Talk:Gender-critical feminism

Need to remove disinformation section.

After the release of the Cass Review, it turns out the gender critical side was actually right all along when it comes to puberty blockers and youth transition, so I expect the politicized disinformation smear in the intro paragraph will be coming down soon? Gsm54321 (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see Confirmation bias. Nothing in the Cass Review refutes the info in the first two paragraphs. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

What paragraph are you referring to? I don't think the lead of this article references either of those two topics. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 15:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

It is unclear what changes you want to propose. The intro paragraph doesn't mention either puberty blockers or youth transition. Please be more specific. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

No, we don't write this article based on the opinions of the government of the UK, Russia or any other country known for their attacks on LGBT+ people. The "Cass Review" has been roundly criticized, like everything else the UK does in regard to trans rights.[1][2] Anyway, this isn't an article on trans health, but an article on a specific anti-LGBT+ movement, part of the wider far-right or right-wing populist anti-gender movement. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

AAB – you are surely aware of WP:NOTFORUM …. article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article….. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how you think NOTFORUM applies here, Sweet6970. Would you be willing to clarify (either here, or if you feel it's too far off topic, perhaps on either my or your user talkpage)? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Alpha3031: Try asking yourself how Amanda A. Brant’s comment contributes/does not contribute to the improvement of this article. It is an expression of personal views about the subject of the article, which does not address the point of the discussion, which is about the prominence in the article of comments about supposed disinformation. This is a Contentious Topic, both in Wikipedia’s terms, and in the real world. A blanket statement that the gender-critical feminism is an anti-LGBT+ movement, part of the wider far-right or right-wing populist anti-gender movement. serves no purpose, and is likely to arouse emotion. Further emotion on this subject is surplus to requirements. In addition, there are named g-c feminists mentioned in the article. The comment in effect smears these individuals as being far-right, so there is a WP:BLP problem as well. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a minimal part of the comment, the sentence of which primarily focuses on stating that the two topics are different. It is still incredibly surprising to me anyone would suggests it implicates TPG but I will drop the matter on my end. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you can use Cass to make that argument without substantial WP:OR. For example, one citation is Billard, who says:

To support my argument, it is first necessary to evidence the claim that gender-critical discourse constitutes a coordinated disinformation campaign that is part of a broader political strategy to oppose transgender rights. As I have written elsewhere (Billard, 2022), there are various types of anti-transgender misinformation: (1) definitional misinformation, which is misinformation about what transition-related health care actually is and what it does; (2) misinformation about the accessibility of trans care; (3) misinformation about the safety of trans care; (4) misinformation about the cost of trans care; (5) misinformation about “desistance,”or the frequency with which people “cease to be trans”or“detransition”; and (6) misinformation about the etiology or “cause”of trans identity;

Now someone could argue that several of those points are potentially addressed by the Cass Review, with high quality evidence (notably, points 1, 3, 5 and 6). But that requires a lot of speculation about what it even is that Billard is talking about here as it is spectacularly vague, and in any case that's WP:OR so until a WP:RS wants to actually make that argument, Billard's handwavey assertions aren't likely to go anywhere.

A better criticism IMO is that one source just uses "disinformation" in passing in a fairly hyperbolic way that really just comes across as "opinions I disagree with", one isn't actually talking about "disinformation" at all and asserts statements are misinformation (eg. about trans inclusion in sports on basis of self-id, in the specific context of Spanish legislation) without justifying it or explaining why it isn't true AFAICT, and Billard's paper has no actual detail, and is hardly notable or significant for such a serious accusation. There's very little substance here, and it really doesn't belong in the lede given how sparse this is. Void if removed (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

We do not base Wikipedia articles on reports that have been seriously criticized by a significant number of scientists who are specialists in the subject. We can also consider sources that have received recognition only in some regions as fringe if they contradict the international mainstream in the relevant discipline. TERFism is disproportionately popular in British academia and clearly unpopular outside of it. Wikipedia:MONDIAL Reprarina (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The Cass Review and the systematic reviews it is based on are absolutely high quality sources. They aren't relevant for this purpose, but the idea that it's been "seriously criticised" is basically nonsense. Hyperbolic chaff in popular media is not serious criticism of MEDRS. Void if removed (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Is International Journal of Transgender Health a popular media? Reprarina (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's not compare apples with oranges. The systematic reviews commissioned by the Cass Review and published in the most reputable of journals don't get dismissed because of some out-of-date social-science opinion pieces in WPATH's house journal. WPATH is welcome to publish systematic reviews that come to different conclusions, for example. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, despite what anyone's personal echo chamber may be saying, the Cass Review is as relevant as any NICE guideline and remains highly regarded as a thorough work in this field. Specific aspects, as one might expect from any 400-page wide-ranging review that took four years, are of course open to medical dispute and differing of opinion, and editors should supply reliable sources when making such remarks. Editors dismissing these publications as though a puppet document of a transphobic government really need to stop that now. I hope that's really clear.

