incite violence against women.”"

The Spectator: Terf wars and the ludicrous lexicon of feminist theory

"Terf is an unlikely acronym, deriving from trans-exclusionary radical feminist. It is a label given by their enemies to feminists who reject alliances in their struggle with people who used to be men. [...] Some enemies of terfs chant, or post on Twitter, slogans such as ‘Burn terfs’ or ‘Kill terfs’. Thus others regard the very uttering of the word terf as a ‘hate crime’."

NBC News: 'Pro-lesbian' or 'trans-exclusionary'? Old animosities boil into public view

"A transgender-exclusionary radical feminist, or TERF, is a contentious term used to describe feminists whose views about gender are seen as anti-trans.

‘TERF’: A CONTROVERSIAL LABEL

In recent years, radical feminists have been derided as “transgender-exclusionary radical feminists,” or “TERFs,” by many LGBTQ activists and writers for having what many see as illiberal and anti-transgender views. Faderman said the term TERF is “relatively new” and has become synonymous with radical feminism in recent years. “It’s certainly meant to insult radical feminists and to raise suspicion about all of them,” Faderman added. The label, which grew popular on Twitter, has seeped into mainstream media and political discourse. In New Zealand, a member of Parliament was criticized in November for reportedly stating, “I don’t want any f----ing TERFs at the pride parade” in Auckland — a possible reference to the Get the L Out protests at London’s pride event. The San Francisco Public Library came under fire in April for featuring an art display by the feminist and genderqueer art club the Degenderettes, in which a tank top splattered in fake blood read “I PUNCH TERFS!” The library later removed the shirt and issued an apology on Twitter. [...] Those who brandish the TERF label argue it simply and accurately describes feminists and lesbians who exclude trans women from their spaces, while radical feminists see it as a pejorative meant to discredit their views. On her Canadian blog, The Feminist Current, self-proclaimed radical feminist Meghan Murphy claims the acronym TERF is “hate speech” that incites “violence against women.” "

The Telegraph: Bristol University students seek to ban 'Terf' speakers who question transgender status of women

"Terf, which stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, is generally used as a derogatory term to describe those who believe that “identifying” as a woman is not the same as being born a woman. It can also be used to refer to people who are deemed to hold “transphobic” views. In the past, campaigners have attempted to “no-platform” individual speakers for holding such views, but Bristol appears to the one of the first student attempts to instigate a blanket ban."

It's a range of UK & US sources; I looked further afield but couldn't find anything immediately. I hope these quotes can be of use to other editors in improving the article. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

stricken comments 11:26 1 June by cu-blocked IP

===The lead and two pieces in the responses section=== Thank you for trying, Carbon Caryatid. After this, I tried too (diff one and diff two). The only editors I see trying to edit this article neutrally are A145GI15I95, Genericusername57, Prinsgezinde and Mathglot. Meanwhile, Tsumikiria is repeatedly editing the article to their own POV. One example is Tsumikiria adding material that has nothing to do with the term when this is a term article. The other is the "it's fringe" claim. Um, there are no reliable sources that say that opposition to the term "TERF" is fringe. In fact, there are reliable sources and academics saying that the term is a slur or problematic in some way. And then there are all of the sources you, Carbon Caryatid, listed above. On the other side, we have a few supporters of the term saying that it's not a slur. Despite that, Tsumikiria added this to the lead: "the term is applied to a transphobic minority of feminists who exclude trans women from women's spaces or do not consider trans women to be women. While these feminists have claimed that the term constitute a slur, other academics, feminists and trans people have refuted that claim." Um, because of the contentious nature of this term and even the academics who state that it is a slur or derogatory, "transphobic" should not be in Wikipedia's voice. The article itself lets the reader know that the term is not just applied to radical feminists or even feminists, or even a minority of people, but rather "most people espousing trans-exclusionary politics that follow a particular 'TERF logic', regardless of their involvement with radical feminism." And despite this, Tsumikiria has the lead saying "minority" and "feminists." The article itself lets the reader know that those who are called TERFs are not the only ones opposed to the term. And despite this, Tsumikiria has the lead saying "while these feminists." Tsumikiria has the lead saying "other academics, feminists and trans people have refuted that claim" as if academics haven't also objected to the term. And the claim use is inappropriate as well.

On top of all of that, the first paragraph in the responses section is not even about the word. It's just Tsumikiria trying to bloat the section because there's so little material out there that actually has responded to opposition to the word. It's Tsumikiria engaging in good old-fashioned false balance, going against what WP:BALANCE says, folks. Even more so troubling is the "Linguists Christopher David and Elin McCready" addition that is obviously meant to prove that "TERF" is not a slur, but does not belong because it has not a thing to do with the topic TERF. It's synthesis, and all the claims in the world that it's not synthesis won't make the claim true. 98.162.170.103 (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Striking comments by checkuser-confirmed block evader. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

For an IP you have a lot of opinions about non IP accounts. Please log in to your named account. --Fæ (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

stricken comments 11:46 1 June by cu-blocked IP

Address the topic at hand and stop reverting to problematic additions just because you like them. You wanted this brought to talk page. I brought it to the talk page. I did so to document the issues with the problematic "summary" and additions in the "responses" section that don't belong and so that one of the neutral editors may fix the problematic "summary" and remove the additions in the "responses" section that don't belong. I'll look forward to hearing from Genericusername57 and/or Mathglot. Carbon Caryatid, too. 98.162.170.103 (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Alright fine, since I've been linked and felt forced to read the article again I might as well pitch in. I think the article has a somewhat strange structure. The "Coinage and usage" section is very good, IMO, but the other two sections (which I combined into one since they were of the same subject) and part of the lead are less coherent. I think this article would benefit from more tertiary sources that could help make it less bipolar. Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you were canvassed on your talk page by the IP account above, that appears to have an inappropriate undeclared history with other editors and this article. The IP account is pinging selected contributors that they believe will support their view, this clearly is against canvassing as well as attempting to game the system for what should be a consensus building discussion about sources.

An obvious objective, based on their own words above, by the anon IP and let's be honest, likely sock, is to remove the word "transphobic" when applied to published statements that "do not consider trans women to be women". Let's not go down the path of responding to tired lobbying arguments that make no literal sense. --Fæ (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fæ: yeah, I figured, that's why I made it clear I was linked here. It wasn't very subtle anyhow since they linked the same users they contacted in their post here. I'm not sure why they think me reorganizing a section and removing an (imo) improperly used tag somehow aligns my values with theirs. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Responding in sequence to the links in the initial paragraph, there are several issues with these as reliable sources:

N Telegraph, Beth Abbit, Feb 2019 - Uses "feminist activists" as if all active feminists would find TERF offensive, clearly not sticking to facts and the whole article is based on selected tweets in response to a tweet, including undeclared references to a Spokeswoman for the radical (and radically offensive) anti-trans lobby group Fair Play For Women
N Slate, Lena Wilson, Aug 2018 - Long self reflective op-ed, not a survey of anything, or based on stats or interviews, just personal reactions
N New Statesman, Anonymous, Feb 2015 - Rambling op-ed by someone under a pseudonym, not a good source. Using rhetoric about 1984 and McCarthyism and unnecessarily name dropping Mary Beard and Peter Tatchell, really?
Y Pink News, Sofia Lotto Persio, July 2018 - Appears a reasonable summary by a journalist that reports on many LGBT+ related topics, in this case the GRA and TERF. Care has to be taken to avoid cherry picking.
N Spectator, Anonymous, May 2018 - By "Dot Wordsworth" this is a very casual opinion piece, no apparent attempt to do any credible research.
Y NBC News, Julie Compton, Jan 2019 - Established journalist on LGBT+ issues with a reasonable summary of a couple of recent events (AfterEllen, London Pride disruption) though relying on blogs and tweets rather than any surveys or statistical evidence.
Y Telegraph, Camilla Turner, March 2018 - Summary mainly of the Bristol University proposal to no platform pro-TERF speakers. A narrow article, but factual and does use "TERF" in an official looking way.

Revised --Fæ (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

stricken comments 08:45 2 June by cu-blocked IP

Oh. So you think it's fine to keep this wording in the lead despite what WP:WIKIVOICE says? You think it's fine to keep pieces in the responses section that don't belong there? And you think you get to dictate which reliable sources should be used and have more weight, when the sources in the responses section are almost all crap? Okay, then. Let's see what editors from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics, Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia talk:No original research have to say. I'll point those pages this way now. Going to the WP:Neutral noticeboard would be a waste of time since it would just be me and you, and those from this page who agree with you. If contacting those pages doesn't bring in other opinions, we can then head for an RfC. Even if contacting those other pages does bring in other opinions, an RfC might be needed.

The "transphobic" text really went over your head. Or you're acting like it did, putting words into my mouth, just so you can keep on keeping on with your inappropriate lead. I hear ya. You want to label everyone who has been called a TERF transphobic. But here's the thing: "TERF" is a controversial word. It is undoubtedly so. It is used not just for people who are undoubtedly transphobic, but also for those who have criticized any transgender views or said something that some transgender people consider transphobic. By some people's standards, feminist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie is transphobic and is therefore a TERF. There are transgender women who say the same thing about certain views being called transphobic even when they are not coming from a place of hate, fear, or ignorance. Although the trans women in that link don't believe that trans women are women in the same sense as cisgender women, they are not spewing the type of hate and bigotry that the term "TERF" is supposed to cover. I see that these trans women aren't even mentioned at Feminist views on transgender topics or in this article, even though that source is used in both articles. Are these trans women TERFs too? And please don't tell me you're one of those Twitter or Tumblr people (that Slate mentions) who think that tampon ads and the word female are transphobic/TERF-Y. WP:WIKIVOICE says, "Avoid stating opinions as facts." Saying that everyone who is called a TERF or all views that are labeled TERF views are transphobic is an opinion. Even "trans women are women" is a debated topic, and not just by feminists. There are trans women who argue the same. Even the Feminist views on transgender topics page does not state "transphobic" without a qualifier. It says "and are often considered transphobic" and uses similar qualifiers. WP:WIKIVOICE also says "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." Saying that everyone who is called a TERF or all views that are labeled TERF views are transphobic is a seriously contested assertion. And the "while these feminists have claimed" sentence? Yeah, I've tackled that.

Seems like you're just fine with canvassing. You also voted against adding pinging to the guideline, but now you are suggesting that pinging editors who have edited the article is inappropriate? I don't think I acted inappropriately by seeking the opinions of editors who have edited this article and might have opinions contrary to Tsumikiria's and yours. I could guess that Genericusername57, Prinsgezinde and Mathglot would see the issues that I see with the lead and seek to fix them, but that's based on them on being neutral editors at this article. 98.162.170.103 (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

For an IP you have a lot of opinions about non IP accounts. Please log in to your named account, your comments show you have a long history. If you have been blocked on Wikipedia, do not use IP editing as a way to circumvent your block.

Wikipedia is not a place to promote bigotry, homophobia, racism or transphobia, even whilst we edit articles about these subjects. It is encyclopaedic to state that anyone that publishes or states that "transwomen are not women" or any variation thereof is making transphobic statements. This is very much "Wikipedia's Voice". If you want to carry on arguing about it, raise an RFC or an Arbcom case so that others can quote back at you what the meaning of plain English definitions are.

Lastly, log in to your named account. Sockpuppeting is not a credible way to make any case here, regardless of how many pro-TERF editorials you throw around or cherry pick. --Fæ (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

stricken comments 01:55 3 June by cu-blocked IP

I know you are familiar with WP:TPOC. Do not do this again. The only gaming and manipulative behavior I see is from you, by removing a heading that explicitly identifies what my issues with this article are and then subjecting editors to WP:Too long; didn't read in the hopes that they will not comment here. I am allowed to create a heading for the material I created, especially when I linked to those headings in other places to bring in more opinions. I'm not even going to bother with your sock accusations or ArbCrom threat. No one said that Wikipedia is a place to promote bigotry, homophobia, racism or transphobia. You obviously think it's fine to violate WP:WIKIVOICE, as if it's okay to call everything someone deems transphobic as transphobic. What is considered transphobic varies among people, including among those in the LGBT community. I could link to reliable sources from transgender people who state the same, but it seems you'd consider all of those trans people who disagree with you transphobic as well. To you, they are suffering from internalized transphobia. You apparently think that all transgender people think the same or the only transgender people who matter are those in your small world. Well, it's not the case, no matter how much you wish it so. While some transgender people think that tampon ads and the word female are transphobic, many others (the ones with common sense) do not. I have not cherry picked or thrown around any "pro-TERF editorials." And my issue is not the "trans women are not women" text. So do stop trying to make it about that. RfCs below. Don't tamper with those either or claim that they aren't presented neutrally. 98.162.170.103 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Should the lead be changed back to its previous incarnation?

Procedural close; improper RfC by now-blocked sockpuppet of banned user, see ANI.

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

This is the previous lead. This is the current lead (second version). A comparison of the leads and issue at hand are in the Discussion section below. The dispute is about whether or not the second version adheres to WP:WIKIVOICE. 98.162.170.103 (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Change back. To repeat myself, there are no reliable sources that say that opposition to the 'term "TERF" is fringe. There are reliable sources and academics saying that the term is a slur or problematic in some way. Because of the contentious nature of this term and even the academics who state that it is a slur or derogatory, "transphobic" should not be in Wikipedia's voice. The article itself lets the reader know that the term is not just applied to radical feminists or even feminists, or even a minority of people, but rather "most people espousing trans-exclusionary politics that follow a particular 'TERF logic', regardless of their involvement with radical feminism." And despite this, the lead says "minority" and "feminists" at the moment. The article itself lets the reader know that those who are called TERFs are not the only ones opposed to the term. And despite this, the lead says "while these feminists" at the moment. The lead says "other academics, feminists and trans people have rejected that claim" as if academics haven't also objected to the term. And the claim use is inappropriate as well. 98.162.170.103 (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Improper RFC - See the discussion section, apparently.

Wow, you really don't want this RfC to happen, huh? After doing exactly what WP:RFCBRIEF says, the RfC is still somehow improper? So even though it gives an example of listing a question without context and tells us "If you have lots to say on the issue, give and sign a brief statement in the initial description and publish the page, then edit the page again and place additional comments below your first statement and timestamp.", I still did it wrong? I don't think so. What is it now, you have an issue with me linking to the Discussion section, where I state more? It isn't as though others cannot voice their opinions in that section. That is what the section is for. But if you and predictably Fæ want to keep objecting to the RfC, I can just keep doing something different. Either way, this RfC will be happening. 98.162.170.103 (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

The lead previously stated "TERF (also written "terf") is an acronym for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". The word is applied to those who exclude trans women from women's spaces or do not consider trans women to be women. Supporters of the word's usage say it is descriptive and politically neutral, while opponents say it is a slur."

It was changed to "TERF (also written "terf") is an acronym for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". Coined in 2008, the term is applied to a transphobic minority of feminists who exclude trans women from women's spaces or do not consider trans women to be women. While these feminists have claimed that the term constitute a slur, other academics, feminists and trans people have rejected that claim."

The dispute is about whether or not the second version adheres to WP:WIKIVOICE. A concern has been expressed that the because the term is controversial, disputed (by both those to whom the term is applied to and by some academics), and is broad (also referring to people who are not feminists, and to views that may not be transphobic or are contested as transphobic), the lead should not use "transphobic" in Wikipedia's voice, at not least without qualifiers such as "considered to be," which are qualifiers used in both the lead of the Feminist views on transgender topics page and in the "Coinage and usage" of the TERF page. At the moment, the lead presents academics as only being for the side that supports use of the term "TERF." Counterarguments are that the lead is fine as is because views from people called TERFs are usually transphobic. Because a statement such as "trans women are not women" is widely considered transphobic by feminists, we should just state "transphobic" in Wikipedia's voice. Because people referred to as TERFs are a minority, we should present the "transphobic" text as fact. To do otherwise might be sending the message that Wikipedia promotes transphobia. So which incarnation should we use? Or should we use different wording? 98.162.170.103 (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

____

Moved from the Survey section

What? - As someone who hasn't been following along, this description of a lengthy previous debate is basically incomprehensible, among other issues. I could say more, but it's impossible not to get lost in the weeds on something like this. Please review WP:RFCBRIEF and try again. Grayfell (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

~~I shortened it, but what were you confused about? 98.162.170.103 (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)~~

~~And the debate is current. Asking "Which lead to go with?" without context helps no one. 98.162.170.103 (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)~~

That's... not my point. I do not think this is a well-formed RFC, so I do not think consensus is possible. That's my WP:!VOTE. I think it's phrased in a leading way to suggest a specific conclusion, and this prevents clear discussion. There can be no valid consensus for these changes until the issue has been clearly, and neutrally, established.

As I said, it's too easy to get lost in the weeds. There are many problems here, and I know from past Wikipedia experience, that discussing any one in isolation will create the mistaken impression that the others are less important. With that in mind... A concern has been expressed... by who? By you, correct? How is it controversial, and what does controversial mean in this context? How is being controversial different from being "disputed", and what does that mean in this context? Seriously, is the concept being disputed? Its applicability? Its existence? As another example, At the moment, the lead presents academics as only being for the side that supports use of the term "TERF." Is this true, or is this your perspective on it? I read this as saying that TERF academics don't support the use of the term, which contradicts your claim. Therefor, this doesn't seem like a neutral point to be introducing. It seems like something you should be mentioning, if at all, briefly in your comments about the issue. This is not the only example of this problem, either. A non-neutral RFC will not lead to consensus. Grayfell (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

In a leading way by reporting both sides of the dispute? That is not a non-neutral RfC. You want me to just ask which version we should go without giving any backstory? You are seriously questioning "A concern has been expressed by" when this has been asked in various RfCs? There is no need for a Template:By whom tag. I'm not going to say "by me." I'm not going to name the other editor. That is non-neutral. I know from experience. There is nothing about the way that I reported both sides that isn't seen somewhere else at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. See, for example, the Talk:Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union listing. It seems to me that, just like Fæ would do, you just want take issue with the RfC for no solid reason at all. And I don't have time for it. I'm going to go ahead and heed the WP:RFCBRIEF advice, which says, "If you have lots to say on the issue, give and sign a brief statement in the initial description and publish the page, then edit the page again and place additional comments below your first statement and timestamp." 98.162.170.103 (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

From experience? Grayfell (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, I don't understand what you mean by "Is this true, or is this your perspective on it?" regarding the academics text. My point is that the lead is talking about "other academics" without noting that there are academics who also do not support the term. The text saying "other academics" doesn't mean that it's saying the "TERFs" are academics. And how is it "controversial"? So the sources in the article and the Additional sources section above are not indicative or explicit that the term is controversial. Are you of the belief that the word is not contentious and that "contentious" means something different than "controversial." I can't help but think you are just being difficult to be difficult. 98.162.170.103 (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Should the "Responses to opposition" section retain the first and last paragraphs?

A concern is that the first paragraph is not about the term while this is a term article, and so it should be removed. Another concern is that the last paragraph is WP:Synthesis because the source is not about the topic, and so it should be removed.

~~So should either or both pieces be removed? 98.162.170.103 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)~~

Remove both. The first piece is not about the term, and the second piece is not about the topic at all. 98.162.170.103 (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep with the understanding that they can (and should) be rephrased. What is a term article? WP:Term article? The sources for both paragraphs specifically discuss TERFs as a term/concept/topic whatever. If sources discuss TERFs as a concept, this article is the logical place to reflect those sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

What is a term article? See WP:WORDISSUBJECT. We have articles that are about words. See #New Sally Hines paragraph, where editors stated that text not specifically about the word does not belong in this article. So considering everything else that was removed, why should that first paragraph remain? And that last paragraph? It is not about "TERF" at all because the source is not about "TERF." Nor does the source (or paragraph) address that topic. 98.162.170.103 (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, okay, that makes sense. That discussion was specifically about a source which did not use the term TERF at all, correct? My past experience with WORDISSUBJECT issues (no ideological comparison is meant, but the example that comes to mind is white pride) tells me that WORDISSUBJECT is both vague in practice and poorly agreed-upon. Readers come here looking for specific information, and Radical feminism#Views on transgender topics seems like an odd place to send them when sources are about TERFs. As that subsection makes clear, TERFs are a subset of radical feminists, who are a subset of feminists. If sources discuss this topic, we should adapt the article to match sources, right? Are sources discussing the term as a euphemism (as with "white pride") or are they discussion the movement while using the term? My impression is the later, but either way the merits of these source will have to be evaluated in context.

As an aside, Gender-critical redirects to Feminist views on transgender topics#Feminist exclusion of trans women which currently doesn't exists as a valid anchor. This seems like the obvious target for this link.

As another aside, linking to #New Sally Hines paragraph is another thing which makes it very clear that you are not a new editor. I would strongly encourage you to log into your account. Grayfell (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Malformed, premature, and obvious bad-faith RfCs created by a possibly block-evading sock looking to undermine pertinent and well-sourced RS content. I have started an ANI discussion on this incident. IDHT isn't a good trait, and the smell of sealions is astounding. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the RfC template based on the view expressed above that this RfC is premature and the fact that the editor who filed it has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user per ANI. (I hatted the other RfC above because there seemed to be an early consensus formed that aside from the aforementioned problems that RfC was also improperly started. Whether to close/hat this one or attempt to "mature" it, I leave to other editors.) -sche (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Both RfCs hatted. Both paragraphs suggested by the IP for removal are directly relevant. This is some blackwhite-level trolling attempt. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Back to basics

Quotations with links to policy on TALK, CIVIL, NPOV, DUE, etc.

I am planning to respond to the NPOV issue, but in reading the section above, it's clear to me that the discussion has gone completely off the rails. I'm not talking about which "side" anybody is on, or why. I'm talking about the whole point of having a discussion here, and about how the points are being made. It seems to me a reminder of some basic principles of Wikipedia are in order here, because we need to get the discussion back on track, if we want to improve the article.

This is a Talk page, whose sole purpose is to improve the article. These points should be axiomatic:
- Stay on topic – This page is not for general conversation about the article's subject. Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article.
- Stay objective – And this quote from policy is key, here: Talk pages are not a place for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a place to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material.
Wikipedia operates by consensus.
- That means (among other things), that we need to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.. This is paramount. Attempting to lay down the law about what this article says or should say, is contrary to WP:CONS and WP:OWN.
- An inevitable part of attempting to find consensus is discussing with other editors with whom you may have a content disagreement, or even a basic disagreement of principle. It is one of Wikipedia's five pillars that editors should treat each other with respect and civility. Assume good faith on their part; they want to improve the article just as much as you do, even though you may find their views wrong, infuriating, or abhorrent. It is never okay to attack or belittle other editors. If you believe another editor is acting in a way that is against policy or standards of civility, don't bring it up here (why not? because "article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles.") Uncivil behavior has no place here; either ignore it (probably best, at least the first time), or bring it up on the user's Talk page instead. Keep discussions here focused on the article content, and how to improve it.
How to discuss here – be positive, stay objective, and deal with facts. Changes to articles, especially controversial articles like this one, are subject to Wikipedia's core principle of Neutral point of view. I'm going to quote this at length, because this is where the discussion above has gone most severely off the rails, and everything in this core principle is relevant:
We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.
Everything is this core principle is relevant to this discussion, and to this article, and shows one of the ways things went off the rails above.

Talk page discussions that get away from how to improve the article, such as getting into debates of one editor's opinion about the subject versus another's, or advocacy for one's personal preference or point of view without reference to what reliable sources say, do nothing to improve the article, or to find consensus here; they are off-topic. Discussions that are purely off-topic debates of editor opinion may be collapsed as contributing nothing to achieving consensus. Controversial articles like this one are particularly liable to this kind of useless debate, so we need to make an extra effort to avoid that. One way to avoid it, is to deal with facts, which means, stick to what the reliable sources say. Our own opinions have no place here. As editors, we are here merely to find out what the reliable sources say, and summarize them in proportion to their position as majority or minority views, irrespective of what our own opionon happens to be. Mathglot (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S., I realize this comment is pretty "meta" itself; hopefully we all agree about what the basic principles are, at least. I thought this reminder worth adding, in service to the basic principle of improving the article. If it does not further that goal, or if people are not in agreement with what the principles are for discussion here and want to debate that, then this would become too meta for this page; in that case, I'd be happy to move this section to my talk page. Mathglot (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

This all sound rationale, but... for some discussions there are not really two sides having a disagreement. Instead there can be facts and sources, and then lobbyists arrive claiming to be the "other side of the debate" with editorials, politically funded faux "surveys" and "statistics" and interviews with controversial pundits; but not facts and no impeccable reliable sources. We hear this every single day with Brexit and Climate Change. The arena of TERF activism, which endlessly and obsessively targets and attempts to demean and deride transwomen while at the same time claiming to not be transphobic is exactly this, claiming to be a "side of a debate". By the way, there is no such actual thing as a group of Trans Radical Activists that TERFs claim to be fighting against because TRAs are attacking women; actually it's just an Aunt Sally to throw rocks at and to demonise all trans people.

I know it's tiresome, but no, it's not something that it is reasonable to find a middle ground for, or to expect "parties" to reach a consensus on. --Fæ (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I think editors have been sufficiently reminded about talk page guidelines already and there are procedures in place to address talk page disruption. I'd rather discuss improving the article than discuss discussing improving the article. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 21:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fae: There is nothing to find a middle ground for, and Wikipedia is not about finding a middle ground; it’s about summarizing what reliable sources say, in proportion to the majority and minority viewpoints available. That’s what every article must do, and that’s what this one must do. It doesn’t actually matter if the viewpoints are true or not; Wikipedia is not in the business of defining The Truth.

Given the fact that that’s where we are, I will collapse this discussion as soon as there’s been a reasonable (brief) delay so anyone who wants to comment may do so. Back to your regularly scheduled programming. Mathglot (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I certainly don't like where the trajectory of this talk page is going (another Talk:Gamergate controversy), but Wikipedia principles must be upheld, most especially WP:UNDUE in the face of continued disruptive recruting efforts by an extremely vocal and extremely hateful minority working against accepted mainstream. White supremacy was once the mainstream norm, but not anymore and now only held by a hateful fringe. So does transphobic hatred. We should document the history of trans people and feminism, but we must strive to be free from disruptions looking to resurrect hatred, as we do with disruptions by far-right trolls. Follow what mainstream RS has to say, fact-check every additions, and know when to deny recognition, and then we're good. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 23:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Has been open long enough; collapsed as planned. Mathglot (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

watch out for brigades

this article was recently posted on a forum for terfs, so be extra careful and make sure all new edits have sources listed and facts checked.

OliviaEljest (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that does explain the history. Jeez. Glad it got protected at least. LokiTheLiar (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Should the IPs comments be stricken and collapsed? My eyes hurt. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Prinsgezinde: WP:NOTCENSORED. wumbolo ^^^ 09:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Huh? Prinsgezinde (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

TERF

The definition of ‘TERF’ needs to be identified as an opinion piece. It is fixed so editors can change it. For example, who ever wrote it said that a minority of women mind about people identified at birth as male using female only spaces. But there is no evidence cited to show the fear of mixed use or rejection of mixed use is a minority or majority viewpoint.

It is indeed a topic of concern in the community of people born female for the reasons which do not need to be restated here.

No consideration is given to the creation of third spaces or gender neutral spaces. Marilyn Leask (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

This article currently covers terminology, rather than the topic of TERFs and their perspectives. I think it should expand to represent the topic (particularly per WP:NOTDIC), but we would need to find sources that cover the aspects of TERF perspectives that you're talking about. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2019

This edit request to TERF has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "transphobic" (a loaded and - I would argue - derogatory ignorance-implying term) to either "trans-critical" or "transphobic and/or gender critical" to be more objective in presentation of information. Do TERFS self-identify as "transphobic" in most cases? No, because their reaction is not inherently borne out of fear or disgust, many would argue, but simply over a disregard for the whole idea of 'gender identity'. This does not imply hostility or negative judgement toward trans individuals, nor are TERFs ubiquitously without compassion for individuals experiencing gender dysphoria.

A major argument is, rather, that the unease women may feel in female safe-spaces when encountering male-bodied people who identify as women is at least equivalent to the discomfort those male bodied individuals may feel in being excluded, and that one person's right to peace of mind does not outweigh the other. The individuals making these arguments may not personally feel any disgust, dislike or other negative sentiment toward the transcommunity at large, but can be primarily focused on protecting the safe spaces of women who have been abused by male bodied individuals, among other things. Corvidia (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This has been a subject of extended lobbying and off wiki canvassing, mostly by accounts that are new, made very few contributions or created for this purpose. Refer to the prior discussions. The evidence, facts and definition of "transphobic" have not changed. This request provides no new reliable sources. There are obvious benefits to the page staying edit protected. --Fæ (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2019 (2)

This edit request to TERF has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

76.67.172.12 (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This article states, without evidence, that feminist who do not accept transgender people into women's only spaces, or spaces that have historically been women's only, such as sport, are transphobic.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Equivamp - talk 23:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This has been a subject of extended lobbying and off wiki canvassing, mostly by accounts that are new, IPs, or created for this purpose. Refer to the prior discussions. The evidence, facts and definition of "transphobic" have not changed. This request provides no new reliable sources. There are obvious benefits to the page staying edit protected. --Fæ (talk) 04:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

On that subject, "TERF" has just been removed from Julie Bindel, which is ridiculous. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I would have guessed that the well known Julie "Gender Benders, beware" Bindel was the very definition of a TERF. However the category removal justification was technically correct, this needs to be stated explicitly in the body of the article, with some good reliable sources. Nice bit of research for someone to sort out... --Fæ (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Read the edit histories, and see just how much POV stripping of references goes on, just to push a viewpoint. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

The reversion of my careful, small, edit to improve the neutrality of the opening para was in plain violation of WP:NPOV. Educres (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The precise wording of the lede text of this article has been debated several times, see the above discussions. The change you made here was therefore highly controversial and WP:BRD is wholly appropriate.

You appear to make a couple of edits each year from your account, with just 110 edits in total over many years before touching this article, and you have never edited this topic before. In the light of evidence of aggressive and recent on-wiki and off-wiki canvassing, it seems fair to ask how were you attracted to this article? --Fæ (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I have now put the full weight of 1RR and 500/30 DS into effect. El_C 17:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Could someone provide Educres with the DS Alert on their talk page so they have the GG related links? After asking the above question, it would look a bit pointy for me to add it. --Fæ (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. El_C 17:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is not a fair question, Fæ. Impugning the motives of other editors, especially in such a bitey way, is definitely in poor form. It might help to instead provide an actual substantive rationale for your revert, rather than doing this or pointing to a wall of text. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I have "impugned" nobody. This article is being actively canvassed, today. Someone with a nearly dormant account and 100 edits, appears just after we see significant related disruption and, bang, goes right to the lede text and changes exactly the text that the disruption yesterday was all about. In that context it is perfectly reasonable to ask if in good faith they came to this article as a result of possible canvassing.

We should not be frightened to ask about, and highlight, very obvious canvassing issues that are manipulating this article and this discussion page.

Editors with LGBT+ interests are being actively targeted for harassment and scared off from contributing to this topic. That is not good for Wikipedia in anybody's book. Us long term Wikipedians should not be a tacit party to allowing that to happen regardless of our views about the article content. --Fæ (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Reasonable or not, it's a violation of WP:AGF and impugning their motives as you continue to do is not the appropriate way to deal with the problem of canvassing. We have talk page guidelines. Please follow them. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

By definition, if the question is reasonable, and as you agree it is that's a given, then there is no bad faith in asking the question. There is no failure to assume good faith, as my assumption from the start was that Educres was likely to have been attracted here via canvassing elsewhere, and made the changes in good faith as they were unaware that the canvassing itself is counter to Wikipedia guidelines.

Again, long term Wikipedians should not be scared off from discussing canvassing when we explicitly know it is happening. Thanks for your advice, but your own statements appear conflicted.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

It is not unreasonable for editors to raise concerns about canvassing for new and dormant accounts when we know canvassing is actually taking place. AGF is not a suicide pact. El_C 19:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:IAR is not a general invitation to breach our behavioral guidelines. If you're going to invoke IAR, then you should do so while articulating a clear and compelling reason why doing so helps the project. Both the guidelines and IAR should be used in order to further the goals of the project. So far, I've seen IAR used in this thread to avoid discussing the merits of a particular edit. Invoking IAR to justify an ad hoc investigation about whether canvassing has occurred at the expense of productive dialogue seems quite inappropriate to me. Perhaps you can fix this oversight. Or you can continue wasting time and energy justifying poor talk page behavior. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 21:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I evaluate that behavioral guidelines have not been breached, due to known WP:CANVASS. El_C 21:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Support Educres's edit. The current text isn't neutral. It picks a side. 24.252.174.130 (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

With regard to the removed contribution to this section, note that the blocked IP 24.252.174.130 is a highly likely user match to 98.162.170.103. By 'highly', statistically less than 0.01% that a different user would be using this IP address by random chance. A checkuser could probably pin that down much further. We may well see more IP hopping. --Fæ (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I restored IP's contribution of 14:38, 4 June. I realized you weren't the one that removed it, but it's a TPO violation, nonetheless. If someone believes the comment is invalid, belongs to a sock, or whatever, then raise it at WP:SPI, WP:ANI, or whatever you believe the problem is. You can state a good-faith reservation about the comment (as you did above). As a first step, one could (should) leave a (neutrally-worded, good-faith) comment on the IP's talk page, with diff links, stating their concerns about their editing, so future admins and others will have access to it. But what one cannot do, is just remove it without evidence based on their own (or someone else's) opinion; otherwise every controversial Talk page would devolve into a shoot-out. Mathglot (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I also lean pretty heavily towards favoring Educres's version. Anyone care to make an actual case against this version that focuses on content, rather than contributors? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Having looked at the lead now, it has some clear POV aspects that need adjustment. Then again, so did the attempted change which was POV in the other direction, as people with strong opinions on both sides of the issue lean, understandably, towards their own view of the situation. I'll have a more in-depth look at this and make a comment later, but for the time being, I'll just remind us all of some general principles: the lead summarizes the body, it doesn't introduce new information; the lead does not normally need citations, because the more detailed body should have citations for everything summarized in the lead. Having said that, citations are not prohibited in the lead, either, and in a controversial article like this one, this might be one of those cases where citations in the lead would be worth while.

