Jump to content

Talk:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Retargeting

[edit]

This has bounced around recently to various locations. There may be a missing article, Trans-exclusionary radical feminism, that should be created, but until it is, there is already a section called "Trans-exclusionary radical feminists" (variously named; now "Trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERF)" at this writing) at the article Feminist views on transgender topics. This is the logical target for this redirect until the article exists.

An -ism/-ist difference has no importance here; and there are redirects all over the place uniting -ist to -ism, starting with Feminist, and Radical feminist. This is no different from those.

But respecting the concerns about the target section id, and frequent activity at the target article which might result in the section header being changed again, I've {{Anchor}}ed that section with "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism". So now, if you click a link like Feminist views on transgender topics#Trans-exclusionary radical feminism, it will take you straight to that section—no matter what the actual section title is. So hopefully, that takes care of that issue.

Also, I restored the rcats that were removed recently. Mathglot (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for talking. And I agree, this situation is awkward. Please note the following related redirects exist. Is there a better way to keep them updated, rather than individually, since the Feminist views on transgender topics article's content and sections change so frequently?
A145 (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the TERF article being solely about the term, I don't see why "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism" shouldn't simply redirect to the TERF article, which is what I redirected it to with this edit back in April. If one wants to argue that we want to point people to a place where commentary on trans-exclusionary radical feminism is not simply about the term, then I suppose the section at the Feminist views on transgender topics article is best. That, or the section addressing the topic at the Radical feminism article. But even the section at the Feminist views on transgender topics article currently notes that "TERF" is the main article. As for an article on it that is not solely about the term, I recently addressed that we should not have both a TERF article and a Trans-exclusionary radical feminism article. If a Trans-exclusionary radical feminism article is created, all of the "TERF is a term" material should be merged there. But I still maintain that most of the "TERF" stuff is about the term. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other than its being solely about the term, I don't disagree with you. But my feeling is that (and obviously I'd need to check sourcing on this to verify my hunch, but not right now) Trans-exclusionary radical feminist is neutral in intent, in a way that Terf often is not. Terf is for T-shirts, placards, and sound bites; Trans-exclusionary radical feminist is for Feminist Media Studies, Transgender Studies Quarterly, and debating societies. (I'm aware that gender critical is preferred by some; the fact is, the average person who is not well-versed in these affairs, will have some prayer of understanding the former term, and very little if any chance of understanding the latter.)
Bottom line: if we renamed the TERF article to "Trans exclusionary radical feminism", changed the focus to the -ism and its adherents, and moved the stuff about the term (long form and acronym) into a body "Terminology and usage" section, then I'd agree with you that this redirect should point to it. But as long as the article is called TERF and focused on that term, and the "Views" article contains a section called "#Trans-exclusionary radical feminism" (or variation thereof) which matches the name of this redirect pretty closely and is actually about that topic, then I'd rather see it point there. Mathglot (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't state that "TERF" is solely about the term; I stated that it's mainly about the term. The TERF article is solely about the term, however, as it should be since it's a term article. If you are referring to what I argued about "trans-exclusionary radical feminist," I stand by that. Mostly saw term stuff when Googling it. I'm obviously not counting the unreliable sources. I don't like to consider weak or other poor sources either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was unclear; in my first sentence I was trying to echo yours. I meant I was agreeing with you that the article TERF is solely about the term. Also agree there shouldn't be two articles. My first thought about how to deal with that was that if there's going to be an article about either one, then "Terf" ought to be discussed in a section of an article entitled "Trans-exclusionary radical feminist" and not have a separate one; how do you feel about that idea? Mathglot (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't see the need for the article. Should just be a section within the Radical feminism article article, like it currently is, that points to any related articles that I also address the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that if we only had one article about either "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" the ideology and "TERF" the term, I would prefer an article about the ideology with a section about the term than an article about the term with the ideology being a section on Feminist views on transgender topics. I actually don't think two articles is too much, though; there's quite a few reliable sources both about the ideology and the term specifically. LokiTheLiar (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not for or against separate-vs-combined article(s) for this word and its perspective. For benefit of conversation, I want to note here it's been noted elsewhere by another editor a parallel separation exists in Gay/Homosexuality. Other examples might be Dyke (slang)/Lesbian, Jew (word)/Jews, and other sexual/religious/racial/identity terms. A145 (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the discussion you mention, I noted how having a Gay article and a Homosexuality article is not at all the same thing as having both a TERF article and a Trans-exclusionary radical feminism article. It's also obviously not the same thing as having a Dyke (slang) article and Lesbian article. I'm sure that Mathglot can elaborate on that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument on that page appears to be "it's clear", but I don't see how it's clear that trans-exclusionary radical feminism the ideology and TERF the term are the same subject. I in fact believe the opposite of that is what's clear: they are clearly two different subjects for the same reason the word "gay" and homosexuality are different subjects. The reason we have an article about the term in the first place is that it has enough reliable sources about the controversy over the term itself to justify its notability. There are also, separately, significant numbers of reliable sources about trans-exclusionary radical feminism and its conflicts with mainstream feminism and trans activists. I think it would be justifiable to make them sections the same page, because they're definitely related topics, but I also think that making them different pages would similarly be justifiable. LokiTheLiar (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to you because, for whatever reason, you don't seem to understand the WP:Content forking guideline. Or you are just ignoring it. I'm not going to sit here and argue something that should be clear to you. I had enough of your seriously flawed arguments at Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics and Talk:TERF and now you are at it at Talk:Feminine essence concept of transsexuality. And after what I stated about "gay" and homosexuality, you are here making the same flawed commentary. To repeat: "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." What in the world don't you understand about? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to specifically decline to respond to this in detail until some other user can back one of us up as to whether the analogy with gay/homosexuality is apt. (Well, other than A145, who made the analogy in the first place this time.) From previous experience, this argument cannot avoid going in circles otherwise. LokiTheLiar (talk) 06:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Gay" is used against persons who aren't homosexual. Similarly, "terf" is used against persons who aren't radical feminists, and against persons whose trans-exclusion is debatable. This seems to justify either separate articles for "terf" (the word) vs "trans-exclusive radical radical feminism" (the perspective)… or at least distinct and thorough sections between the word (its history, original usage, evolved usage) and the theory (discussions of perspectives and merits) within one "terf / trans-exclusive rad fem" article. I didn't see that happening in the "feminist views on transgender issues" article. A145 (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Gay" is significantly more of an identity than it is a slur or an insult. What person who is called a TERF actually embraces "TERF" as an identity? So not the same thing as "gay" at all. Furthermore, "TERF" is an acronym and it stands for "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" or "trans-exclusionary radical feminist." "Gay" is not an acronym for homosexuality. While "gay" can mean "a homosexual person," it also means other things and can also refer to the LGBT community as a whole, as made clear in the Gay article. There is no valid justification for having both a Trans-exclusionary radical feminism article and a TERF article, which is why experienced editors would support me on merging the two if the two articles ever existed. We already have the one article (TERF), but even it didn't need to exist. I also pointed to the Radical feminism article, which also has a section on the matter (discussing both the term and views). Trans-exclusionary radical feminism is an aspect of radical feminism. So having a subsection (and maybe subsections of that subsection) on it in that article makes sense. Editors, especially newbie editors, need to consider WP:No page more. Not everything needs its own article. Often, things are better consolidated in one article than having our readers needlessly go to different articles. So far, we have the Radical feminism article, the Feminist views on transgender topics article, and the TERF article. We absolutely should not then have a Trans-exclusionary radical feminism article, and especially not because certain editors want less trans-exclusive material in the Feminist views on transgender topics article even though most of the literature on feminist views on transgender issues focuses on the trans-exclusive and trans-inclusive disputes. So as for not adding more of "the perspective" material in Feminist views on transgender topics article, more should be there. All of the false balance reasoning and material (meaning the "we need to balance this article with more trans-inclusive stuff" arguments), such as what is going on with the TERF article, is a no-go when it comes to the way that Wikipedia is actually supposed to work. Not much word stuff needs to be in the Radical feminism article or the Feminist views on transgender topics article since a TERF article now exists. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I agree with Mathglot's "Bottom line:" comment. -sche (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retargeting 2021