Despite what writers, on both extremes of this culture war, have said, the Cass Review neither proves that the gender-critical side were right all along, nor is an attack on transgender identity or the importance of affirmative care. Come on, this isn't twitter, we can do better than this. I don't really see what the Cass Review has to do with "Gender-critical feminism" at all. That some GCFs have been banging on about puberty blockers and social contagions is really a matter for individual biographical articles on those people. -- Colin°^Talk 11:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This article should be renamed to Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism, because that is the most common term for this

"Gender critical feminism" is a less used term; these people are called "terfs" not "gender critical feminists" Lados75 (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The failed attempt to move this page is less than 6 months old, nothing has changed since that interminable argument, please don't reopen this unless you have substantial new evidence. A personal dislike of "TERFs" is not enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gender-critical_feminism/Archive_6#Requested_move_31_January_2024 Void if removed (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, the closer has said in their closing statement explanation (emphasis mine):

An editor involved in this page move discussion asked me on my talk page to expand my brief closing statement.
My response is repeated here for your convenience.

Thank you, editor Sideswipe9th, for coming to my talk page! And apologies for my usual terse closing statement. That was an interesting read with strong arguments on both sides of the article-title issue. Frankly I thought that overall the arguments in favor of the proposed page move were somewhat stronger, and yet there was interesting rebuttal to the nom's COMMONNAME and NPOV rationale, which strengthened the opposition a bit. At the end of my read I found that neither supporters nor opposers had been able to build a consensus either for the current title or for proposed titles. At first I very nearly relisted the request; however, I then considered the lengthy arguments by several concerned editors and decided to close the request instead. I suggest for editors to wait two or three months and then open a fresh move request with strongest possible arguments. History has shown that the longer the wait and the stronger the rationales, the more likely a follow-up move request will succeed. Thanks again!

This request opens with the nom's strong, policy-based rationale to rename this article. In very short order there ensued both support and opposition with strong arguments both for keeping the current title and for changing it. A good read of this survey yields fairly strong rebuttal to the nom's opening statement. So this is inarguably a contentious issue. I suggest that editors discuss this title issue informally to build consensus before opening a fresh RM. Thank you all for your welcome participation to search for the highest and best title for this article!
— User:Paine Ellsworth

So a future move request is not off the table, and if people feel that a more definitive case can be made after a discussion, the move request may be reopened. PBZE (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not see any purpose in opening a new discussion at this time. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Someone needs to come with some really strong arguments that weren't already dismissed. Btw, Void, I think you mean "A personal dislike of "gender-critical feminism" is not enough". I think actually the claim 'these people are called "terfs"' is itself a first class indication that that is an othering slur used by one side in this culture war. -- Colin°^Talk 11:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The term "Gender-critical feminism" is not very widely used in that exact form but the most commonly used term is "Gender Critical" (with or without a hyphen) and many (not myself!) would claim that "feminism" is implied even when it is not explicitly stated, making "Gender-critical feminism" the full form of the term. I feel that a move to "Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism" is definitely not a good idea as it would tie this subject even more closely to feminism, a link which exists but which is often overstated. Besides, it seems unfair to drag the Radical Feminists into this, any more than they already are, when most of the GCs are not RadFem and most of the RadFems are not GC. Personally, I favour a move to "Gender-critical movement" (with or without a hyphen) because the GC movement is a mixture of all sorts of people with little in common except for animus against trans people, which is the sole defining aspect of the movement. Only some of them have any connection to feminism at all and some are explicitly anti-feminist. However, given that getting agreement on anything in this subject area is all but impossible, I'm not going to propose it as it would probably get absolutely nowhere and just waste a load more of everybody's time. DanielRigal (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think your argument in favour of "Gender-critical movement" holds (a) "is a mixture of all sorts of people with little in common" is a really bad topic for an article and "except for animus against trans people" is literally the definition of transphobia which have an article on. -- Colin°^Talk 12:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

A movement is a movement even if it is a single issue movement that attracts support from people with little else in common. The fact that this article exists is proof that there is a subject here. I don't think that anybody is arguing otherwise. I guess that a merge and redirect to transphobia would be a theoretical possibility, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose that myself, but we all know that there is no realistic prospect of that actually happening and that it would be a waste of everybody's time to propose it. DanielRigal (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

You said:

animus against trans people, which is the sole defining aspect

The sole defining aspect is a shared belief that sex is binary, immutable, and important. That is how it is defined in WP:RS. That some also have animus towards trans people does not make that a defining factor in the belief, which is protected in the UK in those precise terms, while "animus towards trans people" blatantly is not, and could not be.

The problem is that there are a whole lot of sources that take the position that the belief that sex is binary, immutable and important is animus to trans people. Accurately representing this difference of perspective neutrally and fairly is hard, and approaching it from the standpoint that the subjects of the article are inherently bigoted or suggesting a redirect to transphobia when some WP:RS disagree is not ideal, to put it mildly.

I would propose:

• Rename TERF (acronym) back to TERF and remove the redirect that presently points here (and delete TERF Lesbians while we're at it)
• Create a page "gender critical" to cover just gender critical beliefs and the history of their legal protection, forstater etc and wider controversy using sources that only talk about "gender critical" (not "movement", that's overbroad, people who might share such beliefs are not part of the same "movement" by any stretch).
• Leave this page for "gender critical feminism" and link it from there as a historically important subset of those beliefs, ie those who coined the term and why, and its relationship to the term TERF, sourced only and specifically to material that talks about "gender critical feminism"
• Move all the "TERF ideology" stuff from here to "TERF".