Besides POV, another general problem to watch out for in articles is WP:SYNTH, a type of WP:Original research. If the lead ends up saying, "these people believe X, and these other folks believe Y" then we have to be careful if we are saying that in Wikipedia's voice, that there are single sources that have that whole assertion, i.e.: "some X, and others Y"; if we have to resort to two (or more) separate sources where #1, 2, & 3 say "some X", and sources 4, 5, & 6 say "some Y" then if *we* say "some X, but others Y" then that is SYNTH. In an uncontroversial topic, one could be perhaps be a little bit more lax about this, but not here. Core principles of Verifiability, Original research, neutral point of view and Due weight need to be observed strictly in this article, and anything that doesn't, needs to be removed. Mathglot (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The lede's second sentence says the word is "applied to a transphobic minority of feminists," however, the (cited) first paragraph of the article proper describes the views of the article's subject as "often considered to be transphobic" [emph. added]. This implies that the description of the "minority of feminists" as "transphobic" is not uncontroversial, and per MOS:LEADREL it should not be in the article lede. Test piggy (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Given that WP:NOTDIC prompts us to focus on things, rather than terms, it might make sense to do that here. If we focus on the referent that TERF applies to, rather than the referent itself, that might also help us find NPOV language when covering the topic. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]}

Consensus isn't achieved by recruiting a couple of buddies on some forums to stan each other and say exactly the same things. Meatpuppet's numbers doesn't count in a good-faithed consensus-building discussion. Everyone opposed to this so far are either new accounts or IPs, or accounts dormant for a couple months or years that suddenly flocked upon this obscure but highly contentious topic, plus at least one block evaders. Unless people are bringing up high-quality reliable sources, comments that merely express support with no content suggestions and no sources are nothing of value. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Haven't looked carefully at the content yet, but I will in the next couple of days, but in the meantime, just a response to remind us again, about some policy-related points, regardless how this shakes out: Tsumikiria's point about canvassed users or socks, or Meatpuppets not counting when trying to determine consensus is absolutely right; ditto for reliable sources, which are crucial in this article. At the same time, we have to remember that if 2 or 25 or 250 canvassed users or socks come here and all say X, that's not an argument against X either, it only means, they don't get to be part of a consensus. Finally, the burden of proof is on people making the changes, not on those that wish to remove them, which has a lower bar; see WP:BRD. Given that WP:1RR is in effect on this article, people should pay close attention to BRD and 1RR, as well as all the other policies involved. Given that that is the case and the nature of this article, it wouldn't hurt for editors to mention policy right in the edit summary, and/or a link to whatever Talk page section is discussing material relevant to their change. Very few editors have done this, lately (including me), other than Educres and Sandstein. It would help keep things stable, if we all did that. Sometimes, being forced to quote policy, and not finding one that fits, can make one stop and think whether this is really an improvement to the article or not, and every edit to the article should be an improvement, or it shouldn't be made in the first place. Mathglot (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Because of the recent canvass attempt, I would not support any major changes to the article for at least the next week or so. I don't think we can have a terribly useful discussion right now. (I would also like to strongly encourage anyone who came here because of the canvass to admit it. It doesn't mean you can't participate if you do, and it will at the very least make you look suspicious if you don't.)

My short comment for now about the underlying issue is that it's possible to source that these feminists are transphobic using only reliable sources (for example). LokiTheLiar (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Can’t agree with you there; “some editors” behaving badly does not mean good-faith editors should not edit. Otherwise, you hand over an article lockdown tool to anyone who wants to behave badly. Worse: it gives them a tool to attempt to establish bad faith WP:EDITCONSENSUS. On the contrary: we should ignore them, and carry on. Mathglot (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did not come here because "the canvass attempt", in fact I have no idea what you mean by this. I happened on the article by a series of coincidences too uninteresting to relate. I thought I could spend 2 minutes improving the article (as someone observed, editing Wikipedia is not something I do a lot, but I think it is important to have many people who make small contributions so I try to be one of them) and move on. Evidently this topic is too hot for that, and I am not up for a protracted discussion. Never mind, I tried.Educres (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

In the spirit of using the talk page to come up with better wording, let's hash out how we can reword the lede to get it more in keeping with an encyclopedic tone. Per WP:NOTDIC and WP:ISAWORDFOR, we would want to structure this lede (and accordingly tweak the article) to have its scope be primarily on the concept, rather than the term. Here's my stab at it:

Trans-exclusionary radical feminists or TERFs (also written "terf" and pronounced like "turf") are those feminists who exclude trans women from women's spaces or who do not consider trans women to be women in every sense. Coined in 2008, the acronym TERF is typically considered a slur by those it is applied to, who typically prefer the term gender critical instead.

We should also probably change the redirect of gender critical to go here. Thoughts? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This wording just looks like trying very hard to appease the active TERF lobbyists who object to calling transphobes transphobes. By definition refusing to recognize that transwomen are women is transphobic.

Note that it is factually wrong to say that TERFs do not consider transwomen to be women "in every sense", this is just wooly wording. --Fæ (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not going to happen. "in every sense" means that this is more about POV editorializing rather than neutral content. TERFs don't just oppose a simple identification, they're actively against human rights. Writing their self-promoting "gender critical" in lead is obviously promotional and undue. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I can see merit in striking out "in every sense" since that might give undue weight to the idea that someone isn't a TERF if they consider trans women to be women in certain senses but not others. But I'm not sure if it's consistent with an encyclopedic tone to use the term "transphobic" as we currently do in the lede, especially when we indicate clearly how TERFs are transphobic in the rest of the sentence (there are, after all, other ways of being transphobic, so this isn't "by definition" transphobic). If altogether removing the term transphobic seems too politically correct, is there another way we can incorporate the term that's in keeping with an encyclopedic tone?

Given that the term gender critical is the only alternative given in the article, and the article currently provides a lot of coverage over the controversy around the stigma attached to the term, perhaps someone can articulate with more clarity why it wouldn't be appropriate to mention this apparent synonym in the lede. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 01:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

there are, after all, other ways of being transphobic, so this isn't "by definition" transphobic -- Wow... just wow!

Let's examine what you are stating as if it is "fact" by comparing "transphobic" with the word "racist".

You are trying to write a Wikipedia article about the KKK where you want to avoid using "racist" in the lede. Your justification is that you should not call someone a "racist" unless they are a "full on" racist. You insist that because someone states they think non-whites are genetically inferior, we should not call them "racist" as some KKK members state they are definitely not "racists" because they are quoting "science" not that they hate black people for irrational reasons.

Now, step back and reexamine how someone who argues that "TERF" is offensive and they are not transphobic, is definitely not "transphobic" because they are quoting "facts" when they say that transwomen are not women and do not hate transwomen for irrational reasons.

How about not making contortions in interpreting Wikipedia guidelines about 'tone', to appease lobbyists who will endlessly state that when they make blatantly transphobic statements they are not being transphobic?

Wikipedias "voice" is to stick to facts and state reality in a simple way, not a convoluted way. Transwomen are women. People who hate transgender people are transphobes. It's really, really, simple. Let's keep it simple and avoid letting this article be hijacked by obvious lobbyists, canvassers and meatpuppets. --Fæ (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems as though you've misunderstood what I said. My point is that there are multiple ways of being transphobic. So saying that "by definition refusing to recognize that transwomen are women is transphobic" sounds too much like that's the only way of being transphobic, which would be incorrect. The KKK thought experiment with the term racist is a good example. If you look at the lede for the Ku Klux Klan, you won't find the word racist. Instead, we are told how the KKK is racist (because there are a number of ways one can be racist). They are a "white supremacist hate group" that "has advocated extremist reactionary positions such as white nationalism, anti-immigration and—especially in later iterations—Nordicism and anti-Catholicism." I suspect that whoever is behind this wording was not motivated by what you describe in your thought experiment.

It's quite accurate to characterize the KKK as racist. It's also accurate to characterize TERFs as transphobic. No one is questioning either of those and avoiding either term in the lede is not an attempt to be neutral to whether they are or are not racist/transphobic. Rather, it seems to me that the encyclopedic tone we're striving for would prompt us to avoid wording it the way we have. Like I said, maybe there's a way we can still use the term transphobic in a way that is in keeping with this encyclopedic tone. There might also be something we can do say in the lede that would otherwise make it clear to readers how these people are transphobes. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Occam's razor × ("There might also be something we can do say in the lede that would otherwise make it clear to readers how these people are transphobes") = "transphobes" --Fæ (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not really a response to what I've said. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Looking at Feminist views on transgender topics#Trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs), I see a slight variant on the wording here that might be helpful to us. The lede could read:

Trans-exclusionary radical feminists or TERFs (/ˈtɛrf/ also written "terf") are those feminists who exclude trans women from women's spaces or who do not consider trans women to be women. These feminists are a minority within feminism and are often considered transphobic. Coined in 2008, the acronym TERF is typically considered a slur by those it is applied to, who typically prefer the term gender critical instead.

Thoughts? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a form of editorializing. "Often considered" is a red flag. WP:WEASEL comes to mind, but it's also about context. Who is "considering" them this way? This should just be presented in simple, direct language. No filler. Grayfell (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems so far that the objection to my proposed wording is that it looks like it's just trying to appease "TERF lobbyists, canvassers and meatpuppets" which doesn't really do much to address any of the points I've brought up. The tactic of characterizing someone's efforts as pro-transphobia only goes so far. The wording as it stands has an unencyclopedic tone. Does anyone else wish to propose their own reword that might address this? Should we start an RfC to get a broader discussion? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that the tone is not encyclopedic. So far it seems that your objection to the term "transphobic" is that it's rude. Well, sure, but it's also incredibly well documented. We have tons of sources on this, up to and including USA Today calling them transphobic in a glossary in their news section. LokiTheLiar (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I said the wording of the lede as it stands doesn't have an encyclopedic tone. How you can get "it's rude" from anything I've said escapes me. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 21:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

What about the tone isn't encyclopedic, then? You keep saying this, but you've never said exactly why you think it is, and your proposed rewordings appear to indicate you think the current tone is too harsh. However, this is exactly backwards: Wikipedia articles are supposed to be as direct as can be supported by the sources, and moving the tone of the article away from direct language would be WP:WEASEL, and would therefore be making the tone less encyclopedic, not more. LokiTheLiar (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, let's see if I can break this down for you:

We want our writing to be clear. Saying "so-and-so is transphobic" is not very clear, as there are many ways to be transphobic, some of them even mutually exclusive. For the sake of clarity, we want to say how TERFs are transphobic. We see this clarity in the phrasing "feminists who exclude trans women from women's spaces or who do not consider trans women to be women. Since Fæ brought up the KKK in an analogy, it might even help to consider how the term racist is similarly vague, as it can mean many things (subconscious bias, white supremacy, institutional bias, etc), which is why our article on the KKK doesn't use the word in the lede and instead opts for the clearer white supremacist.
We want our writing to be concise. Since we indicate how TERFs are transphobic, using both the vague phrasing ("transphobic") and the clear phrasing ("exclude trans women from women's spaces...") is redundant. It wouldn't be redundant if we could reasonably expect readers to not believe that e.g. excluding trans women from women's spaces to be considered transphobic, but it seems to me that this is an irrational belief on par with believing that white supremacy isn't considered racist. So far in this discussion, contributors have indicated that the transphobic nature of these TERF beliefs are so intrinsic as to be common sense.
We want our writing to be unbiased. Our policy on WP:NPOV states that we want to strive to present material with "nonjudgmental language". Accurate or not, calling people "transphobic" is judgmental language. Saying that someone "displays logical flaws, makes factually inaccurate statements, and has an IQ of 75" is consistent with unbiased, nonjudgmental language. Saying they are "stupid" is not, even if it's accurate. This is the argument we find at WP:LABEL, which I think everyone here is familiar with.

And this is just about the term transphobic. The more dramatic changes that I've suggested have to do with changing the focus of the article from the term TERF to the topic of TERFs (consistent with WP:NOTDIC and WP:ISAWORDFOR), which no one seems to have addressed so far. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh yeah, "transphobic hatred" seems to be a clearer and better wording per the sources available on the topic. Otherwise, your personal objection to the sources should be addressed there. As this has been discussed at great, great length, you may consider WP:DROPTHESTICK. The article may expand to include more about the nature of TERFs, should the corresponding section on the parent article expanded to unacceptable lengths. Cheers. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 18:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you might have me confused with someone else. What "personal objection to the sources" are you talking about?

Can you clarify what you mean about "transphobic hatred"? This seems to me like a step away from the encyclopedic tone that we would want to use.

And your link to WP:DROPTHESTICK is in poor form. This might be a tired discussion for you, but remember that it's much newer to me. If there's a previous debate where something similar was brought up, I'm willing to read your summary or even look over a thread that you link to to understand how previous discussions have gone. This specific thread and this specific conversation isn't even a month old and has generated merely a few dozen comments from a handful of editors, less than that from my explicit wording suggestion on June 11th, and much of it has been dismissive and vaguely antagonistic. So I hope you can forgive me when it seems as though the conversation hasn't even played out. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

25 days later, this thread by itself is now a bitter unreadable 5,000 word essay, an undergrad third class due to a lack of sources. How is this still a thing? The exact subject, lobbying against daring to honestly call the "trans women are not women" campaign run by TERFs "transphobic", has been discussed at great, great length, and the chewed over dry bones have been respectfully buried. It's a new standard for a failure of WP:DROPTHESTICKINESS.

Transphobic hatred is transphobic, get over it. --Fæ (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a defence that WP:DROPTHESTICK is "poor form" because a user claims to not have been made aware of where "something similar" was brought up. Here are the links to other threads on this page which are about exactly the same thing, attempting to remove the word "transphobic" to describe a blatantly transphobic campaign attacking trans women:

#Sentence_NPOV_and_run-on_length
#Additional sources
#Back to basics
#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2019
#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2019 (2)

It would be super great if folks could avoid repeating the same thread over, and over, and over again. At this point it has become lobbying for the sake of being disruptive. Just search for "transphobic" in each of the linked threads. Thanks! --Fæ (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

So I'm told this particular issue has already been discussed, and part of the evidence I'm given for this is very short threads that began weeks after this one, that don't answer any of the concerns I've brought up, and two of which are pretty much just statements that this has been discussed already. The third is about talk page guidelines, which is completely unrelated. Can you see how absurd this appears as an answer to the request to point to threads that indicate prior discussion?

What's left are two threads that are tangentially related. Neither are about the wording of the lede. The first thread is about using anti-trans vs trans-exclusionary in a sentence deeper in the article. The second thread is the usage of TERF seemingly to adjudicate how neutral it is. These might more closely relate to what's been brought up here if I were arguing that TERFs are not transphobic. But I'm not arguing that. I'm really at a loss as to how one could think that any of these threads support the statement that "The precise wording of the lede text of this article has been debated several times" and at "great, great length". I think it might be a measure of good faith participation to simply address my concerns as I've raised them, rather than try to stonewall, ignore me, or depend on my ability to read answers to my questions between the lines of your posts in previous threads. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I’m quite new to Wikipedia editing and don’t want to wade into a fistfight here, but FWIW I came across this article today by chance and think it sounds very un-neutral (I know that’s not a word!). I don’t know enough about the topic to have an opinion on the debate but the page itself doesn’t sound authoritatively written - sounds like an angry campaigner pushing one side of an argument without acknowledging an alternative view exists. Again, I’m not saying the view expressed isn’t right (or wrong) but it just reads very badly. If it was written about an individual it would be libellous I think. Maybe needs a link to an article with alternative view? Or at least more neutral language. Ducking out now as scared of a shitstorm coming my way. Tomatoesarefruit (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:BALANCE. Neutrality doesn't mean "equal column inches" for an opposing view.

Also it's a weak argument to say, "This article is unfair!" without saying more specifically what the issue is. Do you see "transphobic hatred" as non-neutral? Trouble is, the very first citation right after that uses "hatred" specifically. Yes, this is an article heavily critical of TERFs – but then that's just reflecting what the substantial position of commentary upon them says. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I point, again, to WP:LABEL, which explicitly prompts us to avoid "Value-laden labels" and WP:NPOV, which tells us in no uncertain terms that we should use "nonjudgmental language." It seems quite clear that "transphobic hatred" is value-laden, judgmental language. That a source uses this term isn't a real justification for going against our tone and bias guidelines. Reliable sources don't have to have the same tone and bias standards that we do; we can recognize these sources as authoritative while adjusting the language to fit our own guidelines on tone. If a source using particular phrasing were ipso facto enough for us to echo it in Wikipedia's voice, then we would just need to find sources that call pundits we don't like "shills" and "grifters." We shouldn't do that. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This is an article on that value-laden label. You can't have one without the other. Also, to quote WP:LABEL, "Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally" and that's just why we have these sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Andy, but that makes no sense. The most you can say is this is an article on the term TERF, not on the term transphobic hatred. The phrasing "transphobic hatred" didn't even appear in the article until Tsumikira added it last week, amid talk page objection. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Could we try to limit the scope of our feuding before we start slinging edits and reverts back and forth (again)? "Transphobic" is a label applied to TERF ideology almost any time it is mentioned (or at least explained) in RS, and it would be inappropriate in the extreme to exclude or WEASEL (e.g. "sometimes called") the use of this term, which is not inflammatory in any way I can see. The use of "hatred" is less well-sourced (and seems to imply a motivation for TERF ideologues that is not universally accepted), so perhaps the latter should not be used in Wikipedia's voice? "Transphobic", however, must certainly remain. Newimpartial (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Redirects and where they go

FYI, there is a discussion at Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics#Redirects_and_where_they_go regarding redirects which point to either this article or that article. -sche (talk) 06:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Opposition to the acronym.

"so, you're a TERF?" Reply: "How dare you label me in that manner!" "What!? Are you or are you NOT a TRANS-exclusionary radical feminist!? Reply: "Well yes. Just don't use that blood acronym!"

Point: Isn't a lot of opposition to the term based on the fact it is - to many - an unpleasant sounding acronym? --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Source? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

*Shrugs* --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Severe NPOV breach?

Let's be charitable here and just note that a collection of people to whom the term TERF has been applied, kvetching about it in mainly unreliable sources, are not going to persuade people to change a lede that has been hammered out over a long time. A less charitable assessment is also possible but unnecessary. Note that the complained-of text, "transphobic hatred" was added and removed on the same day over a month ago and has not been there since - this is consistent with the possibility that people are being recruited off-wiki, based on a presentation of the article from a specific POV, rather than the article itself. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This clause: "It is used to describe a minority of feminists who espouse transphobic hatred" seems to be a severe NPOV breach. The cited pieces are opinion pieces, and there are just as many opinion pieces who hold the opposite point of view. For instance:

And that's just from 5 minutes of googling and checking Feminist Current's "terf" tag. I could add more. I think I'll create an account and edit the page now. Let me know if you have an objection. 2A02:908:C70:52C0:103A:3D00:2611:1415 (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

So this is my account then. Apparently I can't edit the page yet, but that's OK. I guess I should wait for some feedback first, given how heated the discussion here seems to be. If I understand correctly, I'll be able to edit the article starting from August 2, 16:40 UTC. In the meanwhile, I'm open to explanations as to why this article seems to be taking such a one-sided point of view. Or if someone else who can edit the article does so, given the citations above, that would be great of course. Rhino (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

How about you respecting consensus and reliable sources which are not transphobic editorials by well-known TERFs? Feminist Current and Quillette rely on ranting diatribes, deliberately offensive to attract social media reposts. This is not the Trump encyclopedia of bullshit. --Fæ (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This might be that rare moment when I not only agree with Fae's principle, but also their phrasing of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fae, thank you for this warm welcome! (/s) I've looked at some of the previous discussions on this page, and pondered a bit on the links I've listed above, and the only conclusion I can reach is that your judgment is being clouded by your strong personal opinions on the matter. I see that you think it's appropriate to compare so-called TERFs to the KKK, which is a very extreme position, and I'll just have to disagree on the strongest terms. I've listed many more links than Quilette and Feminist Current, but even those two are not any less "reliable" than sources like LQBTQ Nation or The Daily Dot which are currently used as citations for your position. It's mostly opinion pieces from strongly ideological people on both sides. Please tell me if I'm missing something, but as per Wikipedia's verifiability and notability guidelines it looks like the article is currently very biased in favor of your position, not against it. Is there any possibility that you will loosen up a bit on your stance here? Thanks in advance for your kind response. I'm not here to fight. Rhino (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable by WP:RSP. So are USA Today and the New York Times, which are also cited to defend that claim. Feminist Current and Quilette aren't.

Furthermore, many of the sources cited are not actually opinion pieces: the USA Today piece, the Outline piece, and the Daily Dot piece are all in the news domain of their respective websites. The fact that they all do voice an opinion is not evidence that they are unreliable; indeed, it's evidence that major news organizations say these sorts of things in their news voice instead of their opinion voice.

And then even past that, whether a source is reliable and whether it's unbiased are things Wikipedia considers separately. The fact that all these sources have an opinion does not mean that their journalism is bad, and several of them including at least one fairly pro-TERF piece say that TERFs are a minority. And then the "transphobic" is from several news organizations saying "transphobic" in news voice, up to and including USA Today.

This is frankly just a WP:UNDUE issue; you are perceiving that the page is "biased" because it conforms to the opinion of reliable sources, which is not some sort of weak "both sides" non-opinion like you might expect if you didn't know the sources or how Wikipedia works, but is in fact the shared opinion that TERFs are a transphobic minority of feminists. Sources can in fact share a strong opinion like this. It's not Wikipedia's job to "both sides" every fringe opinion. LokiTheLiar (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This is sad part of wiki, but here I am anyway.

The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable by WP:RSP Citation needed (to expand, RSP talks specifically about internet culture)

Feminist Current and Quilette aren't. Citation needed

Furthermore, many of the sources cited are not actually opinion pieces - Opinion piece isnt defined by the subsection it occupies on some website, but by its content. Daily dot piece is opinion piece, then again Daily Dot does not run anything but opinion pieces.

Furthermore, many of the sources 6 sources given. Outline mentions minority zero times. NYT zero times. LBTQ Nation (which, sorry but assigning RS to that...you do you) zero times. USA Today zero times. Indy 100 zero times. Daily Dot one time, within opinion piece sourcing nothing but authors claim. Author themselves being Alex Dalbey is a writer and zinester currently living in Saint Paul, Minnesota via self-description on DD page. So not a scholar who does any scientific work with data or whathaveyou.

And listen, I get it. Agenda is thing difficult to overcome. But at the same time MOS:LEADNO is pretty easy to comprehend. I generally encourage this whole subsection to do so because this is quite laughtable. You are here a new user, your ignorance of some rules is expected as there is a lot of them and not easy to catch on asap, but seeing senior editors as Fæ to fall into these tropes is sad thing to behold. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Alex Dalbey is a journalist whose piece in the Daily Dot is analysis, not opinion. But by all means. EllsworthSK, you do you. The rest of the world knows that TERF positions are generally minoritatian within feminism, and it is "gender critical" folks outside feminist movements that work the hardest to see this reality obscured. Newimpartial (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that transphobes are, thankfully, probably a minority within feminism, but I'm also skeptical that we have solid sourcing for the claim. WanderingWanda (talk) 08:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, because there isn't one. But once you take the wikipedia as your ideological battlegroup, right Newimpartial?, then sources are suddenly not necessary. Also this will shock some to their core, but analysis are generally within Opinion sections of any proper reliable source (and here comes me again pointing to fact that RSP specifically refers to Daily Dot as RS within context of internet culture and if one would bother reading the RS attribution that it links to, you can see consensus on them not being one outside of that context), see CNN for instance. Also Alex Dalbey is a writer and zinester according to their own description on Daily Dot webpage and I detest the fact that I had to google what zinester means. If they don't refer to themselves as journalist, I really don't see why I should enforce such attribution on them. So, let's give it a ... week, let's say. That generally acceptable time frame to provide RS. If no RS appears until then, I am removing that wording. If you don't like it, you can bring it to ANI. This reeks of NPOV, LEADNO and other violations. Because I can't say that I am impressed by what rest of the world knows. If it knows it, it should put it in RS. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Since I prefer to write (and edit) what I know, I will talk about Canada. In Canada, the vast majority of official and unofficial feminist organizations are trans-inclusionary, with Quebec's most important feminist organization led by a trans woman last year. TERF organizing in Canada, on the other hand, is largely confined to a minority within British Columbia around 'Feminist Current'. That is what all the reliable sources for Canada would tell you, if you bothered to look. Actual RS are not hard to find, even if you have never heard of a zine (and queer politics, FWIW, derived largely from zines in the first instance - advertising your unfamiliarity with feminist and queer movements might not be the best credential to edit this page...) Newimpartial (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Canada is not the only country in the world, and is far from being the only English speaking country. Also, do you think Wikipedia is supposed to support queer politics? -Crossroads- (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC) updated -Crossroads- (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Crossroads1, my point is that in an article about a term used for a faction in a debate taking place within feminist and queer politics, editors need not support but should certainly be familiar with the terminology and sources for feminist and queer politics. If you don't, then you are largely disqualifying yourself from contributing here - TERF-related articles in particular are frequently brigaded on WP by editors who understand the "trans exclusionary" part but not the "radical feminist" part. Newimpartial (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Newimpartial, do you have any citations for the statement that "the vast majority of official and unofficial feminist organizations are trans-inclusionary"? I'm not sure what an "official" feminist organization even is. Does Vancouver Rape Relief & Women's Shelter count as an "official" feminist organization for example? It's one of the oldest and biggest women's shelters in Canada and very adamant in staying female-only. As far as I know they work with Feminist Current too, which is actually a very major feminist publication to my knowledge. Rhino (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Rhino, we have in Canada large feminist organizations led by elected officials, small feminist networks, and everything in between. The shelter you name in Vancouver would be part of the "in between", and if you have the impression that they and 'Feminist Current' have a large constituency within Canadian feminism, then you simply don't know the domain very well. Very few major feminist publications or organizations in Canada support Meghan Murphy's FRINGE positions. Newimpartial (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Did I understand this correctly that you are Canadian? Is that why you bring up Canada a lot? -Crossroads- (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@EllsworthSK: could you spell out exactly what wording you are now threatening to remove, presumably this threat includes deliberately ignoring the archives of past discussions, dispute resolution processes and so on, because you have some greater role here than the existing community consensus and do not subscribe to BRD? If I'm misreading your threat, do please correct me with some precise and accurate words.

Thanks! --Fæ (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I can't help but read this as an attempt to preemptively stop edits one does not like and to use past discussions and alleged consensus as a cudgel to lock down this article a certain way, even though consensus can change. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, some people think that BRD is censorship, because they disagree with what almost everyone else finds to be simple fact. TERFs are a self promoting small group of people that use the established banner of "feminist" to attack the rights of trans women, while simultaneously claiming that they fully respect trans women (while frequently calling them "male sex", TIM, or some other sly way of avoiding calling them women) so they literally cannot be transphobes. Logically, that's a nearly identical argument to Trump claiming today that "I am the least racist person there is anywhere in the world", and somehow that being a valid reason to avoid calling out his racist comments as "racist" in the article about Trump. That's not how an encyclopaedic that puts knowledge first should work.

BTW, Wikipedia using established cultural or historical queer publications as sources for information about Trans people is not "you think Wikipedia is supposed to support queer politics". Lay off the anti-queer politics spin, that's not what is being said here by anyone; see gaslighting. --Fæ (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I think your comparison of so-called "TERFs" with Trump supporters and racists is very extreme and shows that you have a very strong personal opinion on this matter. I'm a bit baffled that you don't see this? I mean no disrespect, but it's irritating. Many of these women are life long feminist activists and radical feminists, who have nothing to do with conservatives at all except that they occasionally have very superficial agreements. I'm sure queer people also have superficial agreements with conservatives, which means nothing. (Association fallacy.) Rhino (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Threatening? Haha, you are a handful. As far as your gatekeeping is concerned, may I suggest thinking of a wikibreak? AGF went out of window some time ago, I wont bother trying to make it work in any possible way but this is not your article. Stop thinking about it in a manner as if you owned it. As for the content in question, for now I am looking at the lead with word majority that even this gatekeeping failed to source. I am not impressed by it and I am not impressed by someone with such an edit tally, and thus should know better behaving in this manner, throwing here off-topic nonsenses about all the Trumps and whatnot of the world. Pathetic. You know better than anyone here what the rules are given your seniority and you are willingly choosing to ignore them. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Wanda: Our sources are this, this and this (all with a definite anti-TERF bias), and this with a pro-TERF bias. I think two news articles (one with a direct quote from TERFs saying that they are a minority) and two opinions from professors is enough to say we've sourced this reliably even though we don't have precise statistics.

(This is also basically my reply to the other discussion: these are the reliable sources, and if you don't like what they say, tough.) LokiTheLiar (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Loki. I don't see how the article you called "pro-TERF" is not neutral. It seems to give equal voice and credence to the opposing sides in the debate, and I don't believe that either side is better represented among society so I don't think a "due weight" issue would apply either. I would be interested if you have any citation that shows that so-called "TERF" positions are less represented among the general public than the "anti-TERF" positions or whatever they're called. For instance, I'm pretty sure that most people think transwomen shouldn't compete in women's sports, most people think transwomen are biologically male, and so on. Please correct me (with citations :-) if I'm wrong. Rhino (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Rhinocera, most people think transwomen are biologically male That's a little tautological. "biologically male" is another term for "assigned male at birth" (based on based on medical factors). So yeah, most transwomen were assigned male at birth. That does not establish that "most people" think transwomen are not women. Vexations (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The two terms are not really equivalent. One is present tense, one is past tense. According to this 2017 Pew survey, 54% of American adults think being a man or woman is determined by sex at birth, and 44% think it can be different. And for the record, I think it can differ. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Americans are not most people. American polls or surveys created for American political debate are not how Wikipedia separates fact from fiction. --Fæ (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For the record, as this was not in the closing summary, the account that created this thread and appears throughout, Rhinocera, was found to be a sockpuppet of an indefinite blocked user, blocked for their disruption of transgender related topics. Were we literally to follow WP:EVADE, there would be no thread here to discuss. --Fæ (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Rachel McKinnon is a philosopher of language

Recently User:Genericusername57 edited the page to remove the description of Rachel McKinnon as a philosopher of language specifically. Normally I would just revert this myself, but because of the administrative sanctions and the fact I haven't made 500 edits yet I need to make my case on the talk page:

Rachel McKinnon is clearly a philosopher of language. The edit summary in question says that "her scholarly work has to do with probability and gambling, logic and assertions, and trans-related/social justice topics" but this is a clear misunderstanding. The majority of her scholarly work actually has to do with norms of assertion, a clearly philosophy of language topic. LokiTheLiar (talk) 07:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Also Rachel McKinnon, so she's passing any WP:Notability bar anyone would like to throw up. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I've restored it, as if "norms of assertion" is the key theme through pretty much all of her published work, that puts her firmly into "philosphy of language" in my book. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

McKinnon takes an epistemic angle on the norms of assertion, not a linguistics one. See for instance her self description:

My primary research focuses on the relationship between knowledge and action. Specifically, much of my research currently focuses on the norms of assertion. I aim to explicate the epistemic dimensions of what we assert to each other, and the relevant norms potentially governing the practice.

and her publications. Cheers, gnu 57 17:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The distinction is IMO meaningless, because philosophy of language is very closely related to epistomology, and because "norms of assertion" is an inherently philosophy of language topic. It might seem to someone unfamiliar with linguistics that a paper about philosophy of language is actually about epistimology or logic, but in fact both of those are important subtopics within the philosophy of language. Heck, even the wholly-linguistic field of semantics deals greatly with logic and truth relations.

Plus if you actually read her papers, many of them are quite clearly about language. E.g. this is one of her most cited papers. Right on the first page it contains the line "I propose the following norm as the central constitutive norm for the linguistic practice of assertion:", and it's largely about assertion as a speech act.