[edit]

Hey, I just undid the revision by Crossroads to redirect from TERF to Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender critical feminism/trans-exclusionary radical feminism. It was previously discussed above, and by my reading consensus at the time was TERF was the correct article to redirect to. If that needs to be changed, then given the contentious history of the redirect it needs to be discussed first. So, opening for discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty old discussion and seems to have been a mess. Nowadays TERF is about the use of the term, and Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender critical feminism/trans-exclusionary radical feminism is about the ideology. So, the 'ism' should go to the latter. Crossroads -talk- 22:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. TERF is an acronym for either Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminism or Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. The use of feminism versus feminist is largely interchangeable depending on context in which it is used. For a person talking about a TERF as an individual the F would represent feminist. For a person talking about TERF ideology the F would represent feminism. As such it makes sense for the expanded forms of the acronym to redirect to TERF as that article already covers both usages. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have never once seen TERF used to stand for trans-exclusionary radical feminism. If it were, then you would see people say they "oppose TERF", but they say they oppose "TERFs" or "TERF ideology". Even you used this latter phrase in your comment. Crossroads -talk- 03:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can type this up into a reflist later if needed, for now though I'll use a bullet point list of primary and secondary sources demonstrating usage of TERF for both feminism and feminist. Starting with primary and scholarly articles first.
And secondary
A couple of those in the secondary list might/are opinion pieces, however for the sake of my argument I hope you'll forgive that as we shouldn't be placing citations into a redirect article. And for the sake of our discussion, the paragraph from TransNarratives is perhaps the most relevant example as it has examples for both TERF feminism and feminist uses in context. Hope that makes sense for why I think we shouldn't change the redirect. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I am inclined to agree with Crossroads that Trans-exclusionary radical feminism should primarily point to the article where we cover, well, trans-exclusionary radical feminism. However, the fact that there are two obvious, sensible possible targets suggests that the best thing would be to just convert this into a simple disambiguation page linking to both. -sche (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that strikes me as a good compromise between the other two choices. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why we can't just go to the ideology page, which links prominently to TERF. Use of TERF as 'ist', not 'ism', is still vastly more common, though I don't feel like wasting time proving it. The links going here seem to be about the ideology, not the term (otherwise they would just write TERF and link that). A disambiguation page just tempts people to expand it into a fork. Plus, links to it have to be redirected then since DAB pages aren't supposed to be linked to - you get a notification if you do so. Crossroads -talk- 02:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. And rereading the above (2019) discussion, it's not clear to me where Sideswipe9th got the idea that it resulted in a consensus for the redirect target: if anything, it seems more like the opposite (although much of the discussion is about something else). I'm going to retarget on the basis of that discussion and this one. -sche (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gender-critical feminism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Carter, Kristi; Brunton, James (August 2021). "26 The "New White Feminism: Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminism and the Problem of Biological Determinism in Western Feminist Theory". TransNarratives: Scholarly and Creative Works on Transgender Experience. Canadian Scholars. p. 317.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trans-exclusionary_radical_feminism&oldid=1210326785"