But again, I can't see people going for that. But personally I think this is a legitimate POV split, per WP:SUBPOV. Void if removed (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"Gender critical" isn't great as an article title per WP:NOUN. I'm not sure how much material there would be to cover that isn't rooted in some way in a feminist perspective? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Gender critical beliefs maybe? The issue for me is that the result of Forstater was the protection of "gender-critical" as a belief distinct from any feminist analysis, and the term has come to have a broader usage. The belief that "sex is biological, binary and immutable" is not an inherently feminist one, and one held by (I would suggest) the vast majority of people, and those are the terms it is classed as a protected belief in the UK.

Gender critical feminists - as the originators of the term - additionally maintain a critique of gender as a system of oppression. But they are a tiny minority, and plenty of people who are not feminists can now be classed as "gender-critical" in UK law. For example, Sharhar Ali won a tribunal ruling on this basis - but he is not a gender critical feminist. Kevin Lister lost a tribunal ruling on the basis of gender-critical beliefs, and he is not a gender-critical feminist.

In much the same way some people who are called TERFs are neither trans-exclusionary nor radical feminists, many people called gender critical are not critical of gender and some are even explicitly antifeminist, so including them in a page titled "gender critical feminism" is a little perverse. Void if removed (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I have to say taking your definition of gender critical from purely UK court cases isn't the best. As well as this the definition above definitely seems like one that some gender critical people would say is their believe. The thing is getting a strict definition is difficult because it's a mainly social movement and some people have a tendency to misrepresent their beliefs. LunaHasArrived (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

As I may have said before, one way is for someone to sandbox some ideas on split/merged articles. It's a bit of work, though, and I can see why someone might think they have better things to do.

Btw, Sharhar Ali's tribunal ruling was over a procedural failing surrounding his dismissal. It actually reminded everyone that "Political parties can remove spokespeople for holding "beliefs that were inconsistent with party policy", if done through fair procedures". Sharhar Ali could have been found to be procedurally wrongly dismissed due to a dispute over the party logo or some aspect of economic policy. That this tribunal is held up as an example of how GC beliefs are protected in law, is a good example of GC misinformation. Anyone in the Alba Party expressing the view that trans women are women, something equally protected in UK law, is likely to find themselves required to publicly apologise and repent in order to remain in the job. And if Helen Joyce, director at Sex Matters, suddenly announced they wanted to be called "Hugo" and identified as a man, something anyone might hope one could do and keep one's job in most circumstances, they might find Sex Matters had appointed a different Director of Advocacy.

But I agree that "feminism" is not necessarily a useful component, and many who are described as GCF or TERFs are not feminists by any reasonable measure. -- Colin°^Talk 14:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I have started over here by taking this article and stripping out all of the feminist theory/history and "academic criticism of TERFs" stuff, to try and boil it down to the essentials of "gender critical", the history of the terminology and the legal situation in the UK. Its a work in progress, might go nowhere, might not get consensus for it, was just idly curious to see roughly what would be left and approximately how long that hypothetical article would be. Void if removed (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I think these things can be worthwhile even if it isn't adopted. Just thinking about a subject from a different angle. -- Colin°^Talk 18:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there a plan to move this content somewhere else (i.e. a corresponding Trans-exclusionary radical feminism? Although they are divergent movements, the origins of GC/TERF ideology among white RadFems seem like a very notable aspect of this topic; I don't think omitting that or trying to treat them as separate concepts is an improvement. The History section in the current article isn't very long anyway and could stand to be expanded. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That text shouldn't be moved anywhere. It's not appropriate as an article, it seems to just remove most other opinions than the movement's own opinions, like a WP:POVFORK of this article. It's also completely meaningless to separate "gender-critical" from gender-critical feminism (or movement)/trans-exclusionary radical feminism (TERF). They refer to the same thing, gender-critical (and GC) is really just shorthand for it. Others would describe gender-critical as a problematic newer "self-definition by some individuals and groups labelled TERFs" that serves to rebrand anti-trans activism (per the article). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to rename TERF (acronym) as TERF or remove the redirect. The term primarily refers to the actual movement and ideology. The article on the history of the acronym is a sub topic. This article is the main article on the TERF movement and ideology, and the vast majority of readers are clearly interested in the ideology itself, not the history of the word. The history of the would should be summarized here (like we do) per Wikipedia:Summary style and discussed in detail in the in-depth article on the acronym. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 06:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

We have indeed established that Gender-critical feminism is not the most common term. Daniel Rigal is also correct that even when the term gender-critical is used, is it typically without the word feminism. Even supporters usually just call themselves gender-critical or its abbreviation GC. Critics on the other hand often dispute that this movement is even feminist. Therefore, Gender-critical movement would be more in line with WP:COMMONNAME. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

We have not established that at all. We've been though this all before and "gender critical movement" is nowhere. Really we are comparing apples and oranges here. Gender-critical feminism is a thing. There are scholarly works on it, written by people who hold these views. There are multiple groups and countless individuals who claim this term to describe themselves. It is certainly a topic worthy of an article on Wikipedia.