Furthermore, even the Google Scholar page you linked classifies her under "Philosophy of Language".LokiTheLiar (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm convinced and have no objection to restoring "philosopher of language" phrasing. Anyone up for it may want to clarify the matter at Rachel McKinnon. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 05:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Viv Smythe

In diff, the description of Viv Smythe as a cisgender radical feminist who coined the word for other radical feminists was removed. (The person's username was also removed.) I undid the first part of the change, noting "that it was another cisgender radical feminist who coined a word for other cisgender radical feminists is relevance. I am fine with dropping the username though - not sure it adds anything." Another editor reverted with the unintelligible edit summary "weaselling" (neither version involves WP:Weasel words, AFAICT). I would therefore like to ask whether the removal of "rans-inclusive cisgender radical feminist [Viv Smythe]" has consensus. -sche (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the reason for the term's invention is relevant for inclusion, and the sources talk about that so we should too. --Equivamp - talk 23:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it's relevant both that she's cisgender and that she's a radical feminist. I wouldn't mind rewording if the objection is that the structure of the sentence is awkward, but I think we should definitely include that information. LokiTheLiar (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

(There's never going to be a way of making wording on articles like these non-awkward in places...) I also support the inclusion with reference to who the progenitor is. All seems relevant here in context --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Transphobic

I made this edit because it is inappropriate for Wikipedia in its own voice to say that certain people are transphobic. Per WP:LABEL: Words to watch:...transphobic,...Value-laden labels...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. And per WP:WIKIVOICE (part of WP:NPOV): Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

WP:WEASEL cannot be used to maintain the current wording because it (1) cannot be used to overrule the NPOV policy, and (2) WP:WEASEL specifically states, The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source.

The previous discussion here is not a justification either. That discussion was largely an argument about sourcing and had major involvement by an editor who is now topic banned for their bullying and driving away other editors. On top of that, the admin's closing statement said, Note that the complained-of text, "transphobic hatred" was added and removed on the same day over a month ago and has not been there since. That may have been true of the lead, but "transphobic hatred" remained in the body, and nonetheless, saying "transphobic" without "hatred" in wikivoice is a problem, as I explained.

Anyone in favor of the old wording will need to explain how it meets WP:LABEL and WP:WIKIVOICE. Please note that my proposed wording could possibly be changed even further, and that I am making no claims that any other part of the article is already okay. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you've adequately addressed the concerns that I and others have expressed here and at this ongoing RfC. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 02:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:LABEL makes an exception for when a value judgment is widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, which this is. (It suggests in-text attribution for this case, which I would not object to as long as we attribute it while naming the specific sources, which would also skip WP:WIKIVOICE.) The WP:WEASEL problem here is that there's a big difference in credibility between "some people" and "USA Today". Loki (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

What's the wording of the in-text attribution you'd like to see? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, the current wording would be fine with a "most" in front of it: considered transphobic by most other feminists. The possible problem is that might be WP:SYNTH : we definitely have sufficient sources that most feminists disagree but I'm not sure if any of them explicitly say a majority of feminists say they're transphobic. If we can't source that, I would attribute specific sources: described as transphobic by USA Today, the Daily Dot, (...). Loki (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The full quote from WP:LABEL is, unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. No exceptions given - use in-text attribution. Arguably, "other feminists" is more credible than "USA Today". However, USA Today did not actually say it in their own voice, but said it as part of a "feminist glossary", indicating that these are feminists' ideas, so this leads us back to "other feminists" anyway.

And a few more words on WP:NPOV, which states: Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. I strongly suspect that this cherry-picking is exactly what has happened in this article, at feminist views on transgender topics, and probably others. Sourcing relies heavily on opinion pieces and partisan media of a single side, even going so far as to use Socialist Worker, Current Affairs, and similar things as sources. Per above, this is not necessarily not allowed, but it is likely one-sided as presented. See also WP:BIASED: reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Lastly, kudos to anyone who checks to see if sources are actually saying what they are claimed to. Already we have had several statements that were not actually supported and had to be removed. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I've made an additional edit so the sentence now reads that TERFs are "widely considered transphobic by other feminists" (which I think our current sources support pretty handily). I don't have a problem with in-text attribution (in fact if you want to attribute more specifically, go ahead); my main objection to just saying "other feminists" is that it could be read as just that there exist some other feminists somewhere that think they're transphobic, instead of the probable intended meaning that feminists other than TERFs generally agree that TERFs are transphobic.

As for the sourcing issues: there are several TERF-leaning sources on this page, for one. For two, it's frankly going to be very difficult finding neutral sources about a political ideology, particularly a very controversial one. I'm particularly familiar with this situation because I found several of the sources on this page and on feminist views on transgender topics. There are very few mentions of TERFs in truly neutral sources except for the handful of academic sources about whether TERF is a slur, and news articles about specific events (which are generally not very useful sources for an article about the term itself, though sometimes they do contain some useful bits like the Indy100 piece). The closest ones after that are when a source talks about TERFs as a phenomenon in an explainer article like the one in the Outline, Michelle Goldberg's piece in the New Yorker, or the Daily Dot article: these explainers are usually noticeably slanted because even the act of describing them as "TERFs" versus "gender critical" necessarily takes a side. Loki (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I did revert you and I explained why in the edit summary. I think "other feminists" expresses what we have in the sources, and it seems to imply other feminists as a group anyway.

A case could even be made to remove "transphobic" entirely. To quote WP:LABEL again, Value-laden labels...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. But remember that WP:NPOV states: Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. WP:BIASED states: reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. While progressive/activist media and opinion pieces do call them "transphobic", other media, and many or most serious academic sources, do not. Given the lack of agreement among RS as a whole, the label could be removed.

Interesting that you state that There are very few mentions of TERFs in truly neutral sources except for the handful of academic sources about whether TERF is a slur, and news articles about specific events and these explainers are usually noticeably slanted because even the act of describing them as "TERFs" versus "gender critical" necessarily takes a side. This seems to agree with what I have suspected; that this article by its very nature has POV issues. Perhaps it is a WP:POVFORK of feminist views on transgender topics and should be merged back there. -Crossroads- (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to hash out the wording here before editing so as to avoid edit warring.

I think we can more confidently justify using the phrasing "widely considered" if we can find a source that actually makes this claim about general usage, otherwise we are guilty of WP:SYNTH. Until then, "other feminists" or "many other feminists" will do. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we should say the strongest thing the sources support, and that strongest thing is quite strong. Annoyingly, I haven't so far been able to find a source for "a majority of feminists consider TERFs transphobic". What I have been able to find are sources that a majority of feminists are trans-inclusive, and I have also been able to find many specific instances of feminists (including the entire editorial staff of many feminist magazines) or other writers calling TERFs transphobic. I would really like to find a source that connects the two things, but you're probably right that without such a source directly saying it, it's SYNTH.

Supposing we can't find such a source, I would prefer listing specific sources over just attributing it to "other feminists" or "many other feminists". E.g. ...have been described as transphobic by USA Today, the Daily Dot, Indy100, and a joint statement by several major lesbian publications, as well as many other feminists. (And to shortcut an obvious objection: yes, all these publications said TERFs are transphobic in an article, not an editorial. That they voiced an opinion in an article does not make that opinion less reliable; in fact, it's why I think it's reasonable to attribute these statements to the publication as a whole and not the specific writer.) Loki (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I can get behind your example wording in the body, though listing that many might be a bit much for the lede. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. If we want to keep it really short we could just say several sources in the lead, but I think I'd prefer something more along the lines of some news organizations and many feminists. Thoughts? Loki (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 02:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

No, we don't have the sourcing for this. "Other feminists" is plenty specific, avoids SYNTH, and avoids trying to amass a collection of sources that looks ax-grindey. We can't specify an amount because, as you admitted before, Annoyingly, I haven't so far been able to find a source for "a majority of feminists consider TERFs transphobic". I'm not seeing any lesbian publications. USA Today is just repeating the viewpoint of feminists as part of a feminist glossary, not giving their own view. Indy100 said the term is a synonym for transphobia, which is a comment on usage, not an endorsement of that usage. Daily Dot said that TERF opponents say they are transphobic, thus attributing that viewpoint. Remember that WP:LABEL says that Value-laden labels...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. And that WP:BIASED says: reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Many RS do not equate TERFs with transphobia and even consider the term a slur, such as the New Statesman, The Economist, various philosophers, etc. "Transphobic" is not widely used by reliable sources, so we could remove the term entirely per WP:LABEL. Saying "other feminists consider" is the compromise. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we have a true impasse here, and not enough people around for a clear consensus. When I get to a real computer, I'll start an RfC to hopefully get a more definitive answer. (If I don't by tomorrow please someone ping me.) Loki (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Lead section

I have partially reverted Gwenhope's contribution (which reverted my edits) by adding a citation back to the lead section. Lmatt (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lmatt: Good citing is always acceptable! Sorry if reverting you came off as harsh. It's best not to delete the controversy on controversial articles. If you haven't weighed in above in the RFC discussion, more is always better! Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 20:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an activism problem

Not related to improving the article, hatting per WP:NOTFORUM Nblund^talk 17:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Even the openly and intentionally biased FeministWiki has a MUCH more informative article on "TERF" than this page: https://feministwiki.org/wiki/TERF

When will the non-biased editors on Wikipedia finally admit that trans-related articles are being held under control by activists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:C70:52C0:2DE9:D3B5:BBE7:AE35 (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I daresay the FeministWiki article suffers more from activist capture than the one on WP, but since the former site belongs to "anti-prostitution and anti-pornography" (a.k.a. essentialist) feminits, this should not actually be a surprise to anyone. Newimpartial (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Oo. I didn't know about the Feminist Wiki. Thanks for the link. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 03:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Description of Cristan Williams and Smythe's role in coining the term "TERF"

I don't believe either of the edits below were improvements:

This edit describes TransAdvocate as Cristan Williams' "transgender rights website". Williams is the editor-in-chief for the site, but saying it is "her website" seems a bit like calling the New York Times "Dean Baquet's news website" (okay, slight exaggeration). The previous wording still gave proper attribution. I'm not necessarily opposed to noting the site's editorial stance, but I suspect that readers can gather that the site is pro-trans based on the name "Trans Advocate"
this edit: the wording here seems like it implies that Smythe took credit for creating the term in her 2008 blog post. But that's not what she did. The previous wording did a better job of communicating what Smythe actually says: she probably didn't coin it, but she may have been one of the first to use it in a public post.

I'm open to re-wording if someone has an objection to either of these, but I'm inclined to simply revert both of these to their previous wordings.Nblund^talk 18:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Terminology

At several points the article uses the terms "trans people" or "trans men' when a much more apt choice of words would be "trans advocates" or something similar to avoid excluding allies. Orchastrattor (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

We can't change make changes willy-nilly; it has to correspond to what reliable sources say. That said, if you can give examples from the text that you think are inaccurate in that they don't correspond to the sources, please do, and they can be discussed. Mathglot (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Coinage and usage

My recent contribution removed the following material as it appears to have been given WP:UNDUE weight.

Writing for The TransAdvocate, Cristan Williams argued that the term references "a brand of 'radical feminism' that is so rooted in sex essentialism and its resulting biologism, it actively campaigns against the existence, equality, and/or inclusion of trans people."^[1]^[2]

References

^ Williams, Cristan (2013-09-24). "You might be a TERF if ..." The TransAdvocate.

^ Dalbey, Alex (2018-08-12). "TERF wars: Why trans-exclusionary radical feminists have no place in feminism". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 2019-01-27.

Lmatt (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

This is not WP:UNDUE. Many of the sources cited in the "opposition" section have similar citation reliability levels. Repressing this actually promotes WP:FALSEBALANCE because TERF ideology itself is already a specific (possibly minority) view. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 16:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Williams' commentaries on the term are cited by other reliable sources like Vox and Daily Dot - so I have a hard time seeing why this wouldn't be a notable perspective here. Nblund^talk 17:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Unless this has already been repeated word-for-word or in a very similar likeness in the article already, then why not?--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The first piece is You might be a TERF if… published on The TransAdvocate. It is unclear whether The TransAdvocate can be considered a reliable source as there is no evidence that the site has a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. As well being the writer of the piece Williams is also the editor of the site, in fact her biography describes herself as "editor at the social justice sites TransAdvocate.com and TheTERFs.com". While William's has published work in the peer-reviewed academic journal Transgender Studies Quarterly, Williams' piece is not scholarly work and is instead written as "a quick guide to help you figure out if you’re someone who pushes TERF ideology".
The second piece is published on The Daily Dot. The consensus on this source is The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable for Internet culture. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. It is unclear whether the Daily Dot is reliable on the subject of radical feminism. Lmatt (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The viewpoint is attributed to Williams in-text. It isn't stated as a fact, so the reliability of Trans Advocate isn't really the issue. You raised an issue of WP:DUE weight, but her views on this subject are frequently cited by high-quality reliable sources (here's another example), which is a good indicator that they warrant inclusion here. Nblund^talk 19:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

In regard to Wiliams' opinions, there doesn't appear to be any evidence she is frequently cited by reliable sources. The book you gave as an example, Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Feminism is a self-published source so we cannot simply assume it is a "high quality reliable source" without considering it against Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources. Lmatt (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC); deleted Lmatt (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

You think that a chapter in an edited volume from a respected academic press is a self published source? Nblund^talk 21:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Possibly not strictly a self-published source, but not a highly cited one [40] Lmatt (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The source Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Feminism is a book edited by Tasha Oren [41], an associate professor of film and media studies and Andrea L. Press [42], a professor of media studies and sociology. The book is a WP:TERTIARY source and not widely cited [43] so it is unclear whether or it can be considered reputable. Lmatt (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Since when has "highly cited" become a criteria for RS or anything? WP:WEASEL Oldperson (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: P.S. WP:WEASEL words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. Lmatt (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd say that the disputes over the term TERF are often what we might call a "very online" thing and that the Daily Dot is therefore an excellent source. And I second what someone said above about this being equal or higher in weight than many things cited in the opposition section - again, we can't apply WP:DUE in an unequal fashion, especially when covering a dispute that is broadly divided into two sides; if we removed something like this, we'd have to remove several weaker sources from the opposition section as well. --Aquillion (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

McKinnon again

I reverted this edit adding the words "Transgender rights activist" as an introduction to language professor Rachel McKinnon. This has nothing to do with McKinnon's credentials, and is a POV attempt to characterize her for who she is and thereby presumably discredit her views, rather than describe her by her actual professional accomplishments or position. This is no more appropriate, than it would be to introduce Lipstadt at the Holocaust denial page, as: "Jewish rights advocate and Emory University professor Deborah Lipstadt has called Irving a holocaust denier." That would get you slapped down pretty quick. This is no different. Mathglot (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

McKinnon self-describes as both an academic and an activist on her personal website[44]. Her activism in my opinion constitutes a distinct body of work, separate from her academic work on speech acts. The source for her view is a youtube post (with <8k views) from her video series "Trans 101": this seems clearly to me to be an instance of McKinnon's activism. Cheers, gnu 57 20:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the point is how *McKinnon" is characterized, not how the comment is characterized. One could, if one wished, attack the comment for the reasons you stated, and then it would probably fall under WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV in my opinion (already satisfied by the current wording) however that is a separate discussion (feel free to raise it). Other professionals and intellectuals are active about sociopolitical topics outside their main professional expertise as well, but they are normally introduced in a professional manner. For example: although Noam Chomsky has been highly active in topics such as Latin America, East Timor, Democracy, publishing, Palestine, racism, and other topics beyond his titular profession, he is typically introduced as a "linguist",^[1] "Professor",^[2] "Institute Professor at M.I.T.",^[3] " linguist, political philosopher"^[4] or in more than one of these in series. I'm not putting McKinnon on the same level, and yes, she has political and social opinions about which she writes, but she deserves the same neutral treatment as far as *who* she is, as Chomsky or any other professional. Feel free to attack her opinions as POV or whatever, but I don't think that applies to a neutral description of who she is. Also, she's alive, so WP:BLP applies. Mathglot (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

...is there something bad about calling a person an activist? gnu 57 00:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

While I get what Mathglot is saying here, as the person who wrote this paragraph originally I agree with gnu that in this particular case, that she is both an activist and a professor is relevant. The context of this paragraph is listing trans activists that have problems with the term, so in that context that she's a trans activist is relevant. The source in that paragraph is not her academic work but a YouTube video she did as part of her activism.

That all being said, I swear there used to be a section on academic opinions on the term which seems to have been cut. That's a good place to put her academic work on the term as well as that other source I found that appears to also have been cut. Loki (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Update: it appears that section still exists but it was cut back significantly by Mathglot ~~himself~~. The reason I had such a lot of info about a single source is that it was the single most reliable source on the page for settling the underlying question of whether TERF is a slur, seeing as it comes from neutral academics doing purely academic work. Loki (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Loki for mentioning Rachel Mackinnon's youtube. Until this talk page I never heard of Rachel (or Natalie Wynn for that matter (honestly). But I thank you, a quick trip to youtube netted this enlightening discussion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmDauuQOOdU. It appears that it was TERF's that actually invented the acronym so it cannot be a slur.Oldperson (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Further update: I think what Loki meant to say was, "that section still exists, because it was restored in this edit by Mathglot ~~himself~~ themself,^[a] after it had been entirely removed from the article by a different editor in this earlier edit. After restoring it, Mathglot then reduced the length a bit in this edit, inviting other editors to adjust it as needed." That's what they meant to say, I'm pretty sure.

Mathglot (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I have reverted this edit. Could we move that discussion to § The Instability of Slurs citation. Lmatt (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot: Genuinely sorry about the pronouns, I'd thought I'd seen some mention of your gender before somewhere. However, I defend my description that you cut it back significantly. Because, while you did restore it, cutting it back was also 100% your decision (and obviously listing the entire history of the page shouldn't be necessary to describe any single edit). Loki (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Loki, sure, np. (But now that you know, can you please fix it above? See WP:REDACT. Thanks.) I was both the one who restored it from zero, as well as the one who cut it back. WP:BRD, right? No edit is final on a Wiki. Mathglot (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Someone already redacted the pronoun, so that's not an issue any more. I think the discussion of whose responsibility cutting it was is not productive in the slightest and so I'm gonna bow out of it. Loki (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: regarding the edit you just made regarding this section, it both doesn't belong in that section. It should also be combined with Julia Serano who said similar words as well in the correct section. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 02:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Gwenhope Thanks, moved check it out..Oldperson (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this: McKinnon (around minute 2:30 in the video) says that the term was coined by two trans-inclusive radical feminists. I don't necessarily have a problem with the source, but we already cover this in the coinage and usage section in the article. McKinnon does note the origin of the term, but I don't really think she makes that a core part of her argument about whether or not its a slur. Nblund^talk 16:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Oldperson: at 3:30 in the video, McKinnon says: the term was coined by cisgender radical feminists who didn't want to be associated with these transphobic assholes. She doesn't say the term was coined by "TERFS" - that would conflict with what we say in the article. Nblund^talk 16:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gwenhope and Nblund: Roger, copy, CFAB, your point is well made. Here is a suggestion, Why don't you edit my comment on the article, without reverting (I am sore tired with these POV reverts. Edit my comment to be in line with what you just said. Pinging Gwen for her input.Oldperson (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The article is under WP:1RR, so you should probably just revert yourself and then we can hash it out here. My inclination is simply to remove it - McKinnon is saying that the term was coined by two radfems, but we already discuss that in the entry and its really not central to her argument. Nblund^talk 17:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: Regarding this edit and per WP:TPG please do not edit the comments of other users or delete material that has already been replied to. What you did was confusing. Generally <ins> and <del> should be used. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Expand for refs

Notes

^ himself / herself / themself: When you don't know someone's preferred pronouns, use the pronoun replacement templates {{they}}, {{them}}, {{their}}, {{theirs}}, and {{themself}} which will pick up the right value out of their user preferences. To create the proper reflexive pronoun for Mathglot, code: Mathglot {{themself|Mathglot}}, which generates Mathglot themself. Note that for PamD, for example, this would generate: PamD herself; and for Bradv, the same code generates Bradv himself.

Refs below were not cherry-picked for the occasion; the search was this.

^ Margalit Fox (1998-12-05), "A Changed Noam Chomsky Simplifies", NY Times
^ Christopher Lehmann-Haupt (March 8, 1982), "Books Of The Times", NY Times
^ Michael Mandelbaum (March 21, 1982), "AMERICA THE OBJECTIONABLE", NY Times
^ George Yancy; Noam Chomsky (March 18, 2015), "Noam Chomsky on the Roots of American Racism", NY Times

How can TERF be a slur

@Gwenhope, Fae, and Nblund: have given the subject (whether TERF is a slur). Given that the acronym (phrase) was coined as a self description by two exclusionist lesbians. I say no. Recognizing that a word or acronym over time can become a slur, I still say no. TERF is only a slur, when it is falsely applied. Like calling a butch acting, but heterosexual woman a dyke or lesbian, or an effeminate male, who is most definitely heterosexual, queer or gay. It happens all of the time. Humans are quick to judge and quick to label. But TERF’s take on the label with pride, after all, it is they that invented it as a self description. They aren’t transphobic per se, because (strangely) they accept a transman as one of their own, to the chagrin (I understand) of transmen who consider that TERF's are negating their own identity and experience and thus invalidating them. TERF's are in fact allies of homophobes and transphobes whether that is their intention or not, it is an effect. TERF;s discriminate against transwomyn and are proud of it, so it seems. So how can it be a slur. Can anyone demonstrate an example where TERF is actually used as a slur, when it is used to describe TERF’s. Can anyone describe an example where TERF is used as a slur against non TERF’s? A woman or womyn, who excludes transwoman is by definition a TERF, a term that was invented by TERF’s. I really do not see how that can become a slur, regardless of how used. It is like calling a masculine lesbian a dyke. A term they are proud of (ie. Dykes on Bikes).Oldperson (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think its a matter of our personal opinions on the subject, we need to describe the debate without taking sides. The term wasn't coined by exclusionist lesbians, though. Nblund^talk 14:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Not our call. And these things are often situational anyway - Chris Rock uses the n-word, I would not. Guy (help!) 15:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund and JzG: I fear that it was TERF'sthat invented the term.A quick trip to youtube netted this enlightening discussion It appears that it was TERF's that actually invented the acronymOldperson (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

This is not correct. Nor is it relevant. I don't quite know what else to say here. I explained this just a few days ago in the thread directly above this one. Nblund^talk 17:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: Actually it is correct and it is relevant. Rachel McKinnon holds up documentation that shows that it was TERF's who created the phrase (acronym), therefore it cannot be a slur. It is held to be a slur by TERF's who don't like to be named for what they are. Your previous comment is noted, but not acceptedOldperson (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm watching this page, so there's no need to ping me. McKinnon shows that two trans inclusive radical feminists coined the term to distinguish their views from the views of exclusionary radfems. The very first sentence of this section of our own article makes this clear. Please feel free to ask another user to explain it if you're still not convinced, but I am quite sure that you've misinterpreted McKinnon here, and I feel like I've done all I can to convey that. Nblund^talk 18:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, forgive me if I don’t recall or connect your response days earlier. I’ve been down for medical reasons. I reviewed Rachel MacKinnon and you are quite correct. TERF was indeed coined by transinclusionary radfems to describe transExclusionaryRadFems, but Rachel, who is credentialed to speak of such things, goes on to explain the difference between “use” and “mentions” of a word or acronym. A slur has a non pejorative use. Example dyke (pejorative when used or directed at say “lipstick” lesbians) but worn with pride by say “Dykes on Bikes) which is non pejorative. TERF is an acronym for Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist. In other words it is an acronym for a non pejorative phrase, thus a synonym, it can’t be a pejorative. I am also familiar with the policy as regards the use of self publishing sources and you tube as a citation or reference in an article. This does not apply to talk pages though, where such can be useful aids in explaining and defining an issue, especially with the speaker has established credentials in the area under discussion, such as with Rachel MacKinnon.Oldperson (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't think our personal opinions on the topic really matter here. For whatever its worth: I basically agree with you, but I try pretty hard to avoid letting that influence my editing. Nblund^talk 20:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The Epistemology of Propaganda

"McKinnon's peer reviewed paper, which offers essentially the same argument"[45] This seemed promising but doesn't quite pan out. The paper says that people claim 'ludicrously' that TERF is a slur (p. 484) and that this is 'absurd' and 'nonsensical' (p. 485) but, unlike the YouTube video, the article never gets around to actually presenting an argument for this position. To support the 'absurd, nonsensical' part the article cites "Anderson and Lepore (2013)", which then doesn't occur in the article's list of references but I'm sure we can chase down what it is and find out whether it's useful. Haukur (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Another thing - I'm not sure this is a peer-reviewed article and it doesn't read like one. The journal did not print the text as an 'article' but as part of a book symposium.[46] This kind of thing isn't necessarily peer-reviewed. But it's a perfectly cromulent source regardless. Haukur (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Haukurth Do you think using newly fashioned words like "cromulent" is cute. For those of us who have had no use for the Simpsons we had to resort to Google. You could have used humorous instead, but then you would have to have explained why you felt the article was humorous.The question of peer review as regards Rachels argument sounds to me like a sleight of hand ad hominem. It's mention was not necessary, except as to slip in to the discussion a question as to her credentials. Oldperson (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

"Cromulent" doesn't mean 'humorous', though... --Equivamp - talk 02:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Equivamp According to this it does Oldperson (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Let me help you sort this out. When you encounter a dictionary entry which begins with something within parentheses and in italics it will usually not be the sense of the word but rather a description of the word. So, if we look up, say, carnifex the entry says (rare, literary) A butcher. This does not mean that 'carnifex' means "rare" or "literary". Rather, the word means "butcher" but the word itself is rare and literary. Similarly with cromulent, the entry you cite has this: (humorous) Fine, acceptable or correct; seamless, relevant, legitimate or authentic; nonanomalous. So the word means "acceptable" but it is humorous. Does that make sense? Haukur (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

On a closer reading, I think you're right that this is less focused on the "slur" debate than I remembered. However: we cite criticism of McKinnon's use of the term in the section immediately above that section, and her position here (including the cited Youtube video) are cited by the IHE article on the controversy over her article. It might be better if we restructured the article so that McKinnon's paper, the critique, and her response are all together in one paragraph, but I do think citing her argument here is worthwhile at least as long as we're citing her critics. Nblund^talk 21:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Those are pretty reasonable points and I agree that another structure might serve us better. I'll keep kicking the tires a little bit and try to get more familiar with the sources. Haukur (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Feminist Current / Meghan Murphy in opposing views

Meghan Murphy from Feminist Current could be covered explicitly in the opposing views section. She is very prolific in the topic^[1] and that was covered/cited in opinion pieces^[2] and news pieces.^[3] What do you think? --MarioGom (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

MarioGom Oh you asked about Megahn Murphy. I think that she has plenty of coverage already, in fact you might say that this whole TERF article is about her movement. Therefore we don't need any discussion about her and her opinions.Oldperson (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

"you might say that this whole TERF article is about her movement. Therefore we don't need any discussion about her and her opinions." Does that make sense to you? —DIYeditor (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that is one of the moste ridiculous reasons not to include someones opinion in an article that I have ever read. AIRcorn (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

My opinion: Only if she replaces one of the existing people in the opposition section. Her views on the subject aren't substantially different than anyone already there, and I feel sections like that frequently become bloated by people who add every single op-ed or piece of commentary they can find to try and reinforce an argument through repetition or by dropping in snappy quotes. That's not the purpose of that sort of section - our goal is to document the broad lines of opinion, not to exhaustively cover every opinion anyone has. So if we include her, it would have to be by finding someone less-notable who is currently being cited for a similar opinion, and replacing them. (Which is not hard - many of the people quoted there right now are extremely obscure and probably WP:UNDUE already.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

References

^ Murphy, Meghan (21 September 2017). "'TERF' isn't just a slur, it's hate speech". Feminist Current. Retrieved 8 September 2019.
^ Bindel, Julie (9 October 2015). "No platform: my exclusion proves this is an anti-feminist crusade". The Guardian. Retrieved 8 September 2019.
^ Compton, Julie (2019-01-14). "'Pro-lesbian' or 'trans-exclusionary'? Old animosities boil into public view". NBC News. Retrieved 2019-03-19.

Shoring up the lead

Citations aren't required in the lead but for highly contentious articles sometimes the lead ends up referenced after all. I'm wondering if that's a strategy that could help us here. Haukur (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Tons and tons of articles have referenced leads, with good reason, because they are on controversial topics, like this one so clearly is. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

No objection – had you given any thought to specifically which portions of the lead you thought were worth adding refs for? The one caveat I'd mention, is that preferably the added refs should all be named references that are already present somewhere in the body. New refs shouldn't be necessary if the lead material summarizes the body, as it ought (though they're not prohibited, either). Mathglot (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree. But if the "highly contentious articles" reasoning is to be applied, conclusionary statements in the lead that aren't supported with RS need {{Citation needed}} for them. And an edit such as this one should be considered invalid. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 07:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It is not “invalid” to remove a {{cn}} tag in the lead. If you want to place a ref there, nobody is stopping you. Saying it isn’t “needed” doesn’t mean it’s “prohibited”, so go ahead. But no statement in the lead that is already supported by RS in the body “needs” to have a duplicate citation in the lead. There is no policy that says that. Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but the article is radioactive and the editing contests are best observed from the outside looking in. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 13:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we all basically agree. For citing the lead it's best to use the same sources as for the body of the article. Ideally, we'd get the most-informative highest quality sources across here. I'm trying to sort out which those would be. Haukur (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that there is no requirement to cite references in the lead. AIUI.Oldperson (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment: There's no policy about this afaik, but I prefer to have the full reference in the body, with named references in the lead. There are two reasons for this:

the lead is shorter, so the references tend to be a higher proportion of the lead; if they are full references, it makes it hard to pick out the running text in the wikicode, from all the reference code. Much easier if they are just named refs.
extending on the first point a bit, there is more likelihood of stacked references^[4]^[12]^[14] in the lead, for the same reason. This can be further shortened using template {{R}}, e.g.:
Some assertions here.{{R|Miller 2018|Vasquez 2014|Smythe 2018}}.
This is shorter and easier to handle than even "normal" named refs, and far easier than full refs in the lead.

Adding Haukurth. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right – best not to define references in the lead. And 'R' can be a neat way of doing things. Haukur (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Bolding of "gender critical"

@Haukurth: I bolded "gender critical" in the lead section per WP:BOLDTITLE, as it is a significant alternative title for the topic and also redirects to this article. Yes it's non-neutral, but WP:OTHERNAMES does not mention any requirement stating that alternative names for a topic must be neutral. feminist (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your thinking. My concern isn't neutrality as such but rather clarifying the topic of the article. We could in theory write an article about 'gender critical' feminists, their views and their critics and so on. And if people want to take it in that direction, I'd be open to considering it. But the article as currently construed is fairly narrowly about the word TERF so it seemed to me that only that particular word needed to be bolded. Haukur (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

^Agreed. This entry is really about the word, but the relevant viewpoints are covered in Feminist views on transgender topics, and Radical_feminism#Views_on_transgender_topics. A standalone article might eventually be spun out from those entries, but the debate over the term itself is worth covering independently. Nblund^talk 16:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Whether a separate article for "gender critical" is warranted depends on what direction we want to take our current article towards. Do we want to focus on the online subculture of those who identify as "gender critical" feminists, sort of like the Incel article? Or do we want this article to exclusively focus on the term TERF and its usage, sort of like Womyn or Cuckservative? Personally I lean towards the former (i.e. not having a separate article) as there is much overlap between what the two terms cover. feminist (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of what we do in the future, the article is currently about the term, while Feminist views on transgender topics has material that covers this stuff as a movement. I think changing all the redirect targets to this page is clearly premature given the relative state of each article. Nblund^talk 17:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I can see merit in having a separate article for the term and for the subject that the term refers to. It strikes me as backwards that the former has been created while the latter still has not. But if we are to agree that this article is not to be transformed into the latter, then where should gender critical redirect to? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It previously redirected to the relevant section in Feminist views on transgender topics - and that portion seems like a much better starting place if someone wanted to make a spinout article. I don't think "TERFS" would really be an appropriate name for an article on the movement. Nblund^talk 18:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Nblund. But no doubt some people end up at the term article but are really looking for info on the movement. Tricky stuff. We need to keep thinking about how we can best serve our readers. Haukur (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I moved the redirect to go to here because it seemed like this article was being primed to be about the subject. It doesn't help that this article is linked to as the "main article" at Feminist views on transgender topics#Feminist exclusion of trans women, when that would be incorrect if this is just about the term. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 22:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe we could change that from 'main' to 'see also'. Haukur (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It might also make sense to link to Feminist views on transgender topics in a hatnote at the top of this page. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. You mean something like this? This article is about the word TERF. For a broader discussion of related issues see Feminist views on transgender topics. Haukur (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah! — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 22:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Aeusoes1 and Haukurth:, See how they do it at the top of LGBT and Gay. Mathglot (talk) 06:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Good find, those are useful precedents. And I guess we should incorporate the protein stuff into the same note. Haukur (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I heavily agree with adding this, as a trans individual. Admittedly, it might be contentious in regards to WP:LABEL however it is wonderful that the direct connection would exist here. After all, "gender critical" is just a nicer cover term for "terf", like "race realist" is for racism, like "alt-right" is for neo-fascism and immediate adjacent. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 23:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Note that "gender critical" is neither a synonym or euphemism for TERF, the concept goes well beyond the trans question and it is essentially associated to "gender abolitionism". Some people consider these positions as transphobic/trans-exclusionary/essentialist, of course, but it would be an error to treat both as synonyms. --MarioGom (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@MarioGom: both "gender critical" and "gender abolitionism" are, in reality, just thinly-veiled, synonymous cover terms. Proponents of those positions do not want to "abolish gender". In fact, most of them rely heavily on it. It is extremely rare to see someone actually critical of gender theory in the gender critical community. The only thing they're really against transgender and non-binary expression. Otherwise, they tend to reinforce gender roles extremely strongly. This video covers most of this. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 00:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I agree with the addition of the hatnote mentioned above. --MarioGom (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

WTF Gender abolitionism? So we now have a neologism, apparently created by editor above. That has absolutely nothing to do with the subject, and appears to be a personal POV at hand and is certainly not WP:NPOV Oldperson (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "gender abolitionism" is a FRINGE POV that has been enthusiastically advocated by some editors now banned from WP and encouraged by off-Wiki brigading efforts. It amounts to the view that all we need is biological sex, while gender is some kind of illusion or "ideology". It has been supported by very strongly held feelings and nothing in the way of actual evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:FORUM

NewimpartialThanks for enlightening me. Allow me to restate in terms that I can understand. "gender abolitionism" is an ideology that is being pushed by "transphobes". FWIW. I personally shrink from any term, with social connotations that has the word "phobe" I doubt seriously that bigots are "phobic". Agoraphoic, arachniphobic.coulrophobia elicit disabling emotional and even physical responses. I am sure that this is the case of the likes of some, a minority, of "homophobes, transphobes, Islamophobes" etc who are simply bigots, nothing more or less, just bigots irrationally biased against people who do not belong to their tribe, cult, ground. There has to be a better word for such. I don't think that TERF's are all phobic, id they are then they are androphobic. They are simply man hating bigots, who deny transwomny their own identity, and paradoxically expect, nay demand that society at large recognize their identity as (mostly lesbian) radical feminists. I am searching for analogies to TERFS and can only think of advocates of the "one drop" theory of racial identity or classification. Whichin itself is humorous as many racial bigots are themselves "one drop". Such as the case of the descendants of the black indentured servant, Edward Mozingo The Fiddler on Pantico Run: An African Warrior, His White Descendants, A Search for Family. I argure for calling TERF's what they are...bigots.Oldperson (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't let the etymology set you astray. The relevant -phobe terms (homophobe, transphobe, etc) are talking about hatred and bigotry, not fear. That the -phobe part ultimately comes from an Ancient Greek word meaning fear is as irrelevant as the fact that nausea comes from a word meaning 'sound'. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Haukurth and Nblund that the viewpoints of these individuals should be discussed at Feminist views on transgender topics, with this article being solely about the word. If any leftover content is off topic in that regard, it should be moved or cut. I appreciate the hatnote changes. The "gender critical" redirects can all go to the Feminist views... article, since this one is just about a word, not directly the group who call themselves gender critical. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I will retarget these if nobody objects. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I can see merit in having a separate article for the term and for the subject that the term refers to. It strikes me as backwards that the former has been created while the latter still has not. I don't disagree, though I wouldn't look forward to the fight over what to call an article about the subject. TERF is the WP:COMMONNAME, but of course many people would object to Wikipedia using that term in its own voice. And then there'd be the fight over whether to bold "gender critical" in the lead, or whether that would be equivalent to bolding race realist in the lead section of scientific racism, etc. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

We'd probably want to rename this article to TERF (term)' and use TERF for the article on the subject itself. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should open that can of worms until we absolutely need to do so. Nblund^talk 19:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

This is all pretty challenging. Currently we're covering the word here and the movement, such as it is, at Feminist views on transgender topics. Maybe we'll eventually manage to get enough content on the movement to spin out a separate article. But I think it might make sense to tidy up the word article first.

One thing I'd like to move over to Feminist views on transgender topics is this paragraph:

The claim by anti-transgender feminists that they are not trans-exclusionary because they categorize trans men as women has been rejected by trans men. Trans men and their allies have called this denial "divisive and contradictory [...] part of their transmisgynist [sic] ideology", transphobic, and "fetishistic, often infantalizing [sic]".

The troubled relationship between 'gender critical' feminists and trans men is something we definitely should cover but this feels kind of shoehorned in here since the sources aren't really discussing the word. As it stands, the paragraph is verging on WP:SYNTH since neither source really even mentions "[t]he claim by anti-transgender feminists that they are not trans-exclusionary". Haukur (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say it's redundant - we cover that same objection/argument toward the end of paragraph one in TERF#Opposition_to_the_word Nblund^talk 20:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund and Haukurth: What's this? "[t]he claim by anti-transgender feminists that they are not trans-exclusionary". Let's change adjectives and nouns and see how it looks: "[t]he claim by white nationalist ethnic exclusionists that they are not racist ". I could also substitute anti-semitic. User:Oldperson 21:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC) (signature fixed by Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 00:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC))

False equivalency. White nationalists are not saying other groups are not white. Also you did not even address what Haukur was talking about or what the quoted sentences are about. Not sure what you are doing, yet again. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm a stickler for accuracy. The composition of the above-quoted content from the article ("...Trans men and their allies have called this....") is misleading. The wordage "divisive and contradictory" and "part of their transmisgynist ideology" belongs to the authors, Danelle Wylder and Corrie Westing, as their opinion, and not to "trans men". Opinions by trans men are not quoted in the source.
The "fetishistic, often infantalizing" from the Laura Erickson-Schroth book is not attributed to trans men. The citation quotes material from page 568 ("Some feminists have perceived transmasculine people as traitors...."), which in the source is followed by several quotes from unidentified parties, that may or may not have been trans men.
That paragraph in the article needs to be rewritten according to what the sources actually verify. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 13:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The Instability of Slurs citation

My recent contribution removed the following material as it appears to reference ~~a fringe source~~ a self-published source:

Linguists Christopher David and Elin McCready, writing in a 2018 paper for the University of the Ryukyus and Aoyama Gakuin University, argued that three properties make a term a slur: it must be derogatory towards a particular group, it must be used to subordinate them within some structure of power relations, and the derogated group must be defined by an intrinsic property. David and McCready wrote that the term TERF satisfies the first condition, fails the third condition, and that the second condition is contentious, in that it depends on how each group sees itself in relation to the other group.^[1]

References

^ Davis, Christopher; McCready, Elin (2018-11-19). "The Instability of Slurs" (PDF). Semantics Archive. Retrieved 2019-04-24. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Lmatt (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC); edited 15:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The Instability of Slurs ~~may be a fringe source~~ is a self-published source because it has not been published in a peer-reviewed scholarly or scientific journal and therefore appears not to have been subject to formal peer review. The paper is available on semanticsarchive.net, a "repository of electronic preprints" which warns "not appropriate to cite a paper as appearing on the semantics archive". Lmatt (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC); edited Lmatt (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Good catch. It should not be used as a source. It also has no cites even on Google Scholar other than from one of the authors themselves. [47] -Crossroads- (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The two of you appear to be confused about terminology and to be applying inappropriate irrelevant) critetia in this case. In WP parlance, a FRINGE source is one "that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". The article in question, while there is no evidence it was peer reviewed, certainly does not depart from mainstream views in its field. What is more, even though self-published the article meets the standard for a reliable source according to Wikipedia's criteria for self-published sources, as the authors are writing within a field of expertise (semantics) where they have a body of non-self published (and in this case peer-reviewed) work. Other criteria, such as MEDRS, do not in any way apply in this case. So try to adhere to policy rather than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, ok? Newimpartial (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: I have edited my comments to clarify that the paper is a self-published source and not necessarily a fringe source. Lmatt (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

According to policy (WP:SPS), the conditions a self published expert source must meet to be suitable for inclusion could be summarized as follows:

Are the authors established experts on the subject matter?
Has their work in the relevant field previously been published by reliable, independent publications?
Has the information in question been published in independent reliable source?

Lmatt (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

In order to determine whether this material is suitable for inclusion, we must first ask ourselves, which field of academic study is relevant on the subject of slurs? Lmatt (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Linguistics is the scientific study of language and it's structure^[1] and the subfield sociolinguistics is "the study of the effect of the society, including cultural norms, expectations, and context, on the way language is used."^[2] Lmatt (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Assuming sociolinguistics is the relevant field (I believe it is), the next question is: are the authors established experts, i.e. has their work in this field previously been published by reliable, independent publications? Lmatt (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the policy:

The authors are established professionals in linguistics.^[3]^[4]
McCready and Davis have previous works in linguistics and one covering slurs specifically (excluding this one).
Semantics Archive, where it has been published currently, is mostly used to share drafts and internal papers between linguistic and language professionals. Semantics Archive is an independent platform.

The first two points are solid. The last one is the only one being truly debated. It asks if more if the source is primary, secondary, or tertiary. The paper is a largely a secondary source. Citing it here in Wikipedia is a tertiary source. One key factor we also need to look at regarding this is that many sources cited in this article are equivalent to this one. (There are citations which just link to figures' personal webpages, for example.)

Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 17:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

In response to your points:

In the links you've given, McCready' papers are labelled as: "Semantics, pragmatics, philosophy of language, social meaning, languages of Asia", Davis' papers are tagged as: "Linguistics, Formal Semantics, Formal Pragmatics, Ryukyuan, Japanese". Linguistics is a wide and multidisciplinary field of study, we must consider whether the authors are established experts on the subject matter, which is the subject of slurs. The relevant field on the subject of slurs appears to be sociolinguistics.
The authors do not appear to have previous work on the subject of slurs in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. Davis' manuscript Slurs are Invocations is noted McCready's website as "in preparation".
Semantics Archive is an independent platform, a preprint archive, so as @Newimpartial: commented, should be considered "according to Wikipedia's criteria for self-published sources".

Lmatt (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that's now how things work. You're hyper-focusing on slurs and thinking that the experts need to be specific experts on slurs themselves, instead of their field. You also misunderstand the field. Language itself is a social construct. Nearly all discussion of language, even the most reserved, syntax and grammar-focused study will always involve sociolinguistics. Regardless, a known, competent, and professional linguist doesn't need to a hyper-specific expert in sociolinguistic analysis of slurs for their viewpoint to merit inclusion. (Also, you just echoed me on the third point.) Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 18:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gwenhope: I'm focusing on slurs because that is the subject matter. The Wikipedia policy on verifiability states that self-published material is not generally acceptable as a source. In order to be considered reliable, a self-published source must be produced by an established expert on the subject matter. To decide whether a source is produced by established expert, we must look to see whether their previous work in the relevant field has been published by multiple reliable, independent publications. As linguistics is such a wide field of study (see Template:Linguistics § Subfields) we must narrow the relevant field. I have assumed sociolinguistics is the relevant field but I'm open to a discussion on this. On your, last point I believe we are in agreement, we must consider this paper against the criteria for self-published sources. Lmatt (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC); edited Lmatt (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

It is definitely not the case that Nearly all discussion of language, even the most reserved, syntax and grammar-focused study will always involve sociolinguistics. Experts who focus on syntax focus on word order outside of social context. Experts who focus on phonetics or phonology focus on the sounds of language separate from social context. You can't divorce language from its social context in the everyday arena, but you can (and often should) do so in academic and scholarly studies of language outside of sociolinguistic studies. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Gwenhope Until this talk page I never heard of Rachel Mackinnon A quick trip to youtube netted this enlightening discussion It appears that it was TERF's that actually invented the acronym so it cannot be a slur Oldperson (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Oldperson, it can be a slur, regardless who invented it. Namely, in an example of a sort of linguistic Gresham’s law of language change, where a bad meaning drives out the good and a formerly neutral term becomes a dysphemism. Such was the case with terf (originally neutral). Mathglot (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

MathglotI understand that. It is all about perception; whose ox is being gored, and who holds the reins.Not wishing to be argumentative (unnecessarily so), I can,given time and inclination,come up with legions of neutral terms that become a dysphemism. But the question here is who wields the power to do harm and who is the recipient of harm. In the case at hand the TERF has the power to do harm,by exercising their rights of exclusion,though in my minds eye I question why a transwoman would seek to place herself in a situation where she is not wanted and will be met with hostility..but that is me. In a sense the question is epistemological, which is who cast the first stone. How should the recipient of TERF animosity respond? Quietude acceptance? Queer is a neutral term, when directed by "straights" towards "gays" it is a slur, but when used by gays within their community, it is either considered humorous, neutral or endearing. Straights have no right to use the term in reference to gay, in the same way that whites do not have the right to use the "N" word, but blacks do have that right. Also the use of slurs, internally by a group, have the benefit of taking ownership of the word, desensitizing the community to its harmful effects. But Ifear I stray far afield.Oldperson (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I have removed this material, because as I have explained, I believe this source is not suitable for inclusion as it does not appear to meet Wikipeida's conditions for a self published expert source. Lmatt (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems a bit premature to remove it (since I'm seeing a general consensus for inclusion.) I'd say it should stay - they're clearly subject matter experts, being scholars of linguistics with both papers and entire books on comparable topics, and, in that respect, their opinions are more relevant than many of the people currently cited in opposition; if we removed them, I think we'd also have to remove most of the opposition statements (anyone who lacks relevant expertise on at least the level of being a linguist, expert on feminism or transgender issues, etc) to avoid WP:UNDUE issues. --Aquillion (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The opening sentence of this paper says "In this paper, we argue for a particular view of slurs according to which they are a semantically coherent class satisfying a set of related criteria" ie, the view we are proposing is not at present the generally accepted understanding of what constitutes a slur - even within our specific discipline - but it should be. Isn't that end of story as to whether any particular word, inc TERF, is generally regarded as a slur? The criteria they propose would anyway only apply within their field and would have little bearing on the general use of the word in everyday speech, which is the implied usage in this article.

According to their criteria, the sentence "You motherfucking, cock-sucking, shit-faced dwarfish Wop cunt" contains only one clear slur (Wop), since this relates to an intrinsic quality of a group - Italians. Dwarfish is an intrinsic quality but may not impugn a group here. The other words, and countless others, including many of the most offensive words in English (pig, arsehole etc) would not meet their criteria for a slur, since they are unadulterated insults that impugn no quality in the 'target'. It is also unclear whether other terms such as bitch, slut, whore etc would count as slurs, since words like this (which impugn a woman's morals or behaviour), are not attacking intrinsic qualities.

Most of the discussion above is rooted in whether this source is RS. I personally have no idea as to what authority this source has in precisely defining what a slur should be within the field of linguists. I myself in the course of reading around the TERF subject have come across at least a dozen definitions of slur, some by linguists, some have concluded TERF was a slur, others not. However, regardless of whether TERF is technically a slur or not, what does this tell us about what kind of word TERF is, or how it is commonly being used? There are many kinds of words, which - to a greater or lesser extent, and in certain contexts but not others - are used to impugn rather than inform (fascist, stalinist, puritan can all be proper nouns describing a historical group, or can be insults implying 'with all the negatives of that group'). Even if we 'prove' a term isn't a slur, than what does that imply it is, inherently neutral and factual?

Personally, given that the source above is simply one opinion - and not even the clearly authorative opinion of that profession, and given that they are speaking about a specific definition of slur, proposed for use within a specific field (linguistics) - I don't see what it adds to the article and its use calls for balancing arguments that the term is actually being used as a slur. The article is about TERFs not about slurs and we already know that the targets of this term think it is a slur, as do some independent RS, other people think it isn't. We don't have to settle which is 'right', especially when both sides appear to employing convergent definitions of what a slur is - some of which are technical and some of which are more "everyday speech". Pincrete (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

As a reply to Lmatt, and not to leave misinformation on the table, the Slurs source clearly meets the reliability criteria for SPS; the only possible issue mitigating against inclusion would be DUE. Newimpartial (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think WP:DUE is the more relevant question here. @Pincrete: the source isn't presented as authoritative, it's simply presented as one additional opinion alongside several others. To my mind, it carries roughly the same weight as the comment from Deborah Cameron, whose self-published blog post is cited in the section on "opposition to the word". I could see a case for keeping both sources, or removing both, but I have a hard time seeing why we would include one but exclude the other. The sections should probably be roughly equal in length and depth of coverage since there's no clear majority viewpoint here. Nblund^talk 17:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: the comment below was moved from bottom of page Nblund^talk 17:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This text looks a bit off to me:

In a 2018 paper, linguists Christopher David and Elin McCready argued that three properties make a term a slur: it must be derogatory towards a particular group, it must be used to subordinate them within some structure of power relations, and the derogated group must be defined by an intrinsic property. David and McCready wrote that the term TERF satisfies the first condition, fails the third condition, and that the second condition is contentious, in that it depends on how each group sees itself in relation to the other group.^[5]

The source doesn't appear to be peer-reviewed, it is a preprint system, so that can't be said to be the "publisher". There's no indication the text is peer-reviewed or has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. As an effectively ubnpublished article, it has no cites on Google Scholar that I can find. This is WP:SPS. Guy (help!) 17:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: I think everyone agrees that this is a self-published source, but that alone doesn't warrant excluding it. You've exceeded 1RR here, and it seems like you didn't see this discussion when you made your first and second reverts. I think a self-revert is in order. Nblund^talk 18:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:RS is a reason for excluding it. There is no reason this could not be submitted for peer review, and no reason to include it before that has been done. Guy (help!) 18:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:SPS - self-published content from experts in a specific field (in this case, experts with peer-reviewed publications) are considered RS and are valid references for WP articles per policy. WP:MEDRS does not apply to this article. Newimpartial (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a reliable primary source for the viewpoints of the authors. Really this is a question of due weight. I'm ambivalent, but there are WP:SPSs in several places in the article, so we should probably discuss a more consistent standard for inclusion.Nblund^talk 18:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

No, Nblund. To quote WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications", which applies here. This reliabiltiy is not limited to being a source for the author's own personal viewpoint, which is a characteristic of SPS in general. Newimpartial (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

But in either case, the source is not being used for a claim of fact, it is being used to describe an argument with in text attribution given to the authors. The question of reliability is mostly moot here. Nblund^talk 18:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The significance of an opinion is normally established by others citing that opinion. This is a random opinion by random academics that is not in the peer-reviewed literature, being used in support of a contentious fact. Wikipedia doesn't include such sources unless there is clear evidence they are considered significant by others. What's happening here is that we are placing ourselves in the position of arbiters of significance and fact. That is not permitted. Guy (help!) 19:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

But I think that standard would also mean eliminating the reference to Cameron. It might also mean removing the references to Ditum, Heuchan as well - although those are not self-published, they are not referenced by others as far as I can tell. Personally, I kind of agree that that's usually the best standard, but this isn't a hill I'd choose to die on: its not like the opinion expressed there is wildly out of step with others in that section, and we've got rough parity of support and criticism. Nblund^talk 20:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

No, Guy. When experts are commenting within their field of expertise - as demonstrated, in this case, by peer-reviewed publications - then they are not expressing a "random opinion". We are referencing linguists within the field of linguistics; the same academics weighing in on climate change might be "random", but this is a very different case. Newimpartial (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You have <5000 edits. You don't get to lecture me (>120,000 edits, 15 years, admin) on what policy is, especially when citing WP:BRD as the edit summary for reinstating your own twice-reverted edit. You get to express an opinion if you like but in weighing that opinion people are entitled to look art your contributions and assess whether your decidedly narrow editing focus and your red-flag username might be indicia of being here on a mission. Also, you appear to think I "don't like" a source saying that TERF can't be a slur. You have skimped on your research. To the point that you are close to 100% wrong. Guy (help!) 23:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Guy that for disputed content, as this one appears to be, peer-reviewed sources are preferred. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Where is any peer-reviewed source - or any source from anyone with any relevant kind of academic expertise - suggesting that TERF is a slur? The matter is disputed in op-ed pages, sure, but there is no dispute among experts.

Also, Guy, if your edit count enables you to read policy more accurately than I do, then I would appreciate some kind of policy-compliant explanation of where you think I err rather than UNCIVIL insinuations and ad hominem comments. This particular round of discussion started with you misapplying SYNTH, as far as I can tell, so maybe you could start your explanation there? Newimpartial (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Haukurth: I don't think this is one of those pages where "consensus through editing" is the best approach, but I would endorse your edit here in principle. Without secondary sources to determine whether this is WP:DUE it's difficult to justify including either of these self published sources, and I think that's an easier standard to apply consistently and objectively. I think the two sections might be improved by elaborating further on the literature that has been peer reviewed. Nblund^talk 00:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Those goalposts are moving awfully fast. Meanwhile, back on Wikipedia, self-published sources are deprecated except for uncontroversial facts (which this is not). Guy (help!) 18:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Another approach would be to work the self-published comments by linguists so that they engage in a debate with one another, and remove self-published comments (including op-eds) by people without any relevant expertise at all. Newimpartial (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

While it's true that self-published stuff by established experts can in principle be used, I don't see a strong case for doing so here. Better sources are available. This is quite a challenging topic, though, and I don't claim to have all the answers. Haukur (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

If we're going to remove low-quality sources, I would also have to insist on this removal. Guidelines to a single essay don't represent meaningful long-standing positions, nor do they reflect any sort of expertise, nor is there any indication that there was any deep thought or editorial control or research put into the wording of that call for essays outside the (non-expert) personal opinions of the person writing the guidelines. Suggesting that such an obscure pull-quote could have more weight than an in-depth essay written by two professional, published linguists is absurd - removing avid and McCready would make that extremely WP:UNDUE (though I think it is already.) --Aquillion (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It is WP:DUE to include that, so I restored it as part of the WP:BRD process. This article has lots of self-published content and opinion pieces being used as sources, and the David and McCready paper is back anyway. What you removed does seem to represent "meaningful long-standing positions" - there is no reason to think otherwise - and it is unlikely there was not editorial contol put into the essay guidelines. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

While it is correct to retain it now per BRD, it is by no means DUE to retain that Economist comment, which is neither significant in itself nor does it represent any relevant expertise on either language or queer politics. Newimpartial (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It's an ongoing problem on this page just what the standards for sourcing should be; but by what is currently in place, it should remain. If we are excluding sources without expertise in language, then much of the article would need to be torched. And how are you defining what sources constitute expertise on...queer politics? There are no PhDs in or university departments of Queer Politics. -Crossroads- (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Most of the recognized academic expertise in queer politics resides within queer studies, sexuality studies, and gender studies programmes AFAIK. Newimpartial (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the source after re-reading this conversation. I count 6 in favor of removal and 4 against. Pincrete and JzG I think make an especially strong case for removal. Given there is no consensus in favor of inclusion, the dubious nature of the source, and a majority in favor of removal, it should be removed. Imagine if some non-peer-reviewed preprint was being cited for some random academic's viewpoint in a science article. And the source cannot be compared to the other self-published sources in the article, which are by people who are notable in their own right. If someone wants to bring it back, please explain why on the basis of existing discussion and of policy, rather than simply asserting that it should be included on the basis of some vague definition of expert. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

On the basis of policy, self-published works by experts (in this case, those with peer-reviewed publications in the relevant field) are considered reliable sources. Since this is one of the few cases in this whole article where the source is considered reliable as anything other than a statement of the source's own opinion, it is therefore mandated by policy to include, rather than exclude, reliably-sourced content unless better sources can be found. Non-experts yammering in periodicals specializing in other fields (The Economist) are not "better sources". Newimpartial (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

No evidence either of these people have peer-reviewed publications on the definition of slur. In the article they directly say they are proposing a new definition. You also keep ignoring the "established" part of the established expert clause. And being a self-published preprint, the source is not reliable as a statement of anything other than the source's opinion. It's not due to include either. Lastly, you ignored the clear weight of opinion against including it. This is nearing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

We also now have Andrea Long Chu's view, so it is not needed. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

"Peer-reviewed publications on the definition of slur" seems absurdly narrow; they're both experienced and established linguists (Elin McCready has an entire book on honorifics), which is as close to an expert as we're likely to get. Given that the vast majority of other people cited are mere talking heads with no relevant expertise at all beyond strongly-held political views, pushing to remove one of the few experts we have seems a bit absurd. If we did have a linguistics expert on slurs specifically cited, perhaps we could replace them with that, but WP:DUE is about relative weight, and they deserve more weight than most of the people already cited in the section. --Aquillion (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter. Established expert wikilinks to Subject-matter expert, which indicates that such persons are considered authorities in their field. These two are not authorities. They are non-notable run of the mill academics at an obscure university who submitted their non-reviewed opinions to a preprint service. They are not established experts of any kind, let alone on the subject matter of slurs. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Crossroads, you are misunderstanding policy. For established experts, self-published works are reliable beyond simply statements of opinion; SPS are reliable for statements of personal opinion by anybody at all, in fact, when they are legit self-publications. And expertise in a subject is not defined as "having said the exact same thing in a peer-reviewed publication" - if it were, the policy language for reliable SPS would not exist. Expertise is established in various ways, including a track record of peer-reviewed publications in a field (in this case, linguistics). It is not synonomous with "being famous as an expert", which is a non-policy-compliant criterion. Newimpartial (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The above is an unsubstantiated ad hominem, by an editor who does not have ability or credibility to make such statements.Oldperson (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Newimpartial and Crossroads:My apologies to Newimpartial. The structure of the thread in which I mentioned an ad hominem was confusing. My comment was directed to Crossroads and not Newimpartial.Oldperson (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

How on Earth did I commit an ad hominem??? And your comment that I do not have "ability or credibility" to say what I said constitutes a personal attack that you should retract. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't answer that, but the first example of subject-matter expert given in the wikilinked article is that "an accountant is a subject-matter expert in accountancy". A linguist is a subject-matter in linguistics and a semantic linguist is a subject-matter expert in semantic linguistics. Academics with a track record of peer-reviewed publications in semantics (ever heard of a monograph?) most definitely count as SMEs in the sense referred to in SPS. Newimpartial (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I never said established expertise required having said the exact same thing in a peer reviewed publication. And SPS requires expertise in the subject matter, not the whole field. It's not due to include this random opinion; this was addressed above by JzG. I don't see anything to be gained by debating this further with you. I do hope other editors give their opinions who have not yet done so.

I'd also like to point out that Newimpartial accused me of edit warring on my talk page. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

That would be because you did two reverts almost back to back on a 1RR page. Why you would object to the template, I have no idea. Newimpartial (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Crossroads: To be clear, are you arguing above that the "Instability of Slurs" should be excluded but that Deborah Cameron's blog post should be left in place? I don't think the template was off-base, given the ongoing discussion and lack of consensus here. This is starting to look like an area where an RfC might be needed if there's not a grounds for compromise. Nblund^talk 19:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

My two reverts were to totally different content by totally different editors. I have never seen that called edit warring anywhere. It is not by any reasonable definition.

Cameron's blog post has stronger grounds for inclusion because she is notable and has an article. But this does appear headed for an RfC. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Crossroads We may not agree on much, but I agree with you, two reverts, two different authors and edits is not a violation of the 1RR for this talk page.Oldperson (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Not on the Talk page, but on the TERF article page. Policy is quite clear on this point: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." For 1RR, please replace "three" with "one". Newimpartial (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion has been ongoing on my talk page, but as a sign of good faith, I would have undone one of my two reverts if they weren't both undone by others already. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The lack of an article isn't really an indicator of a lack of notability. Wikipedia has well-documented gaps in our coverage of academics. The objective standard here for WP:DUE weight would be coverage by secondary sources, and neither source has any. So I don't see how we would make that distinction. Nblund^talk 20:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Once again, the question about reliable sourcing and SPS should not be "is this academic notable?" but rather, "is this academic's recognized expertise relevant to the claims they are making?" Cameron's probably is, but so is that of McCready. But the opinions of Cameron would not be of interest in themselves, WP article on her or not, particularly since she is being cited here as documenting that some of those referred to as TERFs consider the term a slur. This is only of interest as a a potential factual statement or expert judgement, not as a personal opinion. Newimpartial (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm raising a due weight issue, not a reliability question. Nblund^talk 21:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Right, but what I'm saying is that, when so few RS on the subject matter are available, RS should be considered before DUE on any issue of contention. We care what the situation is, according to the best available expertise, and only subsequently do we care what commentators think about it. Per WP:ENC. Newimpartial (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

References

^ Definition of Linguistics by Lexico
^ Current LINGUIST Subfields
^ "Christopher Davis - Google Scholar Citations". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2019-09-19.
^ "Elin McCready - Google Scholar Citations". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2019-09-19.
^ Davis, Christopher; McCready, Elin (2018-11-19). "The Instability of Slurs" (PDF). Semantics Archive. Retrieved 2019-04-24. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Contradictory Edits

Collapsing unconstructive and unfounded accusation. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Haukurth's back to back edits here and here appear to be one sided, TERF protective.Oldperson (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Slur and not a slur

CrossroadsI know I have a visual problem, but I can't find an example of both sidesism in your revert here can you please point out to me exactly what is evidenced in that edit by Haukurth that is fair and balanced. I don't see it.Oldperson (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I consider what I said in that link to be enough explanation. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Many of the references already had quote elements before I came along but some didn't. I like this feature myself so I've been filling in the gaps. I try to pick out the parts of each source which are most relevant for verifying the text in our article. I worry a bit about picking excessively long quotes, which can be hard on our readers and potentially raise copyright concerns. So wherever there are opportunities for abridging the quotes while retaining the key information, let's try to take them. Haukur (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Oldperson: the quotes aren't being included in the main body of the article, they're just added to the references. They are helpful to demonstrate that we've accurately characterized the arguments of the people we're citing. I don't think there's a neutrality problem here. We're just adding more detail to the references that are already included in the article. Nblund^talk 17:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Nblund I really want to be respectful of editors, I really do, but frankly your response is obfuscatory, and that is playing nice. Havine a "balanced" quote in a reference just doesn't cut it. Those who find this article in a search and read it, very seldom if ever bother to click on the citations and when they do they don't read them, so all that J.Q. Public gets is one side of the argument. I also noticed that you used WE in your response. This then is a coordinated effort between you, Haukurth and Crossroads. I find that interesting.Oldperson (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Those who find this article in a search and read it, very seldom if ever bother to click on the citations and when they do they don't read them, so all that J.Q. Public gets is one side of the argument. I agree: people are unlikely to click through to the references to see the quotes. Both of the quotes that you removed were included in the references. So JQ public wouldn't see either one of them. I really don't know what your point is here. If you're trying to be respectful, you should reassess your comment here. Nblund^talk 18:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

NblundWhat I am saying is this. To put a negative in the article, and a positive in a citation. Is not being even handed and can not be used to claim a NPOV. The average person who accesses this article will see the statement, but not the comment in the referenceOldperson (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

But that isn't what happened in the edit you linked above. That edit includes one negative and one positive quote, both are inside citations. Stuff that is inside the "<ref>" tags only shows up in the reference section. Nblund^talk 23:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC: How should we attribute "transphobic"?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result is option 1 (leave as is). However, the situation is difficult to assess in terms of policies and guidelines with disagreement over whether WP:LABEL applies to TERF's definition or its application. The latter interpretation (LABEL applies to calling someone a TERF) was used for a counter opinion that the term means that the subject is transphobic, and the only argument should be whether it would be justified to describe a particular individual as a TERF. A third view is that the term means that the subject has expressed opinions that a certain class of people regard as transphobic, while others would say those same opinions are not transphobic. In terms of numbers, option 1 has twice the support of options 1.1 and 4 which were equal second. Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Until about a week ago, this page described TERFs as feminists who espouse transphobic sentiments. This was recently changed to feminists who espouse sentiments considered transphobic by User:Crossroads1, and through some talk page discussion has since become feminists who espouse sentiments that other feminists consider transphobic, but we're now at an impasse.