TERF and its expansion "trans exclusionary radical feminist" is a label used by writers to talk about people they hate. It isn't a well defined set of beliefs. Often, such people don't even have to hold gender critical or feminist views at all. It covers anyone perceived as transphobic in the modern age, though mostly women, whereas men more often get called plainly transphobic. Well have an article on this slur: TERF (acronym) and we have a topic on transphobic beliefs: transphobia. Advocates that this article be renamed all loudly equate GCF with transphobia (and racism and Nazis typically) so go write at the article "transphobia" about it if you have the sources. You lose the argument when you say GCF==transphobic people. I might as well argue that the current Tory party is hatefully transphobic and so we should redirect Conservative Party (UK) to a new "transphobic Tory scum" article to express my feelings about them. I can find plenty material about transphobic Tory politicians to fill it with. That's the intellectual level being advanced here. That one simply wants ones advocacy position of hate to be spelled out in article titles.

There are a set of beliefs held by gender-critical feminists, just as there are sets of beliefs held by conservative politicians. To the extent that those beliefs tend one towards transphobia, typically in the minds of others, that can be documented if we have the sources. But let's please not make the mistake of saying that because you or your favourite writers think all GCF are transphobes that the words are synonyms. That isn't how an encyclopaedia works. Colin°^Talk 11:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"we have a topic on transphobic beliefs: transphobia" Yes. And what is classified as transphobia by academic sources = what "gender-critical" feminists do, according to academic sources. Reprarina (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

You've just said it yourself "classified as", not "is and is entirely equivalent to". An iPhone is "classified as" a smartphone" by all reliable sources. While Wingnut (politics) is an informal term (though widely used if you search Google News), the relationship between that word and the less intelligent right-wing politicians isn't really any different to the relationship between TERF (and its expansion) with GCF. Arguments that TERF isn't a slur are frankly about as embarrassing as trying to justify Tory scum on the grounds, that, well, they really are the scum of the earth. An encyclopaedia shouldn't be lowering itself to using partisan terms-of-abuse, regardless of how much many of us here think that abuse is merited. -- Colin°^Talk 13:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Give me academic sources at the level of The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies and Encyclopedia of Queer Studies in Education, which titles articles about the UK Conservative Party as Tory scum, and avoid the term UK Conservative Party.--Reprarina (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I say "classified as... by academic sources" instead of "is" because I do not want to violate WP:NOTAFORUM. Reprarina (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Colin, what part of terf includes a pejorative word like Tory scum. On a different note whilst terf in common parlance has become synonymous with transphobia, is that the case in academia and is there any academia that says terfism and gender critical feminism is different. There are many a group that are labelled from outside rather than inside, especially groups associated with bigotry as few people like being associated with bigotry. I would also really like to know what groups gender critical feminists together but transphobia, afaik they only ever promote 2 ideas: freedom to say their gender critical views, and being transphobic. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Colin, what part of terf includes a pejorative word like Tory scum.

It is more like "scab", in that use and context has rendered it a pejorative. There is no serious disagreement that it is a pejorative. The only disagreement is whether it is technically a slur. Void if removed (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Etymologically, scab was used as a prejorative (1580s) before it was used to describe strike breakers (c. 1800s according to RS) not the other way around, so that example might not work either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"what part of terf includes a pejorative word like Tory scum" this is the kind of typical analysis of "TERF" that fails to understand how words work. As I may have mentioned before, if I shorten the word "Pakistani" to the first four letters, I get the second most offensive word in British English. If I do similar with "Australian" to "Aussie" I get a friendly shorthand. Most of the analysis of TERF by activists falls into that trap. Dictionaries don't make that mistake as they focus on usage. So Oxford will tell us that the word nowadays means "a person whose views on gender identity are (or are considered) hostile to transgender people, or who opposes social and political policies designed to be inclusive of transgender people" and "TERF is now often used with derogatory or dismissive intent". So we have a dictionary telling us it is a vague term of abuse, no longer connected to its original meaning, and used towards people who's views are being hatefully dismissed.

Yes there are lots of labels for people "from the outside rather than inside". You know what most of them have in common: they are derogatory and dismissive and over-simplify what defines that group or what qualities it may have.

Use of that word or its expansion is the preserve of activist literature preaching to their congregation. If you examine neutral sources you won't find it outside of quoting someone or referring to it. Even groups that support trans people in the UK like Stonewall and Mermaids do not use that language. They know that one can't hope to win hearts and minds when one comes across as a hateful fundamentalist. -- Colin°^Talk 11:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok so you agree that it has to be the way that terf is used that makes it derogatory and dismissive, i do have to say your analysis that terf is a slur is a matter of opinion. Some people consider cis a slur (in fact some of the same people that say terf is a slur say this), this does not mean it is and I have to say that transphobe fits in oxford dictionaries definition above, should we just rename this article transphobia deemed acceptable in the UK, because is there any difference to that and gender critical feminism. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree, no. Words can become unusable (outside of attribution). Look, you can always find someone who thinks X is a perfectly ok word, typically because they use it or they grew up using it. Just because some people have a different opinion doesn't mean that serious neutral writers don't avoid it. Like we are required to by policy. There isn't a single article on Wikipedia that says "X is a TERF" in Wikivoice. The "cis is a slur" is Twitter nonsense, at a "you smell too" intellectual level.