There has been dispute on this talk page about how exactly to phrase this, with debate centering around the following options:

Option 1: Leave as is: feminists who espouse sentiments that other feminists consider transphobic
Option 1.1: Proposed by Darryl Kerrigan: feminists who espouse sentiments that others consider transphobic
Option 2: List specific sources: feminists who have been described as transphobic by USA Today, the Daily Dot, Indy100, and a joint statement by several major lesbian publications, as well as many other feminists
Option 3: Remove mention of transphobia entirely.
Option 3.1: Proposed by Rosguill: remove mention of transphobia from the first paragraph but add it to the second which already describes criticism from feminists and academics …have rejected this view and consider it to be transphobic
Option 4: Revert to previous wording with no in-text attribution: feminists who espouse transphobic sentiments
Option 5: Proposed by User:Pyxis Solitary: feminists who espouse sentiments considered transphobic by transgender advocates

Please list all options you are okay with and which one you most prefer. Loki (talk) 04:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The sources in either case are this Outline piece, this Daily Dot article, this USAToday glossary, this NYT opinion piece, this LGBTQNation article referring to a joint statement by several lesbian publications, and this Indy100 article. Loki (talk) 04:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Option 2 as per argument above that we should say the strongest thing we can, though I continue to think option 4 or something like it is permissible based on the strength of the sourcing and the fact that WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:LABEL merely say to avoid the term in question. I'm also going to specifically ping the people from the previous talk page discussion, namely User:Crossroads1 and User:Aeusoes1 Loki (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Just want to note: I think Options 1 and 1.1 are not great because they're weaker than the sources support. And options 3 and 5 are even worse and I would strongly oppose either of them. Loki (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Since it's getting some support below, I want to make my reasoning for opposing option 5 in particular more clear. Putting the opposition in the mouths of "transgender advocates" is, for one, not accurate unless you count USA Today, the Independent, the Daily Dot and now Vox as "transgender advocates", and for two it paints this as a dispute between two equal sides when it's in fact many major news sources saying "transphobic". Loki (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

If it makes the TERF article easier for you to live with, you can modify Option 5 as: "...transgender advocates and some feminists". The generalized "other feminists" statement of Options 1 and 2 can be taken as implying that there are two types of feminists: 1/2 that are TERFs, and 1/2 that are Others. And again, anyone who opposes "TERFs" is not automatically a feminist. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

We want to ground our wording in what we can source. Do we have sources that are non-feminist opponents to TERFs that call them transphobic? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The limitation is: only opinions and writings published in "reliable sources" make it through the grind. Pyxis Solitary yak 02:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Option 1 is the best, as it shows how the term is used to mean "transphobic" and is therefore problematic to put on BLPs. Option 3 is acceptable. Option 2 is inaccurate. USA Today was stating the viewpoint of feminists as part of a feminist glossary, not giving their own view. Indy100 said the term is a synonym for transphobia, which is a comment on usage, not an endorsement of that usage. Daily Dot said that TERF opponents say TERFs are transphobic, thus attributing that viewpoint, not saying it in their own voice. WP:LABEL says that Value-laden labels...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. And WP:BIASED says: reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Many RS do not equate TERFs with transphobia and some even consider the term a slur; these RS include The Economist, seven women philosophers, the New Statesman, Inside Higher Ed, and Slate. These are just the strongest ones that are already in the article, and more do exist. "Transphobic" is not widely used by reliable sources, so we could remove the term entirely per WP:LABEL. We can't say "many other feminists" because, as Loki said before, Annoyingly, I haven't so far been able to find a source for "a majority of feminists consider TERFs transphobic". Trying to list source after source looks like trying to bolster a particular POV. Option 4 is unacceptable per policy. Per WP:WIKIVOICE (part of WP:NPOV): Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." Also note WP:LABEL again: Words to watch:...transphobic,...Value-laden labels...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Option 1.1 is a no-go. It's too vague and suffers from WP:WEASEL. Plus, it implies that all others consider the people labeled TERF to be transphobic, which is definitely wrong. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Option 1, maybe without the second "feminists" - The sentence seems fine to me. But perhaps it could be improved if written something like this:

Coined in 2008, the term is generally applied to a minority of radical feminists who espouse sentiments that others ~~feminists~~ consider transphobic, ~~such as~~ including opposition to transgender rights, the exclusion of trans women in women's spaces, and the rejection of the assertion that trans women are women.

It is a term used by different people, some likely even incorrectly. Perhaps adding the word "generally" is appropriate (to indicate that others might use it differently). Also I think the more general "others" is preferable to "other feminists" as I expect some folks who don't self identify as feminists have also use the term. Also "including" suggest a non-exhastive list. I don't think those changes are vital, but expect they would improve the sentence. Cheers--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Option 4 preferred, with the references to support it in the body. I don't see any genuine controversy here. I see "Trans exclusionary" and "transphobic" as synonyms as a simple matter of language and the references are quite good enough to support this option even for anybody who doesn't buy that.
Option 1 acceptable with the references to support it in the body. This it is a bit clunky and I don't see it adding anything over option 4.
Option 2 not preferred. It is too detailed for the lede. The list of specific organisations is good content but it should be in the body.
Option 3 completely unacceptable. This would be censorship of well referenced information for absolutely no legitimate reason. This is fundamental to providing a basic description of the subject. It cannot be omitted from the lede. I don't even see this as an option and I would have preferred if it had not been included in the list at all as it can only distract from discussion of the sensible options.
--DanielRigal (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Option 5 completely unacceptable because it is tautological or circular. It seeks to invoke an undefined group of "transgender advocates" and ascribe the description to them alone. But what is a "transgender advocate" here? It is just anybody who calls TERFs transphobic, isn't it? It is like calling anybody who calls out racism a "member" of "Antifa". It has the effect of undermining the neutrality of the RS sources by labelling them partisan "advocates". This is weaselly and it looks a lot like an attempt to introduce the "TRA" conspiracy theory without evidence. For this option to be credible we would need RS sources explicitly describing at least the majority of the main sources describing TERFs as transphobic as being "transgender advocates". Such sources do not exist. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Option 1.1 not preferred. This is vaguer, and hence less preferable, than the original option 1. It is quite likely that many readers would misunderstand or not understand "others" as used here.
Option 3.1 not preferred. It it belongs in the first paragraph. If the two paragraphs of the lede were run together then that would help but I would still rate it as "not preferred". --DanielRigal (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

the list of specific organizations is good content but it should be in the body: does that mean you think that we should go with options 4/1 in the lede but option 2 in the body, DanielRigal? Loki (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

More or less. I think the body has the scope to list some of the notable organisations and publications that have made statements describing it as transphobic or otherwise condemning the TERF position, as well listing as any supporting it, taking care to make sure that any "organisations" we choose to mention are real and notable and not just "astroturfing" operations. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Option 1 seems somewhat better supported by policy than Option 4, but both are accurate. Option 2 is not accurate, so it shouldn't be used, and Option 3 would just look like a really awkward attempt to avoid the elephant in the room. Edited to add: Option 1.1 is better than Option 4, but worse than Option 1 because it is less specific, and the importance that the term was invented and primarily used by other feminists (as the article goes on to show, I think) is of chief relevance. Option 3.1 is probably the best of the options so far. Option 5 is simply editing out mention that the criticism is mostly from/within feminism, so it's no good, but I'd find it acceptable if it were something along the lines of trangender activists and other feminists or other feminists and trans people. --Equivamp - talk 20:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Option 1 or 1.1 best complies with Wikipedia rules on stating controversial opinions as facts in the editor's voice. Option 4 gets into issues of tautology where opposition to certain points of view is summarily defined as hatred or prejudice. If there were better quality sourcing to scholarly works 4 might be an option but what I see is a lot of lightweight fluff. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Option 1 = No. "feminists who espouse sentiments that other feminists consider transphobic". ??? Where is the evidence that those who consider the term transphobic are also feminists?
Option 1.1 = No. "feminists who espouse sentiments that others consider transphobic". Who are these "others"?
Option 2 = No. We don't treat readers as if they were dunces that can't figure out what citations are for. Just support the statement with RS.
Option 3 = No. Because statements that criticize transgender advocacy are considered transphobic by transgender activists.
Option 4 = No. "TERF" is a controversial term. Attributions and RS are vital. Additionally, an explanation of what Wikipedia means by "transphobic sentiments" is necessary -- which would require more than media and opinion pieces.

Proposed option: "feminists who espouse sentiments considered transphobic by transgender advocates ". Pyxis Solitary yak 12:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Realistically, though, I suggest saying which of the 4 or 5 options you dislike the least. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Option 5 = Yes. (option added 5 September 2019 @ 23:44). Because it's not just "feminists" -- it's feminists and transgender advocates (which are not automatically feminists); thereby the definition should be "considered transphobic by transgender advocates" (which is what these "other feminists" are by virtue of same). (updated) Pyxis Solitary yak 01:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

~~The one I "dislike the least" is Option 1.~~
But all the options are skewed to cement a narrative that has been pre-determined. Self-identified feminists that criticize transgender advocacy are labeled TERFs, but those who disagree with them are not necessarily feminists. Transgender mysogynists are not feminists. The Degenderettes are not feminists. Pyxis Solitary yak 00:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome to hold whatever opinion you want about who is and isn't a feminist, but this simply isn't supported by the sources. All of the sources above state that at least some other feminists call TERFs transphobic, and there are several other sources in the article which state the majority of feminists are not TERFs. (And I feel the need to point out, several of these sources are apparently pretty reluctant to call TERFs feminists. Several refer to them as "feminists" in scare quotes, or call them "ostensible" feminists. Not only is your position not supported by the sources, its reverse has significantly more support than yours does.) Loki (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

"this page described TERFs as 'feminists who espouse transphobic sentiments'"
"changed to 'feminists who espouse sentiments considered transphobic'"
"since become "feminists who espouse sentiments that other feminists consider transphobic'".

"Leave as is: 'feminists who espouse sentiments that other feminists consider transphobic'"
"Proposed ...: 'feminists who espouse sentiments that others consider transphobic'"
"List specific sources: 'feminists who have been described as transphobic by....'"

You may have created this survey, but you need to figure out what it's about. Pyxis Solitary yak 02:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Everyone else seems to be pretty clear on that? To be clear, I am not proposing that this article should say that TERFs aren't feminists, because there are enough sources that say they are plus the acronym literally contains the word "feminist". I'm just saying that position has some support in the sources whereas your position, that their opponents aren't feminists, has zero. Loki (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

If you're going to respond to a comment made by me you need to stop mischaracterizing what I actually stated, which is:
"Where is the evidence that those who consider the term transphobic are also feminists?" and "but those who disagree with them are not necessarily feminists".
English is my third language but in any language those statements do not equate as none of their opponents are feminists.
Option 1 is: "feminists who espouse sentiments that other feminists consider transphobic". Option 1 assumes that all who oppose TERFs are feminists.
I suggest that you go find another editor to zero in on. Pyxis Solitary yak 23:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not saying that (or at least, doesn't read that way to me). It appears to be specifying that the views are conbsidered feminist by other feminists because it's a term used primarily by feminists, was created by feminists, and characterizes a rift primarily in feminism - the feminist critics of the views are what's relevant to the term. --Equivamp - talk 23:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

or at least, doesn't read that way to me -- but that is how I read it. I'm sure I'm not the only one who does (nor do I expect readers and editors who have witnessed the toxic wars involving trans-related articles, and who refrain from getting involved in them, to step into this discussion). Pyxis Solitary yak 01:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you have reason to believe that the group of readers and editors you've vaguely alluded to will all have the same (mis)reading of the sentence? If so, why? If not, I don't know what that has to do with what I said or why you said it to me. Also, if your main beef is that other feminists to you means all other feminists, and not that I'm incorrect in saying the term is used primarily by feminists, was created by feminists, and characterizes a rift primarily in feminism, then why is your proposed alternative to exclude mention of other feminists entirely? --Equivamp - talk 23:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

You can put away the Grand Inquisitor hat because I'm not going to play along with you. By the way, the term was not "created by feminists" -- it was shorthand created by one self-identified feminist Australian writer (who the F is Viv Smythe?) who didn't want to spell out what it meant over and over again in her blogposts, and the term caught on. Pyxis Solitary yak 01:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The hostility is bizzarre and wholly unecessary. Please stop.

Created by one feminist or a dozen, it doesn't change the fact that "TERF" characterizes a dispute within feminism, and removing reference to it from the lead would be utterly detrimental to the page. --Equivamp - talk 02:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Option 1.1, since the sources aren't just feminists but newspapers, etc. Cite the sources, but don't stack up a big list of them in the main text. Best done as a single footnote, itself laying out the sources one by one. This is a good article for the two-section referencing style, with footnotes to short cites that then refer to full bibliographic citations in the section below that. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 17:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
PS: I agree that "some" would be better than "others". — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 23:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Option 1.1, although I'd prefer the wording that "some consider" rather than "others consider." The term "transphobic" is so loaded that it's hard to employ that against people without running afoul of WP:NPOV or WP:BLP. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 18:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't the reasoning "so loaded that it's hard to employ against people running afoul of NPOV", also apply to trms like anti-semitic, racist homophobic?Oldperson (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Potentially, but that's not at issue in this article. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 18:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Definitely. That's why WP:LABEL tells us to avoid using those terms and, when we must, the manner in which we can use them while still maintaining NPOV. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
But the question of "some" vs "many"/"others" is a different issue. The term "TERF" itself is already considered pejorative by the people its applied to, so why is it a problem to say that the people who use the term believe that it indicates transphobia? If you look at the entry for homophobia it doesn't say "some people consider homophobes to be prejudiced against gay people". Nblund^talk 19:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
People can't have it both ways though. If TERF is derogatory like transphobe or homophobe, than it's not a neutral descriptor and can't e.g. be used as a category for BLPs. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessarily the case. We have a categories for white supremacists, criminals, and communists, after all. Nblund^talk 17:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Nblund: These terms are quite different: 1) White supremacism is a well-established term in academia, with no controversy when applied to groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, 2) criminal is a legal category and 3) communism is the name of an ideology and movement and it was created and still used by communists themselves, we categorize members of communist parties and self-declared communists as such with no controversy. In some countries and historic periods the term "communist" have been used as a slur even to non-communists and Wikipedia will not categorize someone as a communist in that case. --MarioGom (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Continues here. MarioGom (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
No strong objections to Option 4, Option 3, or Option 2. I object to the other options because they are too equivocal: they imply that a "trans-exclusionary" person who is in "opposition to transgender rights" might-or-might-not-be transphobic. Which is a bit like saying saying that an egg salad might-or-might-not contain eggs.

I'll throw in a new proposal as well: the term is applied to a minority of radical feminists who espouse sentiments such as opposition to transgender rights [etc]. USA Today defines the term as "referring to feminists who are transphobic."

(Incidentally, I disagree with the notion that the USA Today piece is not in the paper's own voice. That's just some clever tap-dancing to try and discredit a reliable source. The piece is listed in the News section, not Opinion, and it is completely unequivocal. It doesn't say "here are what some feminists believe" or anything like that.) WanderingWanda (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Option 3, as the rest of the lead makes it perfectly clear where TERFs stand on transgender issues. However, I would also propose a Option 3.1: remove mention of transphobia from the first paragraph but add it to the second which already describes criticism from feminists and academics …have rejected this view and describe it as transphobic. Option 4 is acceptable due to the strength of sourcing. 1 and 2 are also acceptable, but less preferred because 1 is clunkily worded and 2 is a bit too much of a laundry list. 1.1 replaces 1’s style problem with weasel wording and is not a preferable solution. 5 is misleading as a description of the chorus of sources that have described TERFs as transphobic. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 10:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Option 5 preferred, while Option 1.1 and Option 4 acceptable, but not ideal. Reason being first and foremost that regarding trans-exclusionary individuals often control the discussion around them. It would be a pitfall that such individuals could have veto power in deciding their own label attributions in this way. Critical theory dictates minorities are the determiners of prejudice against their own groups, not those in power. Gwenhope (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
option 2, option 5, option 1.1 is my order of preference. If it hasn't been said with option 2, it might be clearer to say 'journalist xyz in USA Today'... because a lot of these are op-eds.Fred (talk)
Oppose options 1, 2, 4, see my comment in the threaded discussion, since TERF is a young term still subject to controversy, and such controversy spills on some mainstream venues too. Option 3 may make sense for the beginning of the lede, but of course it makes sense to discuss the topic later. Not so convinced about Option 5. --MarioGom (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Quoting Gwenhope above who best describes the situation.

"Option 5 preferred, while Option 1.1 and Option 4 acceptable, but not ideal. Reason being first and foremost that regarding trans-exclusionary individuals often control the discussion around them. It would be a pitfall that such individuals could have veto power in deciding their own label attributions in this way. Critical theory dictates minorities are the determiners of prejudice against their own groups, not those in power

Oldperson (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Oldperson: are you replying to MarioGom or voting? Either way this formatting is odd. May I fix? Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 20:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah, with all the indentation I took this to be a reply but I can see how it might be a !vote. I have fixed it as a reply, feel free to fix as a !vote of course if it turns out that was the intent. Do keep in mind MOS:LISTGAP which may not allow all desired formatting and indentation levels. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Option 1 is my top choice for the lede and I think something like option 2 for the body (I'm not wedded to the specific examples, but listing examples of who considers these views transphobic seems pretty important). I don't mind option 1.1 too much, but it feels a bit weasely and it seems important that the ones who consider these views to be transphobic are other feminists, as they have a bit more authority than vague "others". Shoot, I wouldn't even mind a whole paragraph detailing specific examples of authoritative or relevant sources and their characterization of TERF views. I don't like any of the other options, though option 5 is the absolute worst IMHO. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 03:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Option 3.1 is the only option I consider acceptable. The sources identified in the RfC statement (and I have no exposure to this term except those sources) are mixed, but the most consistent are those that say the term is self-defining, and I note that it is "trans-exclusionary", not "trans-opposed". While it may be transphobic to be a TERF, and transphobia may cause one to be a TERF, I believe the term is fundamentally just about excluding trans people from one's advocacy. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Option 1.1 tweak "...feminists who espouse sentiments that some consider (or a number consider) transphobic". This seems to address all the issues. The opinion that TERFs are transphobic is not limited to feminists and activists, and it does not imply "all others" consider them transphobic. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I am happy with that tweak. It seems appropriate to deal with the concerns that "others" is too broad. The problem is that it seems WP:WEASEL but limiting it to just feminists or activists is too narrow. We are talking generally about how people use a term, so that is going to be general by necessity. This tweak by Kolya Butternut is a good compromise/improvement.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Option 4. The term's meaning is that the views in question are transphobic - no one disagrees that to call someone a TERF is to call their views transphobic. People disagree over when and whether to use the term, not over whether it refers to transphobic beliefs. It is therefore meaningless, confusing weasel-wording to say that TERF means that "some consider" the views transphobic - this construction implies that there is a dispute over whether the word TERF refers to transphobic beliefs or not, which isn't true. What people are trying to imply is that there is dispute over whether the people referred to as TERFs hold transphobic views, but that's a dispute over whether the term applies to them or whether it should be used at all, not about what it means. All of the proposed wordings except 4 imply that there is a dispute over the meaning of the word TERF, which isn't the case. It would be like saying that racism refers to "views that some people believe are about the superiority of one race over another" - something that sounds cautious on paper (because people often dispute accusations of racism) but which is meaningless when you think about it. Of course people dispute whether someone who is labeled a TERF is actually transphobic, but that is a dispute over whether the label applies and not (as every option here except 4 implies) what the label means. Beyond that, strong oppose to option 5; the attribution to vaguely-defined 'transgender advocates' is conspiratorial and misleading in tone given that the term's meaning and use has wide mainstream acceptance (as the second paragraph makes clear.) --Aquillion (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
That sounds very logical, but it doesn't quite ring true. The meaning of the term is a specific class of views. These views are considered transphobic by many who use the term, but others (including participants in this talk page) challenge whether these views are transphobic. Considering that, as I've said before, there are ways of being transphobic without being a TERF (so there's not quite a 1-to-1 relationship), the comparison shouldn't be between racist and TERF, but racist and transphobic (for which WP:LABEL prompts us to use in-text attribution). The better comparison would be between alt-right and TERF, where some of the views of the alt-right movement are commonly considered to be racist, but avoiding value-laden language means we don't actually call the alt-right racist. Even cases where the racism isn't under dispute, such as for the KKK, we still want to avoid value-laden language, per WP:LABEL. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Option 4 preferred; then 3.1, or 1, in that order. Acceptable: 2. Unacceptable: 1.1 ("others" sounds like everybody else); 3 (a whitewash); 5 (POV). Mathglot (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

What about "a number of others"? Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)\

Option 2 Not 1 because it is not just feminists but also not all other feminists or as 1.1 puts it all others in general. Not 3 because transphobia needs to be mentioned. Not 4 because it is using wikivoice and the sourcing is not strong enough to support that usage. Not 5 because like 1 it is not just trans advocates. I guess that leaves 2 which is alright, but I would prefer to split it into two or more sentences. Something along the lines of an introductory sentance of feminists who have been described as transphobic and then followed by some selected sources expanding on this description taking into account WP:Due. Option 1.1 with the tweaks mentioned by May His Shadow Fall Upon You or Kolya Butternut would work if we want to keep it short. AIRcorn (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I think every one of the numbered options has some pros and cons. What we currently have (Option 1) isn't horrible and it gets at the significant fact that TERF comes into being as a word in intra-feminism disputes. Giving the word 'transphobia' early on in some way is reasonable since in practice TERF is used a lot as a synonym for 'transphobe'. The sentence isn't exactly elegant but I don't think we have any proposal on the table that is clearly superior. Still, we shouldn't set anything in stone. I have faith that we can eventually come up with something that's better even if we haven't thought of it yet :) Let's keep our eyes on what the best and most up-to-date sources say and think about how we can best get the most important facts across to our readers as early as possible in the article. Haukur (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

My argument for my position has been made in detail above, but briefly: we ought to say the strongest thing the sources support, and the thing they support is quite strong. Our list of sources includes USAToday, the Independent, and the Daily Dot all directly calling TERFs "transphobic" in their news voice (or in other words, the article directly calling TERFs "transphobic" got through editorial oversight in all three cases). Describing this as merely "other feminists" is hugely reductive to the point of being very misleading. Loki (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Please provide the exact quote from these three publications where they call TERFs transphobic in news voice. Also, as I have pointed out, this is a cherry-picking of RS. "Other feminists" reads to me as plenty broad, while not making claims that are not directly supported. Thanks for making sure I saw the RfC, but I am watching the page. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

USAToday: TERF: The acronym for "trans exclusionary radical feminists," referring to feminists who are transphobic., on a page whose URL starts with usatoday.com/story/news.

Indy100: [TERF] is a word leaden with meaning, and is a synonym for transphobia. The acronym refers to people who preach hate and exclusion against transgender women in the name of feminism., on a page whose URL starts with indy100.com/article.

Daily Dot: I'll give you that this one is less clear: their article about TERFs starts with a disclaimer that it addresses transphobic ideas, but in the actual body only says the word "transphobic" when it's attributed to their opponents. Regardless, the URL starts with dailydot.com/irl, which is definitely one of the Daily Dot's categories for articles. Loki (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

USA Today's article is a feminist glossary, so it is not in news voice. At most, you just have Indy100 so far in terms of news organizations. And as I have pointed out before, many other RS including news organizations do not agree. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

USA Today's article is a feminist glossary, but it's in their article space and is written by a journalist. I agree some other news organizations avoid the term but in my view the weight of the existing sources is still enough to support something stronger than simply "other feminists consider". Loki (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Question (especially for User:DanielRigal and User:Equivamp): There seems to be a decent amount of split support between options 1 and 4. Previously, I tried out the wording feminists who espouse sentiments that are widely considered transphobic but the talk page rejected it. It seems, however, like it might be a popular option in this RfC, so, would people be in favor of me adding it as an option? Loki (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

other feminists is better than others, to me. More specific and relevant. --Equivamp - talk 13:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not I support it as an option I think it is a legitimate option to discuss. To me it falls into the "acceptable" category although I do not see it as preferable to option 1 (due to its greater vagueness, which could leave the door open to ongoing attempts to "clarify" it in line with people's personal views) and I still favour the directness and clarity of Option 4. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Could you explain how Option 4 is allowed under WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:LABEL, as highlighted above? -Crossroads- (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

As I have said above, I see "trans exclusionary" and "transphobic" as synonyms as a simple matter of language but also that we have sufficient references to cover it for anybody who doesn't agree with me on that. We don't have a problem with the White supremacy article describing it as "racist" in the opening sentence and I fail to see any similar problem here. I fear that the other options can come across as a bit weaselly to varying degrees. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm having quite a bit of trouble parsing what I see "trans exclusionary" and "transphobic" as synonyms as a simple matter of language could possibly even mean. Can you please clarify this for us? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 23:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The assertion as I read it is that "trans-exclusionary" means "transphobic" (or at least, is basically equivalent in the same way a "white supremacist" is automatically a "racist".) Loki (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I can confirm that this was indeed what I was saying. I wasn't aware that I said it in an ambiguous way but I am glad to have it cleared up so that everybody understands. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I still don't understand "as a simple matter of language" part. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. So long as you understand the word "synonym" then you can understand my point pretty well by just ignoring that bit. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I see. Well, then, I'd have to disagree that the two are synonyms. There are other ways of being transphobic than being trans-exclusionary, even if that's the main one. Even if they were synonyms, different words with the same denotation can have different connotations. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 22:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, so "trans exclusive" is a more specific subset of the more general class of being transphobic and it is an oversimplification for me to call it a synonym? Actually, yes, I can accept that idea. As you say, there definitely are transphobes who are not TERFs, or even pretend to be. This coincides quite nicely with the parallel case of white nationalism and racism, where white nationalism is a specific subset of racism but not all racism is white nationalism. This view still supports my core assertion that "trans exclusive" is, by definition, transphobic and hence that Option 4 provides the simplest correct statement of the matter. It just prevents it working in the other direction to support an incorrect claim that all transphobes are TERFs, but that was never part of my argument, so no problems there. Glad to have got this clarified. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The analogy with white supremacism doesn't work for two reasons. Firstly because whites are the dominant group, the group that holds power, which neither women nor feminists are. Secondly, racial supremacist organisations are not simply arguing that the interests of their racial group are distinct from others (ie they are not simply focusing on their own group and thus 'excluding' the interests of others). Racial supremacists are claiming be better than, and thus to have the right to rule over other groups. An organisation that existed solely to protect, to celebrate and advance the interests of Jews politically or culturally, would probably not be considered racist simply because it excluded Roma, another minority! Of course TERFs can be transphobic - just as my hypothetical Jews might be racist, but you are arguing that it is inherently transphobic to be more, or even solely, concerned with the interests of non-trans women or to think that the interests of trans and non-trans women sometimes conflict. Pincrete (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

For all the "Option 1.1" voters: we don't have the sources that, besides feminists, the people labeled TERFs are typically considered transphobic. It's mainly just feminists and trans activists (which pretty much all identify as feminists). Just stating "others" is far too vague and implies that everyone besides accused TERFs thinks they are transphobic, which is false. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems like WP:LABEL pretty clearly governs this type of situation. As a term, transphobic is "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." So if we include it, it requires in-text attribution to someone. I'd caution against text that makes it seem like TERFs are the only people who think that TERFs are not transphobic. Attribution to the effect of "everyone in the world thinks that XYZ people are bad, except for XYZ people" defeats the purpose of WP:LABEL. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 22:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

It's my opinion that "everyone in the world thinks that XYZ people are bad, except for XYZ people" is totally acceptable in a case where it's possible to source that everyone or nearly everyone who is not XYZ thinks XYZ people are bad. Regardless, that's not the situation we have here: we instead have the much more frustrating situation where we can definitely source that many/most of the people who have written about TERFs but are not themselves TERFs think TERFs are transphobic, but we can't source that any particular number of people does. Loki (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Except that it is not the case that many/most of the people who have written about TERFs but are not themselves TERFs think TERFs are transphobic. See The Economist, these seven women philosophers, the New Statesman, Inside Higher Ed, and Slate, just for starters. Your statement is inaccurate and you should revise it. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Several of the people you linked describe themselves as "gender critical", including several of the anti-trans Economist writers and the philosophers on the open letter. (So, for example, here's a Medium piece written by Kathleen Stock, who wrote some of the pieces in the Economist, and several of the philosophers in the open letter in which they describe themselves as "gender critical and radical feminist academic philosophers".) Or in other words, I think you've mostly just given even more evidence of what I said. Loki (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. If we set the philosophers to the side, you still have Slate, Inside Higher Ed, New Statesman, and, yes, The Economist, which said in its own voice that TERF is a slur and is used to silence debate. And that is without looking for new sources. So it is still false that many/most of the people who have written about TERFs but are not themselves TERFs think TERFs are transphobic. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

But noen of those disagree that to use the term TERF is to call someone transphobic, which is what the contested sentence says. Those sources disagree about whether TERF applies to the people it's used to refer to or over whether the word is useful at all, not over whether someone who uses it is calling the person they apply to transphobic. Otherwise, if we go by your logic and your preferred version, you are saying that only some people think that the term TERF is an accusation of transphobia, which means that TERF itself would not be a WP:LABEL (because the implication of your preferred version is that there are people who do not think that TERF is an accusation of transphobia and, instead, think that it is a neutral label.) Surely that isn't your position? It feels like you are taking sources that disagree with the use of the word TERF and trying to use them to argue that TERF does not mean anything insulting (ie. only some people think it's an accusation of transphobia), which is the opposite of what those sources say. --Aquillion (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

TERF's in their own words, from what I have read so far, espouse a belief, about transgendered women (i.e. male to female)that is hurtful and harmful to some.Some being those who might care about the opinions of TERF's, or maybe some who might seek admiittance to womyn only events like the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival. But the TERF ideology/sentiment bleeds over to female to male transgendered. If TERF's reject transwomyn, do they then accept transmen? Can a transman, having personally experienced womanhood, not be a feminist in the eye of a TERF, since they believe that men can't be feminists? Perhaps this isn't the place, since WP is all about(supposedly) a NPOV and a voice, but sometimes the situation demands inquisition, exposition, questioning and nuance to get at the heart of these problematic terms, and TERF is only one such in WP and the world. Personally I object to words ending in phobic, unless they refer to conditions that involve real fear,like agoraphobic, arachnaphobic because not all bias and prejudice stems from fear, but I also understand that the limits of our vocabulary sources resulted in the invention of such terms to convey social disapproval of a persons actions, and inputed or derived beliefs. Oldperson (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: The misunderstanding of some words ending in -phobic is common; but the fact is, words mean what they mean, that is to say, they mean what people use them to mean. Decomposing them into their constituent parts in an attempt to force them into what they ought to mean, simply isn't a valid way to look at meaning. You are right about arachnophobia and agoraphobia; they are specific phobias or anxiety disorders classified in the ICD-10 (here).

The other sense of -phobia as hatred, as in xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, and the like, are not classified in the ICD (or DSM) afaik. Immigrants, and gay or transgender people, have a lot more legitimate reasons to fear those folks, than the other way round. You are also right that they are not "phobias" in the way that the ICD 10 disorders are, but the words exist all the same, and they mean what they mean, whether we object, or not. But from your "I also understand..." comment, it sounds like you know all this already; and you're just kind of grousing about it. Sort of like, you know—an old person.

. Mathglot (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to put this here: as of literally today, Vox has an article out that calls TERFs/gender critical feminists "transphobic". (It's also a really comprehensive source for both this article and feminist views on transgender topics, so, good job Vox.) Loki (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC) LokiTheLiar

Great article. Thanks.Oldperson (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Interesting article but "This unholy alliance" - does that sound like a factual description? It reads as an opinion piece by a trans advocate rather than someone summarizing scholarly literature. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it's basically subject to the same caveat we have for Vox over at WP:RSP: Vox is considered generally reliable. It is often considered a partisan source, particularly regarding American politics. It's reasonably clear that the author of the article did journalistic due diligence including contacting WoLF for a statement. It's also reasonably clear that the author is taking a side in this dispute. That being said, being WP:BIASED does not mean we can't use a source, especially a source that's otherwise quite comprehensive. Loki (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Someone else read the same Vox article and wrote about it and the writer. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The survey question states that User:Darryl Kerrigan proposed Option 1.1: "feminists who espouse sentiments that others consider transphobic."
I proposed another option in my response to this survey (4 September 2019): feminists who espouse sentiments considered transphobic by transgender advocates.
As with Kerrigan's option, there's no reason this description cannot be proposed as Option 1.2 or Option 5. Pyxis Solitary yak 23:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I added that because other people supported it without me adding it. That being said, if you really wanna I can add an option 5. Loki (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

As I said: there's no reason this description cannot be proposed as Option 1.2 or Option 5. So ... yes. Pyxis Solitary yak 01:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for adding Option 5. You forgot to indicate after the original timestamp that the RfC was modified on 23:44, 5 September 2019 (WP:REDACT, WP:RFCQ). Pyxis Solitary yak 04:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I have just realized that my recent edit ([48]) touched a section that was subject to this RFC. If someone thinks it affects the course of the RFC, feel free to revert it. --MarioGom (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Already reverted. The problem I see with the current version is that it implies that the considering TERF as a slur is completely fringe, but it is a matter of wide debate even in some mainstream media. --MarioGom (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

MarioGom, it might be good to vote in the survey. Otherwise your opinion here will likely be overlooked at closing. -Crossroads- (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

What about the tweak to Option 1.1: "feminists who espouse sentiments that some consider transphobic" mentioned by User:May His Shadow Fall Upon You? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

If other [X] might imply all of group [X], then some is strongly implying a minority. The most neutral phrasing in regards to numbers would be a number of [X]. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Transmisogyny

In the discussions so far, I'm surprised that the term transmisogyny hasn't come up. Because in fact, when the term transphobia is used as a way to characterize the attitude of some radical feminists (whether rightly, or wrongly), what is almost always meant here, is transmisogyny instead. Sometimes the conflation in terms is intentional, and done by some exclusionary radical feminists who are transmisogynist, precisely in order to point out how they are not transphobic: namely, they accept trans men in their spaces, ergo, not transphobic. (I don't have a source or diff at hand, but this is well attested, and I will get links if needed.) But this is sophistry. This "not transphobic" argument is completely bogus and disingenuous on their part, but can only be properly understood in analyzing what they mean when they say "not transphobic". (Spoiler: they mean, "not always transphobic, because I don't exclude trans men".)

The confusion arises, because in the original coinage of the term, Viv created "trans-exclusionary radical feminists". What this really meant, was "trans women exclusionary" but her version sounded better and was shorter, and when she coined it, there was no reason in the world to choose a longer name that no one expected would gain somewhat wide currency, and that was even more of a jawbreaker. This came up primarily in connection with Michfest, Camp Trans, and all that; everybody knew what was meant. Radical feminists, especially radical lesbian feminists, may not be too happy with trans men all the time ("traitors", and all, dontcha know...), but to many of them, possibly most, trans men are womyn-born-<womyn-or-something>s, so somewhat or wholly acceptable in radical lesbian spaces (at least, the gynephilic trans men). After all, if you're essentialist, once a womon-born-womon, always a womon-born-womon. If one hews to a very strict definition of "transphobic", then if someone isn't phobic to 50% of a category (the half of transgender individuals who are trans men), then one has a tough time making a general "transphobic" label stick. At least, that's their hope. Their claim is, I'm not transmisandrist, ergo, I'm not transphobic. It's their, Get-Out-Of-Transphobia-Jail-Free card.