Editors who can't find a difference between "transphobia" or "transphobia deemed acceptable in the UK" and "gender-critical feminism" maybe shouldn't be editing this article or using this page as a forum to express their opinions. -- Colin°^Talk 17:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem with the above has to be what one considers serious neutral writers has a huge impact on their conclusion. I do agree though at the moment something gender critical seems to be the most reasonable but I haven't done a heavy analysis of academic sources at the moment and I (unfortunately) live in the UK so exposure to UK media might bias me on this. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

But even leaving the "slur" debate aside, another problem with "TERF" is the fact that (as I've pointed out in talk more than once) there are academics who consider it not a neutral term, and use it because it isn't neutral (Hines, Williams). And there are even those academics who insist on using it but also simultaneously argue it is a misnomer because "they aren't feminists" or somesuch. And there are academics who note its controversy and avoid it because other, less inflammatory terms are available.

As a thought experiment, it is frankly inconceivable that in an interview the BBC would introduce, say, Kathleen Stock as a TERF. That should give a pretty clear hint that whatever the strong opinions of a handful of academics, it is actually a clearly non-neutral term. Void if removed (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes the BBC, the most neutral news source on trans people. On a more serious note, does Wikipedia follow newspapers or the academic sources. As well as this there should be a note of TERF Vs trans exclusionary radical feminist, I don't think anybody could accurately say the later is a slur despite the former starting as a abbreviation and their usage is very different. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The BBC have their flaws but they, and ITV and Sky News are legally required to be neutral in their reporting and language. They wouldn't dream of calling anyone a TERF. Nor would any serious newspaper reporting. I'm not so familiar with US TV/Radio/Newspapers but pick your favourite and imagine a news reporter talking about some matter, and describing Stock or Rowling as TERFs in editorial voice.

But let's take this thought experiment to Wikipedia. @Amanda A. Brant, et al, if you are so so confident that the term is both neutral and accurate and fair description then I challenge you to get the lead paragraph of the bio of anyone on "TERF Island" to say that these people are TERFs. Or even that they are trans-exclusionary radical feminists. I'm not asking you to edit war. Persuade editors on those articles. You might have enough "friends" to feel bold making that point on this page, but you don't have a WP:SNOWBALL chance elsewhere. And this matters, because editors don't like linking to redirects and don't like linking to incorrect terms. You'd swiftly find people objecting to linking biographical articles to a hate term or misleading term and rightly insisting that reliable neutral sources don't actually do that.

The fact is that if this article was called "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism", writers would get tired of writing that expansion after a sentence or two (and realise how misleading it is when used to describe certain people) and resort to saying TERFs or the ridiculous TERFology/TERFism. And then we get unstuck, because TERF means "hateful middle aged woman who holds views I consider transphobic" and before we know it, the article no longer describes a branch of feminism at all, but becomes a dumping ground for whoever half of Twitter hates.

Counting word usage, as happened in the last discussion, is a deeply flawed process. It doesn't tell you why people are using a word. They might well be using it to criticise its use, for example, or include it in parenthesis to indicate it is an alternative. It doesn't tell us that people who use one term are writing opinion pieces about how much they hate some other people, mainly in the US, whereas people who use the other term are a far more mixed bunch. It might tell you about US dominance in English speaking publications. Or about which magazines or newspapers get sucked into a Google Scholar search. It isn't particularly useful for our purposes here as both terms are widely used.

I think some US academics have dug a hole for themselves. Rather than write about important feminist points, they have wasted time arguing that their term is great and "not a slur" and that other term is a euphemism invented by Bad People. And now they find they can't back down. So we end up with a silo term, that can only be used by people preaching to their (mainly US) congregation, or as a signifier about which camp one is in on Twitter. -- Colin°^Talk 07:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking through a few of the pages on Wikipedia devoted to people on this page who have been called transphobic. There seems to be basically no mention of gender critical feminism or terf anywhere. Gender critical (no feminism) seems to be almost a UK legal term not a wider view and certainly not a historic one. Terf is only mentioned on Magadalen Berns' page (in the lead not in wikivoice) but rad fems who have been called transphobic seems to be a pretty common camp. This was just individuals Wikipedia pages though, no groups whatsoever. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

With a few exceptions, pages on individuals invariably hit WP:BLP issues using terms like TERF and anti-trans and transphobia. Pages on groups are far more free with this language, see eg. the lede of Women's Declaration International. Void if removed (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes of course, but that's why it was interesting to see no link to gender critical (apart from in a legal sense) LunaHasArrived (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Which people have you looked at that don't link it? Have you opened up the source to look for links? There will be links back to here and to TERF (acronym) but they won't use that language in wiki voice. The things is, you read some of the advocacy on this page where being GCF is equated with being a white supremacist, or child offender, in terms of supposedly universal agreement that these people are so bad we don't even cite their works, only the works of those who hate them, and yet when it hits reality, we find these people very much not cancelled and very much not called TERFs by any respectable source that values neutrality. -- Colin°^Talk 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that it was lead paragraph with my above statement (as was yours about getting TERF into lead paragraphs). I looked through Kathleen stock, Holly Lawford-smith, Germaine Greer, Janice Raymond, Sheila Jeffereys, Helen Joyce, Julie Bindel, Magadalen Berns', Robin Morgan, Maya Forstater and Jo Phoenix. Of these Helen Joyce, Maya Forstater and Jo Phoenix use Gender Critical (no feminist), Magadalen Berns' has TERF (linking to here) and the rest have no mention in the lead. This list was gathered from reading through this article, it is possible I may have missed some but I did also search for people mentioned who had no Wikipedia page just in case. Some of the people on the above list do have both feminism and mentions of transphobia in the lead but no label to this movement. LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

So for example, the page on Helen Lewis (journalist) links both here and to TERF (acronym) as follows:

Lewis said "I've had two tedious years of being abused online as a transphobe and a 'TERF' or 'trans-exclusionary radical feminist'—despite my belief that trans women are women, and trans men are men—because I have expressed concerns about self-ID and its impact on single-sex spaces"

Now it makes sense to link TERF to the page which explains it is an insult and what it means.

But it makes no sense to link "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" to this page, because "gender critical feminist" is not a term of abuse.

This is the whole problem with this pretense all these terms are interchangable. Everyone knows TERF is a derogatory term used to pretty much like "witch" these days, and that is what she's referring to. It is clear in context she is expanding that term for clarity for the unfamiliar, but per MOS:NOLINKQUOTE there is no way that the expansion should link here, because there's no way that Helen Lewis would agree - in the context she is listing terms she has been abused with - that "gender critical feminist" is one of those. Void if removed (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

In the same vain Transphobe shouldn't link to transphobia then. I think that both this and Trans exclusionary radical feminism are linked so people learn about those movements and can judge Helen Lewis for themselves. Perhaps neither should link whatsoever but I'm not an editor truly experienced with MOS guidelines. LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we have thoroughly established that and it's all in the archives. We have also established, from the very beginning, that trans-exclusionary radical feminism and gender-critical feminism are to be treated as synonymous terms for the purposes of this article. Gender-critical feminism is merely (yet another) attempt at rebranding this specific form of transphobia (nobody says it's synonymous with transphobia in general, i.e. all forms of it). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Amanda, you write "we have established" so many times on these pages, as though the many people who disagree with you, writing in the very same sections, simply don't exist. As for "nobody says", well Daniel did, just further up this page, when they said this could be a merge and redirect to transphobia.

Go look in any serious newspaper that is doing serious reporting (not opinion pieces) that reports on the controversy surrounding Kathleen Stock or Maya Forstater, for example. Or even JK Rowling for that matter. Does the journalist call them TERFs in editorial voice? No. I doubt you'd find any calling them trans-exclusionary radical feminists either. Does anyone seriously claim Forstater or Rowling have a radical feminist position?

It is perfectly possible to write in an academic journal without lowering oneself to Twitter-level hate-words: This is hate, not debate is a thoughtful academic piece by a trans person arguing that others are writing and saying things that make their life less safe. Their point would be lost if they used hateful language themselves. On Wikipedia, we don't copy the language of biased sources, or the language of hate. This is so well established, we have a policy, which requires us to be neutral. -- Colin°^Talk 16:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

We have established it. Whether you agree or not is immaterial, especially since you don't cite any sources to back up your claims, unlike me and others who researched this quite thoroughly when we discussed it. I haven't seen any editor besides you dispute the fact that the specific phrase "Gender-critical feminism" is not the most common term. It would be surprising, especially given the solid evidence cited in earlier discussions that demonstrated other terms or specific phrases to be more widely used than "Gender-critical feminism", which is a fairly new term. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

this source currently used on the page is interesting for containing this line:

many (not all) gender-critical feminists are also radical feminists

Which means that gender critical feminist and trans exclusionary radical feminist cannot be equivalent.

Note that this paper uses "gender critical feminist" throughout. Neither TERF nor trans-exclusionary radical feminist appear. There is no unanimity here and taking a couple of more anti-TERF sources as authorities on this is going to end up advancing one specific POV.

And in any case, some of the positions are more nuanced. Eg. Thurlow give their opinion that this is in part a rebranding, but that the terms are not precisely equivalent, as I've stated before, several times. Void if removed (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

That's like saying that Pluto must be a planet because it's a dwarf planet. No, "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" as a full phrase just can't be split into its individual parts. Some TERFs are not radical feminists, and while that's a contradiction in language, it's not a contradiction in meaning. Loki (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Some TERFs are not radical feminists, and while that's a contradiction in language, it's not a contradiction in meaning.

I'm sorry, I absolutely don't follow what you're saying here. Either "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" is a neutral, accurate descriptor, or it isn't.

As is abundantly clear TERF is not applied only to radical feminists, or even feminists, but actually to denigrate basically anyone deemed transphobic on the grounds of believing there are two human sexes and you cannot literally change sex. If the full expansion "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" also applies to people who aren't radical feminists, or even feminists, it isn't actually a neutral, accurate descriptor either. If these terms just mean whatever shibboleth the author is railing against in a given context, and not a coherent set of beliefs, how is this different to, say, US Republicans calling everything they dislike "Marxist" or "Critical theory" or "Woke" or some such?

All this is why neutral sources don't use it - because it is both inaccurate and inflammatory.

And yet another employment tribunal today ruled in a damning verdict that this sort of discriminatory attitude is unacceptable in UK civil society. Void if removed (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe Loki is saying that TERF cannot be read as a simple wikt:WT:Sum of parts. Hope that clarifies things. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

But the claim is also made that it is a simple, accurate sum of its parts and that's why it is ok to use when specifically referring to the branch of radical feminism (encompassing most notably Raymond and Jeffries) who are trans-exclusionary.

Gender-critical feminism is clearly not exactly the same thing, rather it is a superset for wider feminist beliefs, encompassing different kinds of feminism (eg. radical, socialist, marxist, and even liberal) who happen to agree that sex is binary and immutable, and gender is oppressive.