In my opinion, this conflation of terms and differing interpretations of the same term, are at the root of some (not all) of the disagreements above, and hasn't been factored in at all. The argument of those who reject the term transphobia for their beliefs or behavior, fails wrt transmisogyny, imho; at least in most cases. Whether or not it fails in every case, is at the heart of some of the other disagreements above; but that's a separate issue. Mathglot (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not 100% clear on the specific differences of the terminology but I think this may be another one of those subset thingies. If transmisogyny is a specific rejection of trans women, and transphobia is a general rejection of all trans people, then transmisogyny would be a subset of transphobia. After all, to go back to the parallels with racism, we call somebody racist if they discriminate against or denigrate any ethnic group(s). They don't have to hold a grudge against all, or even a majority of, ethnic groups other than their own to qualify. There is no 50% threshold here. Take the example of an anti-Semite who is not obviously racist against black or Asian people. Such a person is seemingly not racist against the vast majority of the non-white population but would anybody seriously argue that they are not a racist? I doubt it. A racist is anybody who does any racism and a transphobe is anybody who does any transphobia. This doesn't seem to steer us away from using the word "transphobic" at all. More to the point that is the word the references seem to use.

Obviously, the differences in the TERF positions on trans men and trans women can, and should, be covered in the body of the article and if RS sources call some of it transmisogyny then we should follow the sources on that. (My personal view, as a cis man with no direct experience of this, is that the trans men have it at least as bad as the trans women under the TERF position, in theory although not in practice. Certainly, I think I'd rather be excluded from a clique than be invited in to it just so that that I could be misgendered, erased and generally abused.) --DanielRigal (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Daniel, pretty much all of your assumptions are on the mark, as is your analogy to racism. The point is, that there is a fake argument of "non-transphobic" being used by some, and as you point out, someone who is racist against one group, "is racist"; full stop. Your conclusion that it doesn't steer us away from "transphobic" if that's what the sources say, is also correct (that was the bit I left to "a separate issue"). The main point, was to call out the phony-baloney, "I'm not transphobic" argument, and where it came from, and what their reasoning is. This was an attempt to elucidate that. Perhaps it's too fine a point. Mathglot (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Then what does misogyny by trans women fall under? Because trans women who advocate violence against women they consider TERFs (such as the Degenderettes, for example) is identical to the misogyny of males who inflict or want to inflict violence towards women. Pyxis Solitary yak 01:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary:, that would be a type of self-hatred, but if a trans woman discriminated against or hated women as a class, then that would simply be misogyny, and if the discrimination was against trans women specifically, then they would be transphobic. I don't think there's a term for someone who discriminates against women they consider Terfs, or if there is, I haven't heard it. MisoTerfist? Mathglot (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

To my knowledge, "TERFs" have not proposed violence against trans women or made death threats against them. The same cannot be said of all of those who disagree with them. There's obviously a new term awaiting creation for trans women who hate trans-exclusionary radical feminists to the point of brutality. Pyxis Solitary yak 02:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, this is the "TRA" conspiracy theory is it not? That isn't a thing and it isn't going in the article for that reason. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

What is "the "TRA" conspiracy theory"? Pyxis Solitary yak 06:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

It is a bit off-topic to dig into in any detail here, but basically it is the claim (either advanced sincerely or otherwise) that there exists a "large and well funded trans lobby" which exercises great power in nefarious ways for nefarious purposes. When those purposes are specified they tend to be framed in the terms of a "they are corrupting our youth" narrative. The basis of the alleged "power" is never explained clearly but a vague conspiracy is either claimed or alluded to. This seeks to blame many of the usual targets of far-right conspiracy jibber-jabber, normally dressing it up to sound a bit less obviously far-right to a more progressive audience. This conspiracy theory exists in an attempt to flip the narrative and enable the oppressor to pretend (and maybe even convince themselves) that they are the oppressed and to blame the real victims for that claimed (and maybe even perceived) oppression while ignoring/erasing their real status as victims. If that sounds directly parallel to the Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy theory of the Nazis, and the nonsense of anybody who bangs on about the "homosexual agenda", then you get the general shape of the idea and what it is intended to achieve.

Bringing it back on topic for Wikipedia, this explains why attributing anything to a monolith of "trans rights activists" without being clear about (and providing references for) who we are talking about is unacceptable. Whether intentional or not, doing so has the subtle effect of introducing the language of this baseless conspiracy theory into Wikipedia and has the effect of lending it credibility. Our article on the Nazi Party does not say that "they struggled against the power of the Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy" because there never was any such thing and we don't give credence to such propaganda. Similarly we can't throw the phrase "trans rights activists" around here in a general/monolithic sense and certainly not simply to mean anybody who opposes transphobia.

More generally, we need to take a little care with the word "activist" in any context, on any article, as it can be weaponised in bad faith against anybody who disagrees with something whether they are actually an activist or not. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

There may not be "a "large and well funded trans lobby"" ... but there are trans activists on the other side of the seesaw. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Pyxis solitary: trans-exclusionary feminists do not have to advocate violence against trans people, as they have their cultural conservative allies who would not hesitate to do that for them. Also, your equation of some trans women ("Degenderettes") allegedly advocating violence against some cis women ("TERFs") as "identical to" the misogyny of male-gendered people against women seems both inaccurate and deliberately offensive.

A more accurate parallel would be women of one racial or cultural group who have advocated violence against women of another cultural group whose gendered norms they do not accept or respect (such as mainstream western women advocating violence against Hijabi women, for example: the category is discouragingly easy to populate. Newimpartial (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

"trans-exclusionary feminists do not have to advocate violence against trans people, as they have their cultural conservative who would not hesitate to do that for them". What conservatives latch onto and what they may or may not do is irrelevant. The only relevant fact here is whether those being tagged as "trans-exclusionary radical feminists/TERFs" espouse/promote/support violence against transgender women. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

However, that definition of "relevance" does not include your comment here that equated trans activist violence against TERFs with misogynist violence against women. If you agree that your earlier comment is irrelevant, then we are all good. :) Newimpartial (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Feminists do not advocate violence against women, even trans women. Many anti-TERFs advocate violence against TERFs. So as much as you would like to compare apples with oranges, the fact remains: trans-exclusionary "feminists" do not preach violence against trans people. And adding conservatives into the mix remains irrelevant. Pyxis Solitary yak 23:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Utter nonsense, provide proof of both of your assertions, Here is an article that refutes your claim. TERFS beat Radfem for protecting transwoman against their assult https://www.transadvocate.com/that-time-terfs-beat-radfems-for-protecting-a-trans-woman-from-assault_n_14382.htm Oldperson (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Um. Are you aware that the term "TERF" did not exist in the 1970s? Cristan Williams uses the term TERF (of course) and the 1973 WCLC Robin-Tyler-to-the-rescue story is mirrored numerous times on the web. The Gorgons was a Seattle lesbian separatist collective (relocated to Berkeley in 1978), and if it's true that they made threats of violence against Sandy Stone it was the antithesis of feminism. Pyxis Solitary yak 05:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Despite the attempts on the part of editors to sound professional and neutral. There is no neutral ground on subjects such as transgender, TERF, racism, religion, politics. (I can make an exception, in some isnstances for politics though). An editors bias, pro or con,is evident from their comments. A person is either accepting or rejecting. Those that accept are philic (coining a word?), those that reject are, for the lack of a better word, phobic. The phobics are obviously very adept at using the policies and guidance of WP to present a persona/position that is academic or neutral. But no one is fooled. The emperor is naked is a quite appropriate analogy, and so is a stuck pig squealsOldperson (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

It is difficult but not impossible to write objectively about something that one has strong opinions on. Pretty much any article on politics or religion is going to hit issues like this. It is not easy, but so long as everybody participates in good faith, trying to be as objective as they can while recognising that it is impossible to be truly objective, then we can write good, neutral articles together.

One specific difficulty we have on this article is that TERF is two different things which look pretty much the same from a distance. It is a view emerging from radical feminism that a small minority of feminists genuinely subscribe to. It is also a pose co-opted and insincerely adopted by the far-right as tool to try to split the LGBTQ community and sow discord among the people they regard as "degenerate", which is pretty much everybody except themselves. Our best approach is to be as objective as we can, to assume good faith if somebody disagrees with us, to be willing to rethink when we genuinely make a mistake, but also to be on the look out for bad faith attempts to deliberately derail our efforts. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

^^^This. Mathglot (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Many posts here supporting the terf position lack understanding of a key factor. That is the separation of violence and prejudice. A lot of violence does originate from prejudice, but it takes an extra step to translate that to violence, whether direct or structural/systemic. The fact remains that they seem to lack the understanding of the root of prejudice. They argue from the position that trans women inherently have prejudice toward cis women. Trans individuals do dislike anti-trans people and groups thereof (such as terfs). The reason they dislike them isn't because of prejudice.

If a trans woman detests a group that expresses transmisogyny, this is not because of the demographics of that group. She don't hate the prejudicial group inherently, she hates being mistreated for her demographic, which the prejudicial group does. Most groups (such as terfs) that express prejudice develop it from some kind of visceral disgust and/or philosophical incompatibility. This can be seen in the root of many prejudicial categories - sexism, racism, ethnocentrism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, etc.

However they are arguing from the starting position that equivocates anyone assigned male, whether a cis man or a trans woman. This position inherently hurts their own arguments, because it specifically equates the prejudicial sexism of cis men (a common misogynistic basis) to the reactive disdain of trans women (not based in misogyny). Furthermore, this position ignores that the transmisogynist inherently endorses structural violence against trans women using the exact same arguments and language that the cis male misogynists and white supremacists have used to attempt to rationalize their sexism and racism for centuries.Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 12:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a WP:FORUM to discuss the topic of transsexualism, or your rather convoluted theories of violence and prejudice. I would say that you have made a false equivalency between affirming that women are cis women (or affirming/validating womanhood) and negating the validity of minority groups (racism) or women (misogyny), they are not precisely analogous situations. A more analogous situation would be denying that Rachel Dolezal is black. Each topic needs to be treated in light of WP:LABEL on its own and in context. If there are an overwhelming number of scholarly sources that label trans-exclusionism as transphobic (or "hateful" as the article read at one point) that is fine, let's see the citations. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gwenhope: DIYeditor chastises Gwenhope, telling her that this is not a forum to discuss the topic of transsexualism and then goes on to do exactly that, espousing their own views.Oldperson (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: WP:FORUM, for example specifically says that articles aren't forums, but talk pages (such as this) are discussion forums if relevant to the article they stem from. Also in light of WP:LABEL, wording was carefully-chosen to avoid just saying "transphobe!" Regardless, I agree with @Oldperson: that the points expressed seem self-contradictory. WP:WEIGHT would say we don't give undue weight to minority views, like those this article categorizes. Given the official positions of many major medical organizations regarding trans individuals, thus the terf position is likely WP:FRINGE. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 18:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, I don't know what DIYeditor actually meant by their Rachel Dolezal reference, but if it represents a comparison between transgender and "transracial" identities it is not only a red herring but probably a violation of GENDERID as well. Newimpartial (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

MarioGom (replying here for formatting): Klan members (and white supremacists in general) very rarely describe themselves as "white supremacists". They generally prefer "white nationalist", "race realist" or some other euphemism. "Dictator" probably falls in to a similar camp. I agree that they aren't direct analogues, but having negative connotations is not reason for exclusion. Nblund^talk 14:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Nblund It is not a reason for exclusion, I agree. My point is that, while the three examples fall into quite different categories, they are well-established in reliable sources for a long time and that allows us to apply some verifiability and neutrality criteria. --MarioGom (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ContraPoints deletion

@Haukurth: given the highly-controversial nature of this page and all the points therein, wouldn't it have been better to discuss deleting this section regarding ContraPoints to try to fix it instead of just excising it? Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 19:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss it. Do you know what's going on with that quote that didn't seem to be in the source? Haukur (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

As for the video itself: If we were to include it as a source, what policy-based argument would we give for that? Haukur (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Haukurth: See my response to Nblund directly above. This is a talk page, not an article. While, presently, one can not use youtube as an RS, it is useful, and a short cut when the youtube presentation expands on and clarifies a subject, so no problem using you tube in a talk page, only on articles.Oldperson (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Haukurth and Oldperson:, currently WP:YTREF states that YouTube references must meet WP:SPS standards. Breadtube sources like ContraPoints or Philosophy Tube are interesting. Philosophy Tube cites constantly, so those citations could be used as references, for example. Both channels are run by graduate-degree philosophers. However, the issue with a lot of this is we're seeing establishment sources write a lot more favoring terfs, which can be seen as a form of punching down at trans people who are more disenfranchised. In the end, because trans folks tend to work through decentralized networks while terfs and other prejudicial individuals work through establishment systems, it could be that policy is specifically causing WP:UNDUE-weight to be given to anti-trans sources in this instance. Sources exist, decently-reputable ones, however due to their platform, they are inherently being suppressed, causing significant source-related bias. If this prevents us from giving voice to the trans community, perhaps it is time to WP:IGNORE. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 21:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC) (accidentally left unsigned, 17:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC))

Having trans perspectives here is definitely important and I've been looking for more of them. I found the following in "On liking women" by Andrea Long Chu, page 53: "They also don’t much like the name TERF, which they take to be a slur — a grievance that would be beneath contempt if it weren’t also true, in the sense that all bywords for bigots are intended to be defamatory." Haukur (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Gwenhope you forgot to sign your comment and I had to search View History.I think that I understand your comment about Youtube references. Apparently some youtube references can be used in article citations. Is that correct? However my statement was that comments on article talk pages are of a different nature, and dodn't require RS citations, in fact citations used in talk pages are few and far between, as they are mostly editors opinions and comments.Oldperson (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Haukur Gwenhope I visited Andrea Long Chu's page, via your link. And am totally confused. It appears that the page was edited into nonsense.

For one thing it appears that the article was writtern or heavily edited by a transphobe. I checked out one citation, to the American Conservative, written by Rod Dreher entitled Andrea Long Chu's Fake Vagina. and then in the last two sentences under Career is written

"Chu says that the treatments doctors have given him are making him sicker, even making him desire suicide. But if he wants to suffer and to die, then he should have that right. Satisfying desire is the only thing that matters.[15]

Chu wrote about her experiences as a teaching assistant for Avital Ronell at New York University, stating that based on those experiences she believed the accusations of sexual harassment leveled at Ronell by graduate student Nimrod Reitman.[16]"Oldperson (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, good catch. This American Conservative quote is kind of inflammatory and also somewhat confusing without more context. I've removed it. Haukur (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm the person who originally added the Contrapoints source, and my rationale is primarily that it's justifiable under WP:ABOUTSELF because the section is about the opinions of trans activists and Contrapoints is clearly a relevant trans activist. I think it's probably also justifiable under the ordinary SPS guidelines if we say the relevant field is "transfeminist activism": Natalie Wynn is a relevant expert on transfeminist activism whose opinions on that topic have been solicited by non-Youtube reliable sources (such as the several interviews in her article), but mainly publishes on Youtube in a similar manner to how Julia Serano has been published in third-party sources but the bulk of her work is on Medium. If there was a better source for that opinion I would take it, but unfortunately it's a very specific quote that's relevant to this article, and not really the sort of quote that she repeats in interviews a lot.

I also think that we really badly need sources like this: even past the balance issue, there are very few reliable sources about this topic at all. And this one was very good at summarizing the transfeminist argument against "TERF is a slur" directly and concisely. Loki (talk) 04:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a great video – lots of interesting thoughts and I love her costumes, her voice and her style. We could interpret the expert clause at WP:SPS so broadly as to apply to self-published YouTube videos as long as the subject is sometimes quoted in traditional media. But I think that goes beyond the intent of the policy and would make it hard to contain the spread of self-published sources in general. For example, if we included the video there would be a reasonable case to also, for balance, include Holly Lawford-Smith's self-published response to it: [49] Haukur (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Why would we? What is Lawford-Smith's expertise here? Has she been interviewed by, say, Vice or the New Yorker as an expert in the subject of TERFism? Loki (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

NPOV tag - do we need it?

The article isn't flawless but it seems to me that it represents a pretty honest effort to accurately summarize what reliable sources have to say about the topic. What do you think, can we remove the NPOV tag? Haukur (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Not unless we replace it with some other tags. The article still relies too heavily on self published sources and the views section is formatted disingenuously at best. AIRcorn (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in. It's true that we still have no consensus on the self-published expert sources but it seems to me that we are at least using them in a reasonably even-handed manner. The most substantial SPS are the two academic drafts which come to opposite conclusions on whether the word is a slur. Maybe this problem simply gets solved by those articles getting published... Maybe I'll write to the academics in question and ask how things stand.

Can you think of a good way ahead with the 'views' material? Are there particular paragraphs you feel are problematic or is it more an organizational issue? Haukur (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Mainly organisational. We have two sub sections (Opposition to the word and Responses to opposition), yet a lot of the content appears to be under the wrong heading. We should either have the responses together under the one heading, change the names of the sub-headings or get rid of them altogether (prefer the third option personally). My main gripe though is the overuse of WP:SPS and other not terribly reliable sources. AIRcorn (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the Opposition and Responses structure is somewhat unfortunate. But if we remove the subheadings we'd be left with an uncomfortably long section. Maybe some other subdivision would work. Haukur (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I know of one solution to a long section full of poor sources that would solve your concern. AIRcorn (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

FWIW I think the current heading is good. AIRcorn (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy to hear that! I think we've made some real progress. Haukur (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm believe that a big component of why that NPOV tag was put there in the first place is because of the wording that's being addressed in the above RFC. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The first paragraph is indeed a tough nut to crack. One thing that I think is less than ideal is that we currently wait until the second paragraph to clarify that TERF is an exonym and not a self-identification. Haukur (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps. I think the controversial nature of the topic will always boil down into someone/s with power taking a stand based on the sources that align with their beliefs. Such is navigating anything WP:FRINGE. I personally would merge into a more overarching, better-scoped article about Trans-Exclusive Feminism. I don't believe true NPOV is possible. It's just a goal to strive for, not a reality to be obtained. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 23:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

What Gwenhope said. (Not a question but agreement} Try as one might NPOV appears to be an impossibility. The rules are to AGF, assume NPOV, but face it, unless the subject is inane (like golf,soccer or watching paint dry..for me at least). NPOV is virtually impossible and a skilled editor can use WP MOS,NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:CIR, guidelines, rules to twist, revert, insert their particular POV all the while acting as though they are pretending to being neutral. Maybe it is time to merge the articles. In fact I don't understand why there are two articles on the same subject Oldperson (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

What two articles are you talking about? There is not another article covered precisely this topic that I am aware of. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

They're probably talking about Feminist views on transgender topics, but having seen this split off from there I think it was a definite good decision and do not support merging it back. I honestly think that article has some inherent WP:FALSEBALANCE problems from the title down. (And for what it's worth, I also think we need an article on the concept of trans exclusionary radical feminism because this article on the term only clearly is accumulating information that should go in that article.) Loki (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

We don't need an article on "trans exclusionary radical feminism". That would be an unneeded fork, with tendency to becoming a POV fork, of Feminist views on transgender topics. Also, above, under the ContraPoints section, you yourself stated, there are very few reliable sources about this topic at all. Without that, we cannot support an article on that topic. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

One question is whether there is a coherent enough and significant enough movement for us to have a separate article on. The most coherent summing up of gender-critical viewpoints I know of is in a Quillette article by Prof. Lawford-Smith. She gives a sort of manifesto in three paragraphs starting with "Gender-critical feminist philosophers, by contrast"[50] That gives some idea of the conflict points such an article could cover. Maybe it's worth quoting at some length: "Gender-critical feminist philosophers oppose a policy of self-identification alone, oppose the inclusion of male people in women’s sport, oppose the inclusion of male people in women’s single-sex spaces or services (such as changing rooms, and domestic-violence or rape shelters), and oppose open access to women’s single-sex provisions (such as women’s prizes or award shortlists). They are concerned with the impacts of the wider “gender-identity” narrative upon children and young people, and on gay and lesbian youth; particularly as it displaces the idea of gender as a set of harmful norms, imposed on the basis of sex. They urge caution in regard to policies that demand immediate “affirmation” in regard to trans-identified children. They deny that sex is socially constructed, and they make a sex/gender distinction. Such feminists generally use “man” and “woman” as terms relating to sex, not gender, and contest the idea that “transwomen are women” in the simple, sloganeering way that has become popular." She helpfully owns a bunch of positions there and paints an orderly picture of a particular worldview. So at least it's not a strawman defined only by its opponents. But I'm still not sure whether there is enough notability or quality sources to base an article on. Haukur (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that that would be better to include that source in Feminist views on Transgender topics, and keep this one to the terminology. Newimpartial (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Quillette is not a reliable source (they have been caught not only publishing articles without fact-checking when it fits their bias, but intentionally modifying them in deceptive ways.) They don't have the reputation for fact-checking or accuracy that WP:RS requires, and therefore can't be cited for anything. If someone's "manifesto" is worth covering and is genuinely representative of something, it will be cited in a source that does actual fact-checking and which has a reputation we can rely on for at least the basic assumptions it makes. --Aquillion (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't at all mean to suggest that we cite this here, I was just wondering about the possible basis for an article on gender critical feminism. Lawford-Smith is apparently working on a book on this topic. That would certainly be a much more solid source for that perspective than a Quillette article so maybe the scene will look different in a couple of years. For now I don't particularly think we need an additional article. Haukur (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I took the time to google and read Lawford-Smith's article Here my personal opinion is irrelevant,but I find myself somewhat in agreement with parts of her statement and disagreement with others, but I find her use of the term "male-people" confusing, maybe troubleseome. is she using Male-People was opposed to male-dogs or male-horses? In context the term is redundant and thus unnecessary so she is obviously trying to promote an ideological point of view, which I assume is that male is the sex assignment at birth and that biology is destiny. We are identified at birth by physicians and parents and thus socialized accordingly and that the process is inescapable, rock solid, or so it seems to be believed by some (such as TERFS). That ideology is of course a farce. [[51]] are just one example,socialized and raised as the sex determined by the physician at birth on the basis of his or her interpretation of genitalia, and there is still much that we do not know about chromosones, genes, DNA the science is young and more is revealed daily, such as epigenetics. The formation of one's identity is more complex. I do understand the psychological need for safe zones, but in truth there are no safe zones.Lesbians (even gender critical ones) are not safe from the predations of other lesbians. This is a difficult subject as evidenced by the length of this talk page. Where it leads, inevitably, is into the psychology (fears, childhood experiences, etc) of those who strongly hold opinions. And that is a place I do not think a TERF wants to go, but it is a place that transgendered people have obviously gone. Apologies I do not wish to make this a forum or soapbox,but am trying to bring to the fore the underlying issues and problems that have resulted in this drawn out discussion.Oldperson (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I find her use of the term "male-people" confusing, maybe troubleseome. is she using Male-People was opposed to male-dogs or male-horses? Yes, though she's not hyphenating it like you did. The form "X people" (black people, able-bodied people) is pretty common in social justice discourse, for the purpose of emphasizing personhood and therefore human dignity. -Pine457 (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Pine457Thanx. I must say this is the first time I have heard of this, using gender, or race, or status, as an adjective to the noun people. I would imagine if the conversation was about people,and not horses or dogs, then the fact that they were people would be a given, and the use of male people or female people was redundant. You are correct about the hyphenation, that was my error subconsciously influenced by Lawford Smith's usage. I do not think that there is a need to emphasize personhood in a article that deals with persons, but I do think that human dignity is relevant as it is something that is overlooked when it comes to transpersons. The social effect of the human dignity on transwomyn by TERFs, seems not to be much mentioned as compared to the effect on TERFs.Oldperson (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

As far as having a separate article, I can't say it better than Crossroads already did, above:

We don't need an article on "trans exclusionary radical feminism". That would be an unneeded fork, with tendency to becoming a POV fork, of Feminist views on transgender topics.

In a nutshell, that's it. Mathglot (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I will say part of the issue relies on framing. The aforementioned page basically uses language to partially sanitize the topic, which anyone who goes to that article realizing it's mostly just anti-trans positioning. I think it's important that the WP:WIKIVOICE we use correctly labels terf-ism/gender-criticality as a specific type of ideology. Right now we treat these anti-trans viewpoints as some disparate individual opinions of people under the "feminist" label. I substitute and wonder what many would say if, for example, we treated the various "race realists" as individualistic opinion instead of part of the larger white supremacism ideology, or if the resurgent forms of neo-fascism rebranded under the alt-right moniker were treated as disjointed solo opinions. Not treating trans-exclusive feminism as a specific ideology in itself is not only disingenuous, but poorly-serves the primary purpose of being WP:HERE - building an encyclopedia. We are poorly served having TERF and Feminist views on transgender topics instead of Trans-exclusive Feminism. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 04:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gwenhope:, Thanks for your comment. While I don't disagree that framing (assuming I understand what you mean by that) can be part of the picture, I don't agree that there is a specific feminism-related ideology here. Remember, that when originally coined, TERF stood for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist"— that is, not ...feminism, but feminist. There was a reason for that: there is no "trans-exclusionary radical feminism", afaict, like there are Radical feminism, Liberal feminism, anarcho-feminism, Chicana feminism, and any number of other feminisms with a philosophy behind them (see the {{Feminism sidebar}} for more). "Homophobia" is not an ideology; "transphobia" is not an ideology; "xenophobia is not an ideology; there is no theory or study behind any of them. It's just a bigoted belief system. There are no -ism-like academic journals for it, the way we have Transgender Studies Quarterly, Journal of Homosexuality, Journal of Lesbian Studies, and so on. No "Xenophobic Journal", no "Journal of the American Homophobic Society", and no "Transexclusionary Quarterly". The content that would theoretically go in Trans-exclusive Feminism belongs instead in pieces distributed among Transphobia, Radical feminism, and Feminist views on transgender topics.

Now, if you meant an article "Trans-exclusionary radical femists", then I wouldn't necessarily object, but we couldn't have both TERF and that article. At least, an -ists article would have a title that corresponded to WP:NDESC, and TERF could either be a child article to its parent per WP:SS, or else be turned into a redirect to a section of that article. That's how I see it. Mathglot (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I pretty strongly agree with GwenHope here: trans-exclusionary radical feminism is pretty clearly a shared ideology which is much narrower than simply "transphobia". We have articles on other bigoted ideologies. Not all racists are fascists or identitarians but we have articles on fascism and identitarianism. Not all homophobes are religious but we still have an article on Christian fundamentalism. Loki (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

My position remains the same as when Mathglot quoted it. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

APPG on hate crime

A 2018 UK report by an all-party parliamentary group on hate crime noted that concerns had been raised about "'trans-exclusionary radical feminist' (or TERF) being used as a term of abuse". Among submissions which the group received were screenshots of social media posts containing "threats and encouragements of violence towards 'TERFs'". The report noted that it "can easily be argued that this constitutes hate speech" but not necessarily of a form that could be prosecuted under current law. (pp. 25–26) [52] [53]

What do you think of this one? Haukur (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I think "this constitutes hate speech" in that sentence refers to the social media posts that contained "threats and encouragements of violence toward 'TERFS'" (pg. 26), rather than the term itself. They're addressing "rising tensions" between trans activists and anti-trans feminists, but I think that would be outside the scope for this article. I would be hesitant to use this unless it received broader coverage in secondary sources. Nblund^talk 16:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, they do specifically note the term TERF itself being viewed "as a term of abuse" but certainly they must also be referring to the context in which it is used when they discuss the 'hate speech' issue. In any case, this was picked up by one opinion piece [54] and half of our article is opinion pieces anyway so I figured this one was at least worth looking into. Haukur (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. --MarioGom (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

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

How thoroughly has this been investigaged. I can't wrap my head around what appears to be a persecuted minority (transwomyn) engaging in death threats and the like in social media. Save that we all know that social media is populated with all sorts of critters. So does a post or two by some deranged Reddit, Facebook or Twitter user constitute hate speech and/or a threat. In fact the whole thing may be concocted as a false flag operation and have originated by a TERF who needs to prove that anti-TERFSare violent. There maybe some fringe trans that are emotionally derganded and tend to violence, but if so then they are extremely rare IMHOOldperson (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Have a look at https://terfisaslur.com/ and see if you think these are all false flags. -Pine457 (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Pine457So your evidence is what?Twitter. A platform on which any child, mental defective can post a screed under any user name? Twitter is a known venue for spleen venting. Not to be taken seriously unless one is POTUS.If I was so inclined Iam sure that I can dredge up similar threats against transwomen, how many TERF's have actually been killed? How many TERF's have actually suffered harm at the hands of transwomen.WanderingWanda do you know of any?Oldperson (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

This gives me my own idea for a website: whiteisaslur.com, collecting tweets of random people saying "punch white people", which, of course, proves that "white people" is a slur. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

If you collected a bunch of tweets saying things like "all white people deserve to be shot in the head" or "lesbians, would you kindly choke on my dick" then you would have collected examples of hate speech. -Pine457 (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Even though we have set a pretty low bar when it comes to sources here, I don't think much of the spectator blog. The report however seems like a decent source to use, although it only mentions TERF briefly in its 50 odd pages. Maybe a brief mention here. It would be good to use at the views article to describe the tensions between the two groups though. AIRcorn (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking through the report again I think it should be used. It is recent, reliable and neutral. The subject is hate crime in general, so it is telling that they mention TERF even if it is mainly focused on other hate crimes. While the submissions themselves are primary sources they offer expert analysis of them so in that aspect it is secondary. Probably one of the better sources brought forward. AIRcorn (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The TERF discussion there is brief but the report has some claim to authority and even-handedness and I see it as a notch above the opinion pieces we are so heavily basing our current text on. As you mentioned, it could also be a relevant source for the Feminist views on transgender topics article. Haukur (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Transphobe or Androphobe

Given that TERF's accept transmen, they aren't trans exclusionary. The fact that they deny the gender identity of transmen and transwomyn. Indicates that they are androphobes, The fact that they fear (discriminate) against even post operative (sexual reassignment surgery) transwomyn, puts them into a different class, since the object of their phobia no longer possesses the thing that they fear or despise.There are genetic women who have been raised and socialized as boys, and genetic boys raised and socialized as girls. Often on reaching their teens they reject their socialization. The same is true the opposite. Apparently Prof Lawford-Smith's problem and that of her "sisters" is a problem of their own construction. Especially ironic is the fact that they are not only allies,but providers of "raw meat" to the homophobes who have a case before the supreme court,which would roll back their own hard won rights. Maybe a "section The Contradiction of TERFism"Oldperson (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

TERFs don't actually accept trans men. A problem with the article, as it is now, is that it implies otherwise with this sentence: Some self-described gender critical feminists argue that they cannot accurately be described as trans-exclusionary since they are inclusive of trans men. Yet on NBC News you can see an anti-trans "feminist" angrily confronting a trans woman about young "lesbians" getting "double mastectomies". And recently, when a trans male student filed lawsuit against his school for refusing him the right to use the boys' bathroom, the transphobic Women's Liberation Front filed an amicus brief opposing the suit. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Allen et al. have this: This means it includes trans men (however much they might wish it didn’t, given that they generally won’t like to think of themselves as being female), and so is not ‘trans-exclusionary’ in any general sense.[55] So it's fairly well established that this theoretical inclusion isn't particularly desired. The current paragraph does try to make that clear but maybe we can do better. Haukur (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Well-meaning people can disagree about what acceptance means. Gender critical feminists generally think that transmen are women, and accept them as such, on the premise that feminism is a movement for the liberation of female people. Acceptance doesn't necessarily entail agreeing with people's beliefs about themselves. One common gender critical view is that consumerism encourages us all to view our bodies as bad and needing to be changed, as a result some people develop eating disorders, some obsess over exercise, some take pills, some seek plastic surgery. Women additionally notice that the female body is a frequent target for sexual harassment, and this begins at a young age. These factors can make a woman uncomfortable in a female body. But it doesn't follow that a woman wanting to be rid of her female body is therefore a man, and we don't have to say that elective double mastectomies are a good outcome. We can accept transmen by saying it's OK to be a woman, your body is not wrong and you don't have to drastically it. And WoLF's interest in that court case was not specifically in keeping girls out of boys' bathrooms, but in preventing a precedent that would then allow boys into girls' bathrooms. -Pine457 (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

We need to be careful how we word this. "Acceptance" or "inclusion" of trans people, in an article about trans issues at least, will be assumed by the reader to mean acceptance or inclusion of trans people as trans people, not as something else entirely. We need to take care not to mislead the reader. TERFs do not even believe that there is any such thing as a trans man, so I agree with WanderingWanda that we do need to reword the part saying "inclusive of trans men" as, by the TERFs' own definition, that phrase includes absolutely nobody at all and hence the objection we are reporting would seem to convey no actual information.