Using "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" for all of these views is patently inaccurate and this is borne out by the sources which make it clear there is a distinction. Some sources are invested in using "TERF" as a synonym for "transphobe" and not a specific accurate descriptor of any particular branch of feminist thought, and expanding the acronym doesn't make it any more accurate or neutral once you start saying "well, it doesn't apply to radical feminists, or even feminists, its more than the sum of its parts". Frankly it is incoherent to argue that "trans exclusionary radical feminism" is both a neutral accurate descriptor and also means people who aren't radical feminists or even feminists.

Returning to the Pluto analogy, it is like saying that "dwarf planet" applies to non-planetary objects. No - you can't just call a moon a "dwarf planet" any more than you can call Graham Linehan a "trans exclusionary radical feminist" and then claim its accurate because its not just the sum of its parts. Void if removed (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"woke" is a good example. Apparently diswashers and scones can be woke. The word is now mainly used by people who don't care what it originally meant, don't care to come up with a rigid definition, but use it in a "I know it when I see it" mindset against things or people they hate. "TERF" and "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" have fallen into that bucket and are used by a siloed group just like the pejorative "woke" is used by a siloed group. The meaning and usage is accepted within that group but to everyone else outside, eyes roll. -- 12:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Colin°^Talk 12:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe the comparison made by LunaHasArrived was strictly in response to Colin raising "Tory scum" as a point of comparison. Thank you for understanding. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

If one wants to play the "don't look at what each word means" game then that pretty much rules out all the criticism of "gender critical". If all we are left with are opaque terms composed of multiple words, and those words are not to be examined, then why are trans activists so determined to avoid using "gender critical feminist" as a term?

The "TERF/trans-exclusionary radical feminist" naming has this problem. Abbreviated it is an offensive term of abuse. Expanded it is utterly meaningless to our readers, and trying to explain the meaning ends up demonstrating how unconnected it is with any actual modern usage. Plus it is way too many syllables. -- Colin°^Talk 14:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Dunno, why are race activists so determined to avoid race realist? I don't really care, I think gender critical is shorter and I doubt it'll avoid the treadmill in the long run. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I suppose, going back to the topic of the actual title, I would probably oppose TERF because it's clearly not WP:NCACRO, which makes it a decision between the two longer forms, and honestly the other one is just too much of a mouthful. Hell, I wish this section head was shorter. Already trans-exclusionary radical feminism PRIMARYREDIRECTs here anyway. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Classifying the movement as cisnormative

I looked it up and saw that the article did not use the word “cisnormativity” at all. Meanwhile, academic sources clearly classify the movement as cisnormative.

In recent years, a form of feminism known as trans exclusionary radical feminism (TERF) has contained cisnormative arguments similar to those of social conservatives, promoting the vilification of people with a trans lived experience in the guise of “gender-critical” feminism. Berger, Israel; Ansara, Y. Gavriel. Cisnormativity. In: Goldberg, Abbie; Beemyn, Genny. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies.

Scholars spanning educational contexts, including K-12 (e.g., Carrera-Fernández & DePalma, 2020; Schmidt, 2017) and higher education (e.g., Chang & Leets, Jr., 2018; Nicolazzo, 2017), have identified educational institutions as cisheteronormative spaces whose structures, classrooms, and curricula often- times perpetuate trans-exclusionary ideologies. In many instances, TERFs oppose LGBTQ+ inclusive school policies and educational advancements (Pearce et al., 2020), contributing to understandings of cisnormativity in educational spaces and rendering such heteronormativity inextricable from the discussion of TERFs. In: Encyclopedia of Queer Studies in Education.

We have at least two encyclopedias which focus attention on cisnormativity in TERF movement, so I should we should add it in the acticle.--Reprarina (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

This was added recently to the Scholarly Analysis section. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

views - gay rights

Is there any reason this section solely quotes GC people and makes no mention that most gay people disagree with them. At the moment someone who reads the section would have no idea about the disagreement involved. Perhaps this would be best served linking to an appropriate article but it does strike me as a problem. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I would love to add a popular opinion section if you could get good sources on it. Loki (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

From a very very quick search

this source says only 8% of cisgender gay, lesbian and bisexual Britain's have a negative view of trans people. (No mention of gender critical)

this 2nd source Has the juicy quote "The findings seem to disprove claims by groups such as the LGB Alliance and The Lesbian Project, as well as several “gender-critical” pundits, that including the “T” somehow erases the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people." And goes more into people saying there is no divide.

I'm sure there's more and not from pinknews alone, but as I said this was a quick search (searching "yougov" on pinknews) LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Those could go on a more general page about the relationship between LGB people and trans people, but you're gonna have to get us specifically opinions on gender-critical feminism (or trans-exclusionary radical feminism) for this page.

(See why this is hard?) Loki (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Why is it a problem for a section on the views of gender critical feminists about a specific subject being based on quotes of gender critical feminists giving their views on that subject? Void if removed (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Basic WP:Due weight (emphasis added):

However, these pages should still appropriately reference the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the minority view's perspective. [...] In addition, the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.

This section should put minority viewpoints on the relationship between LGB rights and trans rights within the context of the broader gay rights movement. Some of the sources and material at Lesbian erasure § In relation to transgender people is probably relevant here. It's especially concerning to directly cite "We're being pressured into sex by some trans women" as a source without mentioning any of the widely covered reactions to it. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 20:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not an article about gay rights falsely emphasising the minority opinions of gender-critical feminists about gay rights.