TERFs making a performance out of pretending to "accept" trans men as women is primarily just another form of rejection and invalidation. (I'm pretty certain that if trans men actually started showing up at TERF events, where they are theoretically welcome, then the pretence would collapse in an instant.) We need to be very careful of using words like "acceptance" and "inclusion" outside of direct quotes because that could mislead the reader into taking these, often insincere, claims at face value.

So how should we make the minimum acceptable tweak to "since they are inclusive of trans men" to resolve this while maintaining neutrality and not opening up a lot more problems? Ideally, we should be guided by the approaches we take on articles about religious subjects, where we are careful to describe claims and beliefs in ways that neither imply credence or incredulity. We can bypass the problem completely by replacing it with a representative phrase directly quoted from one of the references, presented in quotation marks. That is probably the best approach. Alternatively, we could consider a wording like "since they claim to be inclusive of trans men" (probably not ideal in terms of neutrality or comprehensibility) or "since they offer to include trans men, considering them to be women" (which seems a more clear and neutral way to make the same clarification). We could fudge it by saying "since they only exclude trans women" but that might not make the nature of the objection clear. Of these options, I think the direct quote route is the easiest way to achieve neutrality here. It gives the TERFs their say, in their own words, but not in Wikipedia's own voice. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I've tweaked the wording to make things clearer. (It now says "because they say they are inclusive" rather than "because they are inclusive".) (The paragraph still needs work tho, it's WP:WEASEL-wordy: "some people say this, some people say that".) WanderingWanda (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, Pine457, I'd like to ask that you please not refer to trans guys as "girls" and vice versa. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you point me to a Wikipedia rule that I broke there? -Pine457 (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I was asking you personally not to do it, because it's hurtful. But I'd say it falls under the WP:civility policy, which says to avoid disrespectful comments and derogatory references to groups. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:Civility concerns how we talk to and about other Wikipedians. Boy, girl, man, woman, these words are not slurs. They are descriptors, and their accuracy in these cases is an open question, on which well-meaning people can disagree. In discussing a non-Wikipedian on a talk page, I prefer to use the language which I believe is less confusing. -Pine457 (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe that WanderingWanda was correct. Your use of terms deliberately negate the identity of a transgendered person, and thus you are negating Wanda's identity. Show some respect for others, your excuse that your usage is less confusing doesn't cut the muster, unless you mean less confusing for the transphobic reader and of course yourself.By negating an identity "out there" you are negating an identity "in here"Oldperson (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Forgot to @Pine457:

I am not transphobic, and that is a personal attack against me. I believe that adults should be allowed to do what they want with their bodies, and that people should not be required to conform to sex stereotypes to be afforded the same legal protections as those who do conform. I think this sentiment is generally shared among the majority of the population who nevertheless do not believe that self-identification must determine others' language. There is widespread good-faith disagreement about these questions, and declining to conform one's own language to someone else's beliefs does not make one a bigot. If you wish to persuade me, there's a place for that. If you wish to complain about me, there's a place for that. I hope we are done here. -Pine457 (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

You say one thing, but think nothing of treading on the identity of others because your beliefs differ. Wanda told you that you wounded her, rather than apologize and correct you go on to rationalize your behavior, and continue to so again, this time claiming an attack on you, where this started with Wanda expressing her feelings that you were attacking her.20:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldperson (talk • contribs)

Wanda did not claim to have been personally attacked. I would discuss that with Wanda, if Wanda makes such a claim in the future. Preferably on my talk page. -Pine457 (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Wanda did not say that she was attacked, and I did not say that either. She said that your comments were hurtful, she explained why. Instead of apologizing you go on to rationalize and then go on the offensive. WP etiquette is for editors to be respectful to each other, so I have been told, not to use hurtful language that offends. I have gotten carried away and have offended then on sobering thought had to eat crow and apologize.20:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldperson (talk • contribs)

and I did not say that either. It was my understanding that you did: this started with Wanda expressing her feelings that you were attacking her. Anyway, I have read your comments, I disagree, and I think I've explained my position adequately. If you want something else from me, there are better places to discuss that. -Pine457 (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson:, to some extent, this discussion is a reprise of #Transmisogyny, above; so have a look at that discussion, also.

With respect to androphobe, in general, I disagree. Whereas some self-described "gender critical" individuals may be androphobic, certainly some are fine with men being men, as long as they don't try to pass themselves off as women, which they are not, by their way of thinking To me, it is clear that they are not androphobic, they are transmisogynist. Not the same.

As you say, they despise trans women even post-SRS (or don't despise them, but don't consider them women), so you're right that it has nothing to do with the possession of a penis. From their point of view, they are men, before and after. By that reckoning, self-described gender-critical women have the same point of view as that which was enunciated by Janice Raymond in 1979 in her book, The Transsexual Empire. As Raymond stated it then (by transsexual Raymond means trans women; the word didn't exist then):

All transsexuals rape women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves .... Transsexuals merely cut off the most obvious means of invading women, so that they seem non-invasive.

This is pretty close to the view of gender critical women towards trans women; it really doesn't matter if they are pre- or post-SRS to them; and therefore, deserving of being excluded from women's spaces.

While I don't necessarily disagree with WanderingWanda that some self-described gender critical women are transphobic even against trans men, certainly not all are; after all, they view trans men as women. Those that hold that view are transmisogynist and not transphobic.

As a side issue: it's interesting to me that Raymond isn't mentioned anywhere in this article, since TERFs are Raymond's fellow travelers and intellectual disciples. I'll have a look around, to see if their are some good sources that have made that connection. To me, nothing could be clearer, but perhaps it hasn't been written about yet. Mathglot (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC) redacted by Mathglot (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

MathglotI have to study to internalize and thoroughly understand your cogent response..Oldperson (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

So, there are some discussions out there about TERFs and Raymond in reliable sources:

targeted search – only 5 results, but uses Google's NEAR operator to search only for highly targeted results
regular search – about 140 results (the 3,840 count is wrong); these are pages that mention "Raymond" and "TERF" somewhere on the page, but maybe not together

Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot, you are probably one of the best editors on this page, but I have to disagree with your approach above. We should not be googling two terms to find links between them. It is basically confirmation bias and something which we run into a lot of problems with on controversial topics. We should be googling the topic of the article and using the results we find to write the article. AIRcorn (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree to the extent that you are raising a WP:DUEWEIGHT issue; but that's all it is. If the reliable sources are out there, and it's not a FRINGE view, but a majority or minority view, then it's fair game to be added to the article. The only remaining question is, how long, or short, it should be, wrt to other viewpoints. Mathglot (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure it basically boils down to a due weight issue. However, I do think the process is just as important, maybe even more so on an article like this, as the outcome. AIRcorn (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, Morris 2015, which I just added to the article, does mention Raymond. And I certainly wasn't specifically looking for Raymond or itching to add her to the article. But for what it's worth, I'm not sure if Morris is remembering the events correctly. She says TERF was first used for Raymond (and Morris seems basically okay with throwing her under the bus) but then it was used for Michfest-goers and at that point Morris feels it's an overbroad and insulting term. But the other sources we have indicate that Michfest was the target from the very beginning. Then again I suppose it's possible that Morris remembers earlier usage than the documented 2008 blog post. Smythe expresses some doubt that she coined the term so it might actually be older. Haukur (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Self-published sources currently used

As far as I can see we're currently using five self-published sources:

Allen et al. (academic draft article) [56]
Deborah Cameron (a self-published blog post) [57]
Davis and McCready (academic draft article) [58]
Rachel McKinnon (a self-published YouTube video) [59]
Julia Serano (a self-published glossary) [60]

WP:SPS says: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.[8] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.

We have enough traditionally published sources to establish the basic facts and to give a variety of viewpoints. In a situation like that, I don't feel there's a strong case for supplementing with self-published sources. But if we do then we should try our best to be even-handed about it. If Davis and McCready are worth a paragraph-length summary then Allen et al. probably are too. Those are the most detailed academic sources on the 'slur' question and I can sympathize with wanting to use them. Haukur (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

In fairness, The Allen citation is probably unnecessary because the IHE article contains the same quote. It might be worth pulling a brief, substantive argument from that article though, since it is cited by a secondary source. Serano's glossary entry is very similar to her argument in an editorial for The Advocate (see footnote), which is, in turn, cited by the TransAdvocate. Davis and McCready, and Deborah Cameron are the real edge cases, in my view - because neither is mentioned by a secondary source, and neither is a particularly central figure in the debate. Nblund^talk 19:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

In my view, Davis and McCready is not an edge case because, as far as I know, they are the only ones involved in this debate who have demonstrable academic expertise in semantics, which is the relevant discipline (or one of the most relevant disciplines) here. Given this fact, I don't think it is necessary for them to be cited by other interlocutors for their contribution to be significant in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Cameron is cited here (p. 19): [61] I guess we could add this as a source. Haukur (talk) 10:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

As for Marxist publications, I also just found this piece which turns out to be one of the most even-handed discussions of trans/feminist tensions that I've seen. Haukur (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

HaukurthDo you have a readable link or know how I can read it. When I click on it, the page is too small for me to read.Probably my lack of techno knowledgeThanx.Oldperson (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Haukurth Disregard. I figured it out,there was a download option at the bottom of the page. Took a look, the article is as you mentioned.Oldperson (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You say "we have enough traditionally published sources to establish the basic facts and to give a variety of viewpoints", but I don't think that's actually true. In the current version of the article we're citing mostly bloggers and opinion writers in the majority of the article.1There are very few actual academic sources on the term, and almost all of those are self-published. There are also few traditional news sources on the term (though there are plenty of editorials) and many of the exceptions go out of their way to say as little as possible.

I also want to point out: we cite the Guardian a lot in this article as a reliable source, but we have a reliable source (the American version of the Guardian) asserting that the editorial board of the British version of the Guardian is less reliable on this issue than its reputation would normally imply. And several other sources implying that the British press is in general uniquely bad on this issue, at the same time we cite the British press a lot. Which is to say, for several different reasons I think it's most accurate to say we have a bunch of consistently mediocre sources, as opposed to some good sources and some bad sources. All of our sources have problems and they are all roughly the same level of problem, which is why I don't think singling out the sources cited here is terribly helpful. Loki (talk) 04:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there is definitely a split between UK and US sources here with trans-critical perspectives seemingly making more appearances in UK media. But I don't think we can frame that as the UK sources being less reliable. As for mediocre sources you are right that the problems are not limited to those that are self-published. Prestigious traditionally published sources that deal with the subject in depth – that's something we could use more of. Hopefully some of the academic research manages to make its way through the publication process. Haukur (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The issue that I have is that we have UK non-specialist and op-ed sources being elevated to the same level as primarily US sources embodying more expertise. A kind of false equivalency is reflected in the article; I agree that scholarship should have the final word, as it develops. Newimpartial (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The cite to Allen et al is particularly worth giving a critical eye because, by my reading, it is the only source used to justify the current wording in the lead that in academic discourse there is no consensus on whether TERF constitutes a slur (it previously said that academics had rejected this view.) I think there are serious problems with taking Rachel McKinnon's peer-reviewed paper and casting doubt on it using a self-published reply. --Aquillion (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I would be okay with dropping all self-published sources, including both Allen et al. and Davis and McCready. In that situation we would certainly have to come up with something different for that part of the lead. As for McKinnon's article, it's certainly published but it's far less detailed than either Allen et al. or Davis and McCready. I also don't think it's peer-reviewed but since that question keeps coming up maybe we should find out for sure one way or the other. Haukur (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

If we dropped them all, we'd basically be deleting the complete other side of the argument and letting the people this article is about determine everything that is said about them. Somehow their (typically unacademic) opinions merit RS, but those who oppose their control of the conversation (with typically more nuanced and academic writing) deserve to be wholesale expunged. One would wonder why we have an article at all at that point, because we'd just have anti-trans propagandists controlling their own page and saying "No it isn't" to anything they don't like. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 18:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Just to add: Bettcher's article is peer-reviewed and so, at least arguably, our most authoritative source. It may merit more use than we are currently making of it. Haukur (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of which, Haukurth, that source is subscription-only to read based on current links, so someone with ECU or higher should probably add that url-access flag. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 07:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I see what you mean – but our Byzantine guideline for this doesn't seem to allow it: Template:Cite_journal#Access_indicators_for_named_identifiers. Have you obtained the text for yourself? I can send it to you if you'd like. Haukur (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

How does one describe a TERF without using the acronym TERF?

WP:NOTFORUM -Crossroads- (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

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

@Mathglot, Gwenhope, WanderingWanda, and Crossroads: As regards Haukurth's post here. A trans exclusionary radical feminist is indisputably an accurate term to describe transwomyn exclusionary radical feminists. The problem so far has been stopping at trans and not continuing with transwomyn. Gender Critical says nothing at all. All kinds of folk and groups are gender critical. It is vague and non descriptive. If one was to ask a TERF if she is in favor of excluding transwomyn from women's "spaces" she would say yes, ergo she is a TERF. If one does not like the label,then one should stop acting in such a way. One can't stop being lesbian or gay, can they? They can stop their behaviors, at great damage I must say, but they can't stop their being. There is no state of being for a TERF,it is simply a volunarily acquired social position, whether they adopt the term as a self description is irrelevant,it is in fact an accurate description of their social position.Oldperson (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a twist on the acronym that we in the trans community use that can be used to accurately describe terf-ism without using that term. While it is ostensibly derisive, many trans communities prefer to use the term "FART" to stand for "Feminist-Appropriating Reactionary Transphobe", which a good start to understand the ideology. As I've explained before in this page, they aren't typically actually critical of gender itself, just the trans expressions of gender (transgender). Basically you just have to describe them in their anti-trans ideology wrapped in vestiges of feminism. (Also, you don't need to use "womyn". That's a linguistic example of terf attempts to other trans folks.) Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 22:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gwenhope It is probably unacceptable to hold my sides laughing, but I can't help it - F.A.R.T. Thanks for the word on using womyn. I had no idea just trying to be relevant. I believe I have seen feminists use the womyn spelling. Oldperson (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I would like to remind people commenting on this thread that Wikipedia is not a forum. --MarioGom (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Not just this thread, but much of this whole talk page, let's not be selective. The question still has not been answered. The problem is that Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists, don't like being identified as such, at least out loud or with an acronym. There is a solution if one does not like being identified with an ideology, activity, movement then stop. OK the last bit was a bit of WP:FORUMOldperson (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I remember making a thread about the specific phonetic sound of the acronym being a part of the reason TERFs don't like being called TERFs. I don't know if any sources out there mention this... not that it's particularly relevant and could only act as a distraction from the topic and issues at hand, even though I think it could be a reason. As for "gender critical" arguments, TERFs typically use that in a way to disparage trans women who use prominent femininity in their image. Or, in simpler terms, "dress girly". The irony of this argument when used by TERFs has definitely been pointed out in RS, somewhere, but that is perhaps beyond the scope of this article. --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

For the risk of derailing, yet again, and making this yet another WP:FORUM, youre comment about"dress girly" raises the issue of "lipstick lesbians" or is this yet another case of double standards by TERFs?The first being acceptance of Trans-men.Oldperson (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

New Source (Earles, Jennifer)

Earles, Jennifer (2017-04-27). TERF Wars: Narrative Productions of Gender and Essentialism in Radical-Feminist (Cyber)spaces (PhD thesis). University of South Florida.

(Originally mentioned in § Bonnie J. Morris article, pinging @Haukurth: who was curious about the source.)

This 2017 dissertation delves deep into the online interactions and language of TERF and anti-TERF factions in various ways. It is written comprehensively, has a very academic tone, and is heavily cited. It also attaches ideological foundations for TERF-labeled ideology and situates them in the context of Lesbian Separatism and Radical feminism. Festival culture (such as mentioned by Morris) and other such histories are mentioned and arranged in context of Salon feminism. Unlike most of the activist sources, both sides are academically represented. Would be eager to hear other perspectives on this source. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 18:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! We have these perennial debates on the value of unpublished PhD theses. I'm on the glass-half-full side of that – they may not be 'published' and they aren't authored by established experts but they are usually pretty in-depth and they endure a level of scrutiny that I'd say is greater than the typical newspaper article that everyone thinks is fine as a source. So, at least at first glance, this looks like an acceptable source that could have relevance to several articles – though perhaps it doesn't have much about the word TERF as such. Haukur (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Some guidance at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems, according to these guidelines, that provided it has been vetted by a accredited institution and accepted via dissertation peer review, it would meet RS qualifications. However, we would need to determine whether this is a primary or secondary source. Regardless, many of the sources already linked here are primary, so it wouldn't be out of place if it was the former. Based on the WP:PSTS standards, Morris (above) appears more primary ("insider view of an event") while this source appears much more secondary. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 17:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I have used them before, but not as an actual source, but as a means to find better sources. Any semi decent PhD should have plenty of good references to draw upon. Just need to make sure you read the reference before citing it per "say where you read it". AIRcorn (talk) 07:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Anyway there is this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Trans+exclusionary+radical+Femeinists. I haven't looked at it yet, but it would be better than their unpublished thesis if it has something suitable in it on TERFs. AIRcorn (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a potentially interesting source for feminist separatism and feminist views on transgender topics. Haukur (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Regardless, I take issue with the labeling of "unpublished" for the original source, publicly listed and published online on an official university page after having undergone review of many advising professors. Interesting to get more sources from her, however. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 12:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Cosmopolitan article

Any opinions on this Cosmopolitan article? Or the response to it at AfterEllen? These have the virtue of being very new. Of course they mostly say things we already have and we don't need an endless parade of sources that say the same thing. But the Cosmo piece does have this:

So, to avoid all the confusion about slurs and names, let’s stop using the term TERFs and call them what they actually are – anti-trans activists. Giving them any association with feminism would be wrong, especially as many of their organisations are funded by anti-abortion and evangelical groups, and they rarely speak about anything other than denying trans people’s existence.

I don't think I've seen quite that point before. Haukur (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

That reduces everything down to it's essence.Oldperson (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

There's something ironically perfect about Cosmo, the flagship of the How to Please your Man genre, pretending to define the boundaries of radical feminism. Alas, I don't think it can be used for these claims. The Cosmo author gives no evidence to back up these assertions, and that matters, because WP:RSP says "There is no consensus on the reliability of Cosmopolitan. It is generally regarded as a situational source, which means context is important. The treatment of Cosmopolitan as a source should be decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on the article and the information to be verified."

Also, Viv Smythe is not an idiot. She knew very well who she was debating with. We should be very skeptical of any source which implies that Viv Smythe (or the actual coiner of the term, or really anyone else in those debates) was ignorant of what the debate was about. -Pine457 (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Whether Viv Smythe is an idiot or not is not up to you to decide and in that regard as to whether Cosmopolitan is a RS should be decided on a case by case basis. Who will be the decider? You. Another consensus vote? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not justification for deciding RS.Oldperson (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Very weak source. The statements that by denying trans women are women one is denying trans women exist and that TERFs have no association with feminism need some kind of scholarly support not just an assertion in a magazine of this ilk. We could attribute it by why even attribute an opinion piece in a magazine of this quality for a topic like this. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

A magazine of this "ilk". How pejorative. We aren't talking the Enquirer or the Globe, but a mainstream publication. Your proclamation that it is a "very weak source" is simply your opinion. Perhaps if it lended support the other way around,the source would be viewed differently. As to why attribute an opinion piece in a magazine of this quality. Who are you to judge the quality? The real question is the article valid or not. Disputing it's validity with ad hominems doesn't cut the mustard.Oldperson (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Cosmopolitan, April 2019. "When Your Dog Is A Capricorn And You're A Scorpio: Yes, Pet Astrology Is a Thing—and It Can Be the Key to Learning What Your Fur Baby Really Thinks About You."[62][63] -Pine457 (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I would like to state that most mainstream magazine sources have niche fillers. Horoscope-related things are common in most newspapers. We shouldn't focus on the fluff that most sources have. This is clearly not in the same category of articles. For example Teen Vogue used to be mostly fluff aimed at girls, but has become reputable in recent years for their coverage of serious topics. Does the magazine still have fillers, yeah? I think sources like these should be evaluated based on the individual article alone, but need not be discarded. As listed above by Pine457. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 02:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: The real question is not "is the article valid", whatever that means, but is it a reliable source, and is it WP:DUE to include. I'd say no. Cosmopolitan is not academic material or serious journalism, but devoted to celebrity gossip, selling beauty products, and dubious sex advice. Pine457 was giving their evaluation of the source, as they should. Your defense of the source is simply your opinion.

As for Teen Vogue, it's still fluff aimed at girls, but with a new ultra-woke veneer so people don't notice it's a marketing vehicle. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Horoscope-related things are common in most newspapers. But serious newspapers do not include articles suggesting that astrology actually works, as Cosmo does. Regardless, Cosmo's opinion on "who counts as a radical feminist" is as relevant as if Breitbart were to opine on "SWP or CPUSA: which communist party is the true vanguard of the working class?" -Pine457 (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The writer of the piece is Grace Walsh. The same author of in-depth, authoritative Cosmo articles: "What shoes do men hate women wearing? Survey says wedges are a turn-off!", "ASOS is selling strap-on dinosaur tails and no one knows why", "The 23 creepiest dolls you've ever seen in your life", etc. I can't wait for the next groundbreaker Cosmo article: "Should you add lube to your dog's red rocket before mating with a kennel hottie?" Pyxis Solitary (yak) 06:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Can we please stop scraping the bottom of the barrel. I thought we were looking for more academic sources. Anyway consensus seems to be that its use is situational. [64] AIRcorn (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, looks like we have a lot of opposition to citing Cosmopolitan here. I'll not pursue that further. Haukur (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm surprised you're not pursuing it. Despite opposition to citing Morris above, you still added it to the main article anyway. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 12:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, sometimes it's just a numbers game. I'm positively inclined towards using that Cosmopolitan article and so are you and Oldperson. That's three editors. But Pine, DIYeditor, Pyxis and Aircorn have come out strongly against it. That's four editors. So I think it's probably not going to work out. For the Morris article, there seemed to be more support. But I do take your reservations seriously and I would like to work with you on making sure that the views you sympathize with are fairly represented, with the best available sources. Haukur (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC

@Haukurth and Gwenhope: Come on let's be fair. Transfolk are a real minority, totally outnumbered by their "opponents". Articles like this generally attact editors who have an interest in human sexuality, advocates and opponents. The opponents obviously outnumber the advocates, so saying that it is a numbers game is disingenuous (whether it is mean t to be or not..AGF) So you really can't use the numbers as a rational. It is not even handed or fair, as the advocates are apparently outnumbered.Oldperson (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: Which editors do you think represent "opponents" of "human sexuality"? -Crossroads- (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to make sure to represent feelings of other editors that have been express to me about neutrality of writing and sourcing. This is a controversial article and since you started editing, some have felt slighted by the increase in anti-trans/pro-TERF sources and the removal of pro-trans/anti-TERF sources. Just trying to make sure our scrutiny with sourcing is meted out equally in accordance with policy and what is reasonable. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 13:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC) (P.s. It would be nice if you checked out those new source possibilities I've located in that new section below.)

I really am trying as hard as I can to evaluate sources fairly based on their prestige and relevance. To mention some sources I've been promoting that I think cannot possibly be construed as "anti-trans/pro-TERF", I added a summary of Rachel McKinnon's article, [65] I added a quote to Andrea Long Chu [66] and I've been saying an article by Talia Mae Bettcher is our best source and should be used more. [67] I've also been trying to understand more of the context by following up on slang you've used and YouTubers you've mentioned (I now know what 'truscum' means and I've now watched Blaire White hilariously visit the men's restroom). But it's true that a majority of the new sources I've come upon have been what you perceive as "pro-TERF" sources. Maybe there's something biased about the selection of sources in ProQuest, may main hunting ground. Maybe previous editors had already found most of the best "anti-TERF" sources so a few more voices from the other side were needed for balance. I don't know exactly. But I'm happy that you're bringing up new academic sources and I look forward to seeing what use we can make of them. Haukur (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gwenhope: I've never heard of this "some" in since you [Haukurth] started editing, some have felt slighted by the increase in anti-trans/pro-TERF sources and the removal of pro-trans/anti-TERF sources. This vague statement looks like casting aspersions to me. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Nothing of the sort. Other users have, for example, posted things on my talk page and I have to remind them about WP:CABAL and other such things. So I'm just trying to do my best to balance their concerns with neutrality and good faith. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 18:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly who are these "other users"? Because of your comment I looked at your Talk page. I also took a look at its revision history.
You created your account on 23 August 2014. Since that date, 9 Users have posted a message on your talk page (bots are not counted): between 7 January 2015 – 15 February 2018, 4 Users visited your talk page. The next time a User left a comment was 3 August 2019. Between that August date and now there have been 5 Users on your talk page. Of these, User:Oldperson first appeared on 15 September 2019‎ and since then has been the most frequent visitor. Even if you delete comments or archive them, anyone can see what transpired on your talk page because it remains a permanent record in its history. The only editor you've offered advice to is O. And whatever you may be doing off-wiki with other editors, if you are, don't bring it here. Btw, I don't have User talk pages on my watchlist. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 13:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the linked diff, I will only say that everyone should stop personal attacks and conspiracy accusations. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Potential New Sources

I've been scouring the web for new sources that might be useful for this article. Sadly, most are hidden behind paywalls and I cannot evaluate them. If someone with access would do so, that might be helpful.

McConnell, Elizabeth A.; Odahl-Ruan, Charlynn A.; Kozlowski, Christine; Shattell, Mona; Todd, Nathan R. (2016-01-02). "Trans women and Michfest: An ethnophenomenology of attendees' experiences". Journal of Lesbian Studies. 20 (1): 8–28. doi:10.1080/10894160.2015.1076234. ISSN 1089-4160. PMID 26701767. - Relates to Morris article
Beemyn, Genny; Eliason, Mickey (2016-01-02). ""The intersections of trans women and lesbian identities, communities, and movements": An introduction". Journal of Lesbian Studies. 20 (1): 1–7. doi:10.1080/10894160.2015.1076232. ISSN 1089-4160. PMID 26701766. - Explores interaction between trans and lesbian identities, communities, and the conflict and overlap between.
Hines, Sally (2019-02-17). "The feminist frontier: on trans and feminism". Journal of Gender Studies. 28 (2): 145–157. doi:10.1080/09589236.2017.1411791. ISSN 0958-9236. - Discusses TERF and "ongoing hostility between sections of feminism towards trans communities, and particularly feminist antagonism towards trans women"
Myfanwy McDonald BA (Hons)/BCA, PhD (2006-07-18). "An Other Space". Journal of Lesbian Studies. 10 (1–2): 201–214. doi:10.1300/J155v10n01_10. ISSN 1089-4160. PMID 16873221. - examination of the effects of trans inclusion and exclusion in lesbian spaces and how those policies affect both cis lesbian and trans women communities
Critical Realist Published Debate Regarding TERF and Transgender in the Journal of Critical Realism
1. Pilgrim, David (2018-05-27). "Reclaiming reality and redefining realism: the challenging case of transgenderism". Journal of Critical Realism. 17 (3): 308–324. doi:10.1080/14767430.2018.1493842. ISSN 1476-7430. - Anti-trans, pro-TERF
2. Summersell, Jason (2018-05-27). "Trans women are real women: a critical realist intersectional response to Pilgrim". Journal of Critical Realism. 17 (3): 329–336. doi:10.1080/14767430.2018.1493884. ISSN 1476-7430. - Pro-trans, anti-TERF
3. Pilgrim, David (2018-10-20). "The transgender controversy: a reply to Summersell". Journal of Critical Realism. 17 (5): 523–528. doi:10.1080/14767430.2018.1539825. ISSN 1476-7430. Anti-trans, pro-TERF
4. Summersell, Jason (2018-10-20). "The transgender controversy: second response to Pilgrim". Journal of Critical Realism. 17 (5): 529–545. doi:10.1080/14767430.2018.1555347. ISSN 1476-7430. Pro-trans, anti-TERF

Any help with these are appreciated. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 13:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Terrific work!! The term TERF appears in the article by Hines and in both articles by Pilgrim. Those look like excellent sources. The others don't seem to have the term but they look like good sources for other articles. Is it okay if I send you some further information by e-mail? Haukur (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Of course you may. We probably shouldn't obsess over the term as much as the ideology the terf describes and represents. Note: I am very hesitant to use Pilgrim without Summersell because the former is actively anti-trans and his points, while not a feminist source, does repeat some of same claims of existing TERF sources we have. His novel claim is that that critical realist philosophy is akin to terf philosophy, which Summersell disagrees with heavily. Also by directly listing replies, Summersell is necessarily talking about the same "terf" people that Pilgrim does. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 13:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll read through their debate and see what I can make of it. But we keep coming back to the issue that the current article is about the word TERF whereas you'd like to have more content on the people referred to as "TERFs". I'm not sure how best to address that. Haukur (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

It is difficult, to say the least, to have an article about TERF’s without articles about people referred to as TERF’s After all the whole article is about Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs)who object to being called TERFs.Oldperson (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Yet again I am having trouble following you. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

We address it by sticking to what we have already done and decided - this article is about the word, only. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It obviously is more than that. It always has and it always will be. Because the word is loaded, controversial, and has a ton of meaning attached. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 06:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, going beyond should not be a problem as long as original research and WP:SYNTH are avoided. --MarioGom (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Bonnie J. Morris article

Morris, Bonnie J. (July–August 2015). "The Hijacking of Lesbian History". The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide. 22 (4): 13–15.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)

I think this is a pretty good source. The author is a well-known scholar, the publication is reputable and the content is in depth. It's also not British, which adds some diversity to sources critical of the term. But before making use of this in the article I wanted to give people the chance to take a look. I can access this through ProQuest and if you can't I'll gladly provide you with the text. Just toss me an e-mail and I'll send you a pdf. Of course, if you subscribe to the journal itself you can also access it there: [68]

A search for 'TERF trans' on ProQuest yields more than 2000 results. I have not been searching particularly for sources critical of the term but that viewpoint does seem to come up more in this database than sources promoting or defending the term. On the other hand there are a number of sources which use the term without any particular caveats and thereby implicitly endorse it. As an example, here's one in Spanish: [69] Haukur (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Haukurth: I'm willing to review the source. Feel free to use the "email this user" link on my userpage. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 22:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Cool! Sent. Haukur (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

http://www.glreview.org/wp-content/uploads/DigitalEditions/mtdownload7894_2015.07.01_11.55/files/assets/common/downloads/page0013.pdf
http://www.glreview.org/wp-content/uploads/DigitalEditions/mtdownload7894_2015.07.01_11.55/files/assets/common/downloads/page0014.pdf
http://www.glreview.org/wp-content/uploads/DigitalEditions/mtdownload7894_2015.07.01_11.55/files/assets/common/downloads/page0015.pdf.
Whoever uploaded the article didn't know how to upload all three pages together. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 04:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

That's terrific! I don't suppose there's a citation template that can handle three links so I guess we use some ad hoc solution? Haukur (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:CITEBUNDLE:

<ref>Morris essay:

{{cite web|
{{cite web|
{{cite web|

</ref>

Pyxis Solitary (yak) 11:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Haukurth: I think this source is disingenuous, sometimes self-contradictory, and extensively WP:FRINGE. The leading paragraph literally bends over backwards to try to say while technically they're not anti-trans, that everything is de facto anti-amab and thus anti-transfemme. In fact, the festival is specifically anti-trans in policy. This is just one of a list of false claims and notions put forth, which are considerable:

Claims that criticism over the festival's trans-exclusive culture is thinly-veiled lesbophobia: Michigan’s critics view the festival’s impressive survival into its fortieth year as a trans-phobic failure rather than as a lesbian success.
Claims that TERF is a brand-new term meant to target festival-goers (factually untrue), inherently problematic, and will be applied to anyone who attends womens'/lesbian festivals (factually untrue). …the newly constructed term “TERF”—Trans Excluding Radical Feminist — will live on as the problematic definition of those who attended festivals in our time.
Claims that TERF ideology is inherent to the lesbian community TERF is an important new slur, emblematic of the unresolved tensions between our LGBT community’s L and T factions. and TERF is a unique new insult for non-transgender lesbians by other LGBT activists… (this latter claim is wholly false, the term TERF has nothing inherently to do with lesbians)
Claims that TERFs are every radical feminist from second-wave era (which is patently untrue) The TERF definition ends up being pretty much every radical woman from the era of radical feminism…
Claims of criticism of trans-exclusive behavior in modern festival activity as retroactive repression and erasure …shaming and silencing every woman who has experienced the Michigan festival effectively erases almost anyone who dipped a toe into lesbian culture in the 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s.
Claims historical significance makes one immune to modern criticism But instead of being thanked or celebrated (or written into history), America's festival artists are being attacked, threatened, and boycotted; they're being depicted as the enemy within by LGBT institutional leaders.
Claims that criticism of modern transphobia are akin to labeling lesbians/feminists as androphobes Too many progressives are simply reintroducing old right-wing attacks on lesbians as ugly, outmoded man haters.
Misunderstanding the term "TERF" completely like a conspiracy Blaming an imaginary cabal of old women for stalling progress… (TERF ideology is just that, an ideology. There are TERF groups which specifically try to out, shame, and remove trans people, especially trans women, from every sphere they can. However it talks about an ideology not an organization.)