This is an article about gender-critical feminism, describing their views. The best sources for those views are not people who hate them saying why they hate their views and think they're wrong, even if those views are in the majority, any more than the page on Christianity should heavily feature the views of the global Muslim majority. Void if removed (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

It is currently heavily one sided, look at the above section on intersex conditions and compare the 2. It reads like a press release from sex matters or get the L out, if we shouldn't have criticism sections we shouldn't have sections that only show one side of the argument either. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't know what Wikipedia you've been reading, but the encyclopedia I know loves to point out when religious or spiritual groups believe in things that contrast with a mainstream (i.e. scientific) consensus; see especially List of topics characterized as pseudoscience § Religious and spiritual beliefs.

Terves Reiki practitioners are perfectly fine sources for the things Reiki practitioners believe, but to achieve NPOV and DUE, we are obliged to at least make note of the fact that their beliefs are not mainstream, and have been criticized by numerous feminists, lesbians, trans men, and scholars who consider their beliefs about... er... the efficacy of Reiki, to be faux-concern, scaremongering,[3] demeaning and wrong.[4], or as part of a right-wing effort to falsely equate their transphobic ideology with Left movements, drive a wedge between trans people and the rest of the LGBTQ community.[5] Some amount of criticism content is absolutely due in this section, and its omission is glaring. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 00:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

(As a note: these were the sources most convenient to me, primarily to demonstrate the existence of substantial sourced critique of gendercrit narratives purporting transbian invasion, butch genocide, etc. They're not the result of an exhaustive search or necessarily the ones that should be included alongside the current content. I hope an interested editor finds the time to do that work.) –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 00:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Academic sources

I can see multiple comments above arguing for the pre-eminence of academic sources on this subject. We need to take a closer look at this. WP:SOURCETYPES tells us:

When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.

Usually. Not always. It particularly doesn't mean that academic sources have a monopoly on significant viewpoints.

GCF is not the physical sciences, where scientific consensus is widely discussed and results are widely believed to converge on an objective truth. It is a type of social science or philosophy, where ideas diverge and proliferate and different schools of thought emerge. Part of the reason why Wikipedia favours academic sources is because of their objectivity. Scientists, for the most part, take a neutral stance in their publications, and they are kept in check by empirical reality. Not so for ideas where there is no recourse to experiment to settle disputes. There is no apparatus that can objectively answer whether GCF is transphobic, because that is a question about society and its values, not about nature and the universe at large. Without objectivity, academic statements are rigorous opinions. They should not be waved on through to wikivoice just because they are academic.

I also note WP:SCHOLARSHIP's advice on POV and peer review in journals:

Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view.

We have at least one of those being used, where academics wear their POV proudly on their sleeve. That's OK, that comes with the territory. POV sources can be mined for facts and relevant attributed opinions. What it means for us as Wikipedia editors is that we cannot venerate this type of academia as authoritative in the same way as an academic paper on gravity or geology or genetics. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

So, the general idea that academic sources aren't necessarily the most reliable in every situation I agree with, but it's not really about objectivity.

Wikipedia doesn't really have the concept of an objective source. Arguably, reality doesn't either. There are mainstream and WP:FRINGE points of view but no "objective" point of view.

Which is to say, the question here is whether or not it's the mainstream POV that GCF is transphobic, not whether the sources that say that are "objective". Sometimes academia agrees on things that are politically controversial. If they're reliable otherwise, we just say what they do: not trying to impose a point of view on the sources is a core part of WP:NPOV. Loki (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that the key factor is mainstream versus fringe, but I argue that mainstream should be evaluated with regards to all reliable sources, without academic opinions having a supervote on the matter. This is unlike the article on, say, organic chemistry, where academic sources definitely should carry higher weight than others. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not really how this works. WP:FRINGE is defined relative to the mainstream within a particular academic field. If the mainstream of an academic field and the political mainstream have different views on an issue, WP:NPOV demands that we describe both, at a minimum. In some cases WP:PSCI, WP:MEDRS, or other similar policies might require us to give the academic view precedence, but I don't think any of those are relevant here. Loki (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

This isn't an academic field - feminism has never been a wholly or even majority academic endeavour. This is a broader subject about which some academics in various fields have strong opinions in opposing directions. Privileging one specific academic POV and claiming that that is the mainstream perspective on this subject and that every other viewpoint is WP:FRINGE is not remotely the way to approach this. Void if removed (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we should absolutely rely on academic sources. The scholarly consensus is that TERF ideology is a WP:FRINGE, extremist ideology, and a form of transphobia. It started as a fringe movement within radical feminism, which is already quite marginal, even within feminism, and is now increasingly linked to various far-right ideologies and movements. The claim that "There is no apparatus that can objectively answer whether GCF is transphobic" is as inaccurate as saying we should treat antisemitism in a "both sides" way, giving equal validity to antisemitic viewpoints, because scholarship on antisemitism is not physical science but social and historical science. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Antisemitism is fringe not just in academia but in society at large. If it were fringe only in academia, but widely accepted everywhere else, we would bothsides it, because academia does not have a monopoly on significant viewpoints, and this brand of academia doesn't have an empirical trump card that gives it access to a higher tier of truth claim than mainstream dialogue. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)