In addition, the source hyper-focuses on one specific women's music festival instead of actually talking about the term. It's written more like an apologia for the festival than an actual examination of terf ideology. This source itself is a terf source. So it would be perfect for giving an example of their ideology, but it is not in any way reliable for anything outside of showing a window into terf ideology. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 07:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC) (adjusted point nuances Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 09:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC))

Attributed the source is as reliable as any others used here. More so given it is from a decent journal. If there are specific criticisms published about her view then they can possibly be included too. I don't see how FRINGE applies here, there are plenty of sources that say TERF can be used as a slur. AIRcorn (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Specifically, we're ideally looking for neutral secondary sources which examine the subject from an academic perspective. However, we are only really getting activist-based primary sources. We're experiencing a WP:PARITY problem, specifically. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 12:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I am all for better sources. However, the usefulness of a source is determined by the reputation of the publisher of that source and the format the source takes, not whether or not we agree with what it says. I am still not following you on the FRINGE/PARITY thing. Are you saying that TERF being a slur is a fringe idea and therefor we can use non reliable sources to counter this idea? If anything that suggest that this should be used as it is as reliable as the countering viewpoints. FWIW I googled TERF and fringe and I mostly got links to a hairstyle. AIRcorn (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The hairstyle thing comes up so much that it actually might deserve a brief alluding to in the article as a part of the semantic widening of the term. There's a Slate article which seems like a decent source and puts it like this: TERF, as an insult, has become so far removed from its original activist intentions (rightly criticizing trans exclusion in feminism) that, at this point, it’s also a word for anything that queer millennials deem uncool. Things I’ve seen called “TERFy” on Twitter and Tumblr include tampon ads, the word “female,” the non-word “womxn,” Janelle Monae’s “Pynk,” the Venus symbol, bangs, Jill Stein, Cardi B, and … trans women. [70] We can use this in the "Coinage and usage" section. Actually, it might make sense to break that section into two - one on coinage and one on semantic development. Haukur (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Jill Stein and Cardi B? Okay. Yeah could do with a brief mention. AIRcorn (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it's real stretch regarding all those things. When queer millennials, specifically trans queer millennials refer to something as "TERFy" it means they're referring to terms, people, media, and such which portrays the same ideology of terfs - vaguely or explicitly being about womens' empowerment but also making the same sex-essentialist, gender-essentialist notions that claim that being born with ovaries, a uterus, vulvovaginal complex, and XX chromosomes is identical to being a woman. (A claim which necessarily invalidates trans people are all flavors.)

These actually make sense from this perspective. Many tampon ads make those claims. Many anti-trans groups (TERFs included) often use "female" instead of "woman" as an attempt to negate trans identity, which also happens with "womxn" (trying to say women with XX chromosomes) or other terms such as "wombyn" (trying to say women have or have had uteruses). Janelle Monae's song Pynk basically is a song about the color of vulvae, which we culturally associate with the feminine binary gender, along with the Venus symbol. Jill Stein and Cardi B are rather poor examples. Trans women, however, sometimes are terfs. These types of trans women specifically try to ingratiate themselves to the "real" (cis) women by purposefully owning a supposed second-class status of womanhood. This type of trans woman intersects with the trans medicalist (truscum) ideology which attempts to validate and elevate some types of trans folks over others. (Some, like Blaire White, even strip off the feminist vestiges and go full right-wing talking points.) Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 07:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I see what you mean – certainly tampons have some connection with female biology so 'bangs' are probably a better example of this semantic expansion. Haukur (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I see this was reverted. I don't really agree with WP:Neologism as that is more about article titles than content in an article which could arguably be a neologism itself. We have the evolution of the term from being an intended neutral separator to being deemed a slur by others. This just seems like another part of the story. AIRcorn (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Right, yes. Maybe User:Mathglot would be willing to explain their concerns in more detail? Was the neologism of concern specifically TERFy or TERF bangs? In addition to the Slate piece I was using[71] there is also an article in The Cut which goes into detail on bangs.[72] We're doing lexicography here and this seems like a part of the story. But maybe there are better ways to get at it than my initial attempt. Haukur (talk) 10:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of tampons, Venus symbol, and females: Always pads removed the biological sex symbol for female from their wrappers, because ....: 1, 2, 3. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 12:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary Please self revert that post has nothing to do with the subject at hand. What was your intention on posting it and the links? And what has it to do with the word TERF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldperson (talk • contribs) 17:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

These links that Pyxis posted pertain to transmen, not transwomen. Evidently it was transmen, some of whom still use tamponsl, that complained about the Venus symbol. IMO a non issue elevated to ridicule, but I am not a transman either, so don't know. Still think the post is a purposeful distraction, and has nothing to do with TERF's as one thing the TERF's don't discriminate against is Transmen.Oldperson (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I checked out those links (the Telegraph articles were behind a paywall) and I don't really see how they're relevant to this article? The RT article mentions a "feminist vs transgender skirmish", so I could see an argument for mentioning the issue on another article, such as Feminist views on transgender topics, but it doesn't seem useful, and RT would be a bad choice of source, and it wouldn't fit here regardless. --Equivamp - talk 22:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Ironically, as Oldperson said, Always removed it to be inclusive to trans men and afab non-binary individuals. Yet most sources are acting like this is wholesale erasure of women and most terf-aligned sources are attacking trans people. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 00:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Gwenhope and Aircorn! I agree that it's a source coming from a particular angle and should be treated as such. But I suppose the same is true for most of the sources in the article. Haukur (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Haukurth: I found a very good source I would like to recommend, but that would be a new section. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 12:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Great! Looking forward to it. Haukur (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

"I think this source is disingenuous." The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide and Bonnie J. Morris are "disingenuous". LOL! Pyxis Solitary (yak) 11:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: When I say "source" I'm saying Morris, not the journal. (Admittedly the journal has issues, but not as much as Morris.) She is deliberately misrepresenting facts in favor of her own personal anecdotes and feelings because she really loved MichFest. Her writing doesn't carry academic tone. It reads as a disgruntled fan upset over the aspersions and closing of one of her favorite institutions. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 12:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Neither/Neyther. Your dismissal of Morris is equivalent to dismissals of Rachel McKinnon by others. What it all boils down to is that you don't like it. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 13:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

You categorically misunderstand, Pyxis Solitary. Yeah I don't like terf ideology, that's rather obvious and I admit it. However I can still evaluate a source based on it's logical rigor and fallacious claims (of which this Morris article features a ton of). I listed legitimate issues with the logic and factuality of Morris's writing. Like it or not, those criticisms are still valid. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 07:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

"I don't like terf ideology." Well, shit on a shingle! If there's "terf ideology", then there must be "trans ideology", too. I can't wait to see what the THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS TRANS IDEOLOGY! circle jerk will come up with now. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 08:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Gwenhope: Your claims on rigor are debatable. For example:

Claims that TERF is a new term (factually untrue). I fail to see how this is factually untrue. It depends on the time scale. In the context of feminist theory, dating back to almost two centuries, and radical feminism, dating back to about 60 years ago, a publication written in 2015 might consider a term popularized in 2008 as "new". This is not something you can label as "factually untrue", but you may disagree on the time scale.
will be applied to anyone who attends festivals (factually untrue). You just twisted Morris words and omitted context. Here festivals is not any possible form of festival, it refers to festivals like Michigan Womyn's Music Festival. In my opinion, your characterization of Morris point here as "factually untrue" is a straw man.

There are other questions that are subject of controversy, and Morris defends positions that you don't agree with, but are hardly characterizable as unequivocally factually untrue. --MarioGom (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

In any case, I don't think we need to prove whether every single statement in the publication is a verifiable truth or not (hard with any essay) but if it is due weight in the context of TERF § Opposition to the word. --MarioGom (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@MarioGom: I guess terms can be relative to some degree. Culturally, millennials like me exist in a digital space and tend to view terms over a decade old as far from new, but established, and even stale. I agree with you. I guess I should clarify that the context of Morris's writing also informs that statement. The tone and text of her writing treats the term "terf" like a new one specifically for berating lesbian festival goers/performers. That is inherently wrong.

Regarding the "festival" issue, we're talking in rigorous academic terms. Shouldn't an academic be absolutely clear instead of making open-ended statements? Especially if publishing in a journal no less. Regardless, in this context, I think it also relates to my point about her assigning terfiness to all radical feminists, political lesbians, and women's festivals. Not all of these festivals are "TERFy". I guess my attempt at nuanced point is needing clarification. I do appreciate your constructive criticism. Points have been adjusted above for more suitable nuance.

Anyway, regarding due weight for context of that section, we already know that people espousing ideology often labeled as "terf" don't like the word. Morris's essay lends no extra information or context regarding that disapproval of term. Her point is mostly the same, regurgitated. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 09:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Getting too repetitive is definitely a danger in this article since we have many sources that make quite similar points. We should probably be looking into removing or further condensing some of the quotes from less useful or prestigious sources – though I don't think that would be Morris. Anyway, I think you mentioned you had a new source to recommend. I'd very much like to see it. It's important to keep looking out for balance and I want to make sure I'm seeing your side of the story. Haukur (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

CfD

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_October_31#Category:Trans-exclusionary_radical_feminism Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

A quasi-legal ruling on the use of the word

Gregor Murray, a Scottish Nationalist Party politician, was sanctioned for, among other things, using the word "TERF" about and to a member of the public. The Dundee councillor was issued with a two-month suspension by the Standards Commission for Scotland for breaching the Code of Conduct; the term "TERF" appears 23 times in the "Decision of the Hearing Panel" (here). "The report was made by the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland (the ESC)":

The ESC’s representative noted that the Respondent’s position was that the term ‘TERF’ was a descriptor and was not in itself abusive or offensive. The ESC’s representative contended, however, that the Respondent’s use of the term ‘TERF’ to describe the complainer in the circumstances where the complainer had asked them to desist from doing so, where the Respondent had responded indicating that it was warranted, and where the Respondent had previously publicly identified ‘TERFS’ as being “scum”, “hateful” and “vile”, demonstrated that the Respondent accepted that ‘TERF’ was a term of abuse and was using it as such.

In response to questions from the Panel, the ESC’s representative accepted that the use of the term ‘TERF’, in itself, was not necessarily insulting or disrespectful. The ESC’s representative noted that it was a controversial term and apt to offend although this was the subject of ongoing public discourse. The ESC’s representative argued that the Respondent should have known that the expression was controversial and apt to offend the public, and therefore they should have been careful about how they used it in a public forum. The ESC’s representative further argued that the Respondent’s use of it required to be considered in the context of the associated abusive terms used when directing it towards a member of the public.

The Panel considered that while the term ‘TERF’ was apt to be controversial and could be seen as one of abuse, it could also be used or perceived as simply a descriptor. The Panel was of the view, however, that it was evident from the Respondent’s description, over an extended period of time, of ‘TERFS’ as being ‘scum’ and ‘hateful and vile’, that the Respondent intended it to be an expression of abuse. The Panel further considered that the Respondent’s use of it in the context of their reply to the effect that it was deserved, when the complainer had indicated that the use of the term was abusive, demonstrated that the Respondent was aware that the term could reasonably be taken to be offensive. The Panel was further satisfied that the Respondent had directed the term at the complainer as an individual and that it was about her as a person, rather than simply being a descriptor of her alleged views.

(Three separate, non-consecutive paragraphs in the report. It also says the use of the term was "a personal attack" and "gratuitously offensive".) As far as I am aware, this is the first time that an official body has made a ruling and issued a sanction that hangs largely on the use of this word. The case was reported in The Courier and Advertiser, the Evening Telegraph (and with a response), The Sunday Times, The Courier, the BBC, STV, and The Scottish Sun. All of these news reports talk about the councillor's use of "abusive language" (or similar) and most give a sentence or a paragraph to explaining "TERF". The Scotsman asked Joan McAlpine, an SNP Member of the Scottish Parliament, to comment (here):

Ms McAlpine also welcomed the panel's judgement that the councillor had abused the complainer by referring to her as a TERF (which stands for ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’). "I welcome the Commissioner's ruling that TERF is an insult," she said. "It is a sexist term used to silence women asking reasonable questions about the wisdom of allowing any male to declare himself legally female without safeguards, medical treatment or psychological assessment. It is not transphobic to ask these questions."

I'm not sure how best to integrate this information, but the case seems significant as a lengthy and nuanced analysis by an official body (NB not a political party's internal mechanisms, but a standards commission), resulting in a real-world sanction (two months' suspension from the job). I'll let others decide what to do with this, as I'm not feeling BOLD at the moment. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Interesting but not relevant. Situation is British political and it has already been discussed how the acronym has bled into society as slang. See also the usage of "sick"to mean something new and great. EnglVar uses many slang and words not used on the other side of the pond. Puff is an insult in England, but use it in America and you get a blank stare. The list goes on,Oldperson (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

How terms are actually used is relevant. This is currently an article about a term. Also, Wikipedia is international. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning that this is a good source and the article may benefit from including it. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like we should probably say something about this. But it's a pretty nuanced ruling and we need to make sure we don't oversimplify it. Haukur (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

What else has been said about this? Is this the only source reporting on it? We have to keep WP:DUEWEIGHT in mind. I don't think the fact that it is "official" has any bearing, other than than the fact that it tends to indicate that it is reliable; but reliability can be achieved in lots of ways, and "governmental officialdom" should not be artificially puffed up as more reliable than something else. Mathglot (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The incident was not just about the word TERF and some of the reporting doesn't mention that part. But some of the reports Carbon Caryatid listed do go into it, including the BBC which quotes Murray as "extremely worried by the precedent that this has set that TERF is an offensive or abusive term." Haukur (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Without reading Murray,and based on above comments it does appear that hers is a lack of balance. A one sided plaint that "TERF is an offensive or abusive term", what then of those offended and abused by TERF ideology and behavior. Oldperson (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

As long as the article is construed as about the word TERF then feminists being mean to trans people just isn't on topic. It's like the Netflix and chill article tells the reader very little about Netflix. But I sympathize with your position to some extent because it's quite possible that some people who come upon the TERF article are looking for information about feminists being mean to trans people. The current idea is to point them towards the article where that is on topic – Feminist views on transgender topics. Of course that may not be a perfect solution and that article certainly needs some work. Haukur (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I actually contacted the ESC about this. They said that the councillor was specifically *not* suspended for using the word TERF, but for other insults to McAlpine. They also clarified that while McAlpine *said* that they had said TERF was an insult, they themselves had actually not said it, and that it was simply McAlpine's opinion. Scribe451 (talk) 12:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Unless you can come up with a published source that says that, that's clearly original research, so we can't use it. Loki (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Opinion pieces used for "violent rhetoric" paragraph.

This paragraph is far to strident for one cited solely to two opinion pieces:

British journalist Catherine Bennett has described the word as "a bullying tool" which has "already succeeded in repressing speech – and maybe even research".^[1] She cites incorporation of the word into insults and violent rhetoric such as "fucking terf scum"^[1] and "I punch terfs!".^[2] British columnist Sarah Ditum wrote in 2017 that "the bar to being called a 'terf' is remarkably low."^[3] Feminist blogger Claire Heuchan^[4] states that the word is often used alongside "violent rhetoric" such as "stab a Terf" or "kill a Terf". She says language of this type is used to "dehumanise women", often lesbians, "who are critical of gender as a political system".^[5]

References

^ ^a ^b Bennett, Catherine (19 November 2017). "Bullies everywhere delight in coming up with new insults". The Guardian. the advance of terf, as a bullying tool, has already succeeded in repressing speech – and maybe even research ... ugly terf, fucking terf scum
^ Bennett, Catherine (29 April 2018). "Violent misogyny is unfortunately not confined to the internet's 'incels'". The Guardian. Photographs of one vitrine, featuring a red bespattered T-shirt reading: "I punch terfs!" (trans-exclusionary radical feminists/women who disagree with me), may have struck a chord with anyone following the current UK debate about the government's self-ID proposals. To date, threats, from one side, which echo, inescapably, some of those in the pro-Rodger playbook ("die in a fire terf scum") have yet to generate comparably widespread concern, even after a woman was punched. Her assailant had earlier expressed the wish to "fuck up some terfs".
^ Ditum, Sarah (29 September 2017). "What is a Terf? How an internet buzzword became a mainstream slur". New Statesman. Retrieved 13 April 2019. On the other hand, if you are a feminist, the bar to being called a 'terf' is remarkably low. Woman's Hour presenter Jenni Murray achieved it by writing an article in which she pointed out that someone born and raised male will not have the same experiences of sexism as a woman; novelist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie likewise made the grade by answering 'transwomen are transwomen' when asked whether she believed that 'transwomen are women'.
^ "Claire Heuchan". Glasgow International. 30 January 2018. Retrieved 5 October 2019.
^ Heuchan, Claire (6 October 2017). "If feminist Linda Bellos is seen as a risk, progressive politics has lost its way". The Guardian. Terf stands for trans-exclusionary radical feminist. Online, it often it [sic] appears alongside violent rhetoric: punch a Terf, stab a Terf, kill a Terf. This language is used to dehumanise women who are critical of gender as part of a political system.

The only cites here are opinion pieces by non-experts, yet their personal opinions on how the term is used are presented as fact (She cites incorporation of the word into insults and violent rhetoric... If this connection is genuine, we should be able to cite it to non-opinion pieces. If it hasn't been made outside of such opinion-pieces and quotes, we need to tone our coverage of it waaaay down; the claims being made here (linking the term with violence) are extremely WP:EXCEPTIONAL and require far higher-quality citations than this. I'll also note that this paragraph, despite its extremely weak sourcing, is currently in the lead, which seems patiently undue for what amounts to two people's opinion (the opinion piece in the middle seems unrelated to the paragraph's thesis.) --Aquillion (talk) 09:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Opinion pieces by noted journalists can have their place in the article... I think it would definitely give a false balance towards the idea that the term is intrinsically linked with violence, however. The whole "kill all" stuff was meant to highlight how people would care less about actual trans people being harmed Vs. non-literal physical threats being made against those (or, in this case, not? it's a got-em tactic by not aiming at anyone in particular!) perceived as causing an increase in anti-trans sentiment. Ditto kill all men, kill all white people, kill all meat eaters, etc. --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

This goes both ways. As most of the article is opinion pieces, you can't just remove the ones you don't agree with. Anyway I am not sure what sort of experts you are looking for. Bennett and Ditum are notable journalist and Heuchan has reasonable credentials as well.[73]. It is also clearly not presented as fact, each comment is attributed to each author. It comes up enough in other media to deserve a mention and is not "extremely EXCEPTIONAL". For example in just the sources I looked at in the section two above we have someone proudly holding a "fuck TERFs" sign[74] and a posted tweet "If any TERFs like or retweet this, I'm shoving my foot up your arse".[75] The second one is played down by the articles writer as a joke. While I like a good "I am going to hurt you" joke as much as the next person, this shows the use of this language is still getting coverage in a range of media (those two are very much pro trans). We also have the APPG on Hate Crime which says Several of the submissions also included screenshots of social media posts (predominantly Twitter) that contained threats and encouragements of violence towards ‘TERFs’ with the summary It can easily be argued that this constitutes hate speech under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which people have been successfully prosecuted for. However, under the legislation as it currently stands, it would be difficult to successfully report this as hate speech as it is not completely clear if the abuse refers to lesbians (sexuality is a category of hate crime) or women (sex is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 but not a hate crime category under the Criminal Justice Act 2003).In fact I will add that source in now and see about reducing some of the others as it is probably the best one we have that covers this issue. AIRcorn (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Both the Guardian and the New Statesman are explicitly anti trans. Is it valid to only include opinion pieces from biased sources? Scribe451 (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

We should certainly use the best sources we can find and I think Aircorn's addition of the APPG report is reasonable. Also note that Gwen dug up some academic articles which we have yet to make use of, including one that says ‘Trolls’ on social media are using phrases like ‘Kill a TERF!’ or ‘Punch a TERF!’. [76] Haukur (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Like Aircorn said, much of the article is opinion pieces, so there is no basis for just removing personally disliked ones. The way that paragraph stands now looks good to me. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I am thinking that maybe we don't need four quotes saying "fucking terf scum", "I punch terfs!", "stab a Terf" or "kill a Terf".. The two given above get the point across, and it also adds a better source. AIRcorn (talk) 06:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay added the source. It also has some disturbing information about Art exhibitions, contemptuous of TERFS, are displaying bloodied baseball bats. and A dark cartoon of a woman hanging from the gallows is sometimes helpfully supplied, with the caption ‘Dead TERFS’. That is quite a few steps beyond internet trolling. I would be surprised if there is no response from trans organisations condemning some of this that we can add. AIRcorn (talk) 06:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Your edits all look reasonable to me. Thanks for putting in the work. Haukur (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I also support such inclusions, especially when documented criticism of the term comes from people objecting to it being used in a "snarlword" type fashion and to endorse violence, irrespective of their views on trans topics.--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

"TERF is accompanied by violent rhetoric" is a core argument of the crowd that says that TERF is a slur. It seems like we're taking this debatable point and removing it from the context of that debate to treat it as a fact. Why not just integrate this in to the slur discussion? Nblund^talk 21:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Nblund. Any pejorative is sometimes going to be accompanied by violent rhetoric. "Asshole" obviously is; even theoretically descriptive words that are pejorative in practice like "fascist" are too. But a notable part of the slur debate is not just whether it's ever accompanied by violent rhetoric but whether that's characteristic of its use. By listing instances we seem to be taking a side in that broader debate without actual evidence for the broader position that side is arguing.

Or, put another way: we don't list individual instances of "TERF" being used in a nonviolent context, and we obviously wouldn't. We don't list examples of the word "asshole" being used in a violent context (even though they wouldn't be hard to find if we tried). So, why are we listing individual instances of TERF specifically being used violently? Loki (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

"why are we listing individual instances of TERF specifically being used violently?" Because it is. Comparing it to calling someone an "asshole" is absurd.
To wit: The Degenderettes: The Transgender Hate Group Taking Aim at Women: "The Degenderettes don’t stop at the bats and axes that are presented in the San Francisco exhibit. They have recently made their intentions clear on social media, where they detail a lengthy menu of weapons they intend to employ against TERFs, including AR-15s."; What happened at the SF Dyke March: "assailants threw two lesbians carrying signs to the ground—one of them three times, the other, walking with a cane, once. Attackers pushed them, tripped them, and deliberately stepped on their heels, repeatedly...They tarred us all with the same brush of TERF."; The madness of our gender debate, where feminists defend slapping a 60-year-old woman: "The Edinburgh branch of Action for Trans Health tweeted the day after the attack: “Punching TERFs is the same as punching Nazis. Fascism must be smashed with the greatest violence to ensure our collective liberation from it.”)"; Queer-identified women physically assault lesbian at a gay bar: "I walked out the door into the fists of 2-3 (not totally clear who was hitting me—I was heavily intoxicated)(one nb [nonbinary]-identifying woman, Natalie or “Nat,” her girlfriend, Katy, and the aforementioned transman, Caleb) women who hit me over and over again in the face and pushed me onto the ground.” Her attackers also screamed slurs at her, yelling “bitch” and “terf” throughout the attack." Pyxis Solitary (yak) 05:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Erm yeah, and the actual SF Dyke March condemned the trans exclusionary radfems for chanting transphobic rhetoric and using aforementioned cane to physically attack other marchers. Witnesses have also stated that the protesters were not pushed over, but tripped over their own feet. One of the protesters also hit and choked a trans woman. Pride staff asked them to leave because they were being violent, at which point they hid behind the police. The march is explicitly trans inclusive, those protesters were not welcome.

Can I also just point out that Public Discourse, New Statesman and After Ellen are all explicitly trans antagonistic, typically condemned by the LGBT community, and not remotely reliable sources? Scribe451 (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

On a second note, Maria McLachlan was 'slapped' because she was filming people against their will, and physically attacked a teenager who objected to being filmed. She (Redacted) was even condemned by the judge who upheld her accusation, so it's pretty disingenous to act as though she is somehow 'proof' that there is violence being committed against TERFs on a regular basis. And again - The New Statesman is an anti trans publication and Helen Lewis is vociferously anti trans. Weirdly, they just might be a bit biased against trans people. Scribe451 (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

For readers and editors who are factually inclined: Maria McLachlan was attacked by 26-year old Tara Wolf while she was filming a radical feminist event in Hyde Park. While testifying at the assault trial, the judge warned McLachlan to refer to Wolf as "she" (The Telegraph). Tara Wolf was found guilty of assaulting McLachlan and fined £150 + a £30 surcharge + £250 towards costs (£430 total) (Evening Standard). Bad blood on both sides, but only one side got physical. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 07:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Trans women in the U.S. murdered so far in 2019: at least 18.[77]

TERFs murdered: 0. WanderingWanda (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Unless you are suggesting TERFs murdered the Trans women that is not really relevant. AIRcorn (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it is relevant that rather than just making threats, a TERF group called the Gorgons showed up at a concert with guns because one of the band's sound engineers was trans? Or when two lesbians got beaten up because they wouldn't let TERFs attack trans musician Beth Elliot? Or perhaps we could talk about the 16 year old girl whom TERFs threatened to murder at Michfest. If it's relevant that McLachlan experienced violence (in self defence) for being a TERF then it should certainly be relevant that TERFs have *literally* tried to murder people for being trans. Scribe451 (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I too found it a little odd that there does not seem to be much in the way of condemnation of this from the trans community. Usually when someone says or does something outrageous other members affiliated with them at least try to distance themselves from it. A couple of daily dot articles, which is twitter journalism at its finest, seem to just double down on defending it.[78][79] As far as I can gather the thinking is that TERFs deserve this because they are TERFs, which sort of contradicts the TERF is not a slur reasoning.

If anything the current presentation in the article underplays the presentation in the sources. Which incidentally are provided by two of the better ones. Whether it belongs in the slur section or not I don't know. Context is everything and while saying "Fuck TERFs" is just mean if TERF is not a slur, it takes on a whole other meaning if TERF is in fact a slur. AIRcorn (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I made a couple of changes to the paragraph to address some of the WP:NPOV issues that I saw. As it stands, it still seems odd to me that we have a paragraph on the "slur debate", but that we also have an "opposition to the term" section that more-or-less discusses the same stuff. Obviously Heuchan is one side that is already well covered in the next section, so why are we separating her out like this is a unique argument instead of more-or-less exactly what everyone else already says? Nblund^talk 16:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the APPG summary of the tensions On one hand, there are clear examples of threats and calls to violence against women, whilst on the other vulnerable people are being made to feel unwelcome, that they are viewed as a threat and that their identity is invalid. equates closely enough with us saying with reports on both sides detailing incidents of extreme or abusive language. The hate speech removal is interesting. It specifically mentions threats threats and encouragements of violence towards ‘TERFs’.. If this article is just meant to be about the term then there could be a case for removing it, but if it is also about the people the term is meant to identify then it fits.

The headings are not still not ideal, but are getting better. Part of the opposition to TERF is that it is perceived to be a slur, which in turn relates to its usage. I wonder if part of the problem is that it was split out from the views article too early and basically just moved the mess to a different location. Much of the stuff being discussed here fits better in that article, but is still very much influencing this one. AIRcorn (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The report states that "there are trans activists and their supporters who are reporting similar attacks" (pg. 26) right after the paragraph on "hate speech". I think its pretty clear that they're trying to avoid taking sides here. Regardless of the focus of the article as a whole, the section we're using the report in is all about the debate over the term "TERF". They don't really offer any commentary on the term itself other than to mention that some of the groups that made complaints said it was being used as a term of abuse. Nblund^talk 00:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The text you deleted was in another section. You are not quoting from their summary detailing the tensions. Generally we give more weight to the summary/conclusion when deciding how present information from a source. AIRcorn (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure which specific text you're referring to, but the edits I made were to the sections titled "Opposition to the term" and "Slur debate". Both of those sections are about the word. The portion I quoted here is the only sentence in the entire text that directly references the usage of the term "TERF" itself. Nblund^talk 00:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The quote is fine. Well I don't think we need to quote it and the "report, noted, report" tautology should be finessed, but that is all relatively minor. My main issue is with the description leading into the quote. As to the removal, I think the hate speech part is interesting, especially the explanation that it depends on whether the targets are women or lesbians. But it maybe fits better somewhere else. AIRcorn (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Please don't hesitate to copyedit me! As for the summary: I sort of think the APPG report as a whole doesn't really fit here because it ultimately isn't about term. However, I do think that is an apt description of what they say when they remark that there are some on both sides of the divide who are resorting to extreme measures and tactics. I'm open to an alternate suggestion, but it is pretty clear to me that they are being extremely careful to avoid giving the impression of taking a side on this debate, and so we shouldn't portray them as taking a side. Nblund^talk 15:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.amazon.com/Trans-Bodies-Selves-Transgender-Community/dp/0199325359/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1406593345&sr=1-1&keywords=9780199325351

[2] Cameron, Deborah (6 November 2016). "What makes a word a slur?". language: a feminist guide. Retrieved 21 January 2019.

[3] "Philosophers object to a journal's publication 'TERF,' in reference to some feminists. Is it really a slur?". www.insidehighered.com. Retrieved 21 January 2019.

[ns-terf-ditum-4] Cite error: The named reference ns-terf-ditum was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[fc-terf-ditum-5] Cite error: The named reference fc-terf-ditum was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Williams_2013-6] Williams, Cristan (2013-09-24). "You might be a TERF if ..." The TransAdvocate.

[Dalbey_2018-7] Dalbey, Alex (2018-08-12). "TERF wars: Why trans-exclusionary radical feminists have no place in feminism". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 2019-01-27.

[12] himself / herself / themself: When you don't know someone's preferred pronouns, use the pronoun replacement templates {{they}}, {{them}}, {{their}}, {{theirs}}, and {{themself}} which will pick up the right value out of their user preferences. To create the proper reflexive pronoun for Mathglot, code: Mathglot {{themself|Mathglot}}, which generates Mathglot themself. Note that for PamD, for example, this would generate: PamD herself; and for Bradv, the same code generates Bradv himself.

[8] Margalit Fox (1998-12-05), "A Changed Noam Chomsky Simplifies", NY Times

[9] Christopher Lehmann-Haupt (March 8, 1982), "Books Of The Times", NY Times

[10] Michael Mandelbaum (March 21, 1982), "AMERICA THE OBJECTIONABLE", NY Times

[11] George Yancy; Noam Chomsky (March 18, 2015), "Noam Chomsky on the Roots of American Racism", NY Times

[13] Murphy, Meghan (21 September 2017). "'TERF' isn't just a slur, it's hate speech". Feminist Current. Retrieved 8 September 2019.

[14] Bindel, Julie (9 October 2015). "No platform: my exclusion proves this is an anti-feminist crusade". The Guardian. Retrieved 8 September 2019.

[15] Compton, Julie (2019-01-14). "'Pro-lesbian' or 'trans-exclusionary'? Old animosities boil into public view". NBC News. Retrieved 2019-03-19.

[16] Davis, Christopher; McCready, Elin (2018-11-19). "The Instability of Slurs" (PDF). Semantics Archive. Retrieved 2019-04-24. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[17] Definition of Linguistics by Lexico

[18] Current LINGUIST Subfields

[19] "Christopher Davis - Google Scholar Citations". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2019-09-19.

[20] "Elin McCready - Google Scholar Citations". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2019-09-19.

[21] Davis, Christopher; McCready, Elin (2018-11-19). "The Instability of Slurs" (PDF). Semantics Archive. Retrieved 2019-04-24. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[BennettBullies-22] Bennett, Catherine (19 November 2017). "Bullies everywhere delight in coming up with new insults". The Guardian. the advance of terf, as a bullying tool, has already succeeded in repressing speech – and maybe even research ... ugly terf, fucking terf scum

[BennettViolent-23] Bennett, Catherine (29 April 2018). "Violent misogyny is unfortunately not confined to the internet's 'incels'". The Guardian. Photographs of one vitrine, featuring a red bespattered T-shirt reading: "I punch terfs!" (trans-exclusionary radical feminists/women who disagree with me), may have struck a chord with anyone following the current UK debate about the government's self-ID proposals. To date, threats, from one side, which echo, inescapably, some of those in the pro-Rodger playbook ("die in a fire terf scum") have yet to generate comparably widespread concern, even after a woman was punched. Her assailant had earlier expressed the wish to "fuck up some terfs".

[24] Ditum, Sarah (29 September 2017). "What is a Terf? How an internet buzzword became a mainstream slur". New Statesman. Retrieved 13 April 2019. On the other hand, if you are a feminist, the bar to being called a 'terf' is remarkably low. Woman's Hour presenter Jenni Murray achieved it by writing an article in which she pointed out that someone born and raised male will not have the same experiences of sexism as a woman; novelist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie likewise made the grade by answering 'transwomen are transwomen' when asked whether she believed that 'transwomen are women'.

[HeuchanGI-25] "Claire Heuchan". Glasgow International. 30 January 2018. Retrieved 5 October 2019.

[Heuchan_2017-26] Heuchan, Claire (6 October 2017). "If feminist Linda Bellos is seen as a risk, progressive politics has lost its way". The Guardian. Terf stands for trans-exclusionary radical feminist. Online, it often it [sic] appears alongside violent rhetoric: punch a Terf, stab a Terf, kill a Terf. This language is used to dehumanise women who are critical of gender as part of a political system.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[a]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]