Talk:Gender-critical feminism/Archive 7

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-03

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gabiangiuli (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jesstrada.

— Assignment last updated by Momlife5 (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jiselle04 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jlopez04.

— Assignment last updated by Bbalicia (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Bias

One would be hard-pressed to find an article more spectacularly tilted than this one. It's an ideological broadside, not an encyclopedia entry. Naturally, then, it is "currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment." Perfect. Nicmart (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nicmart There has already been a requested move, and the result was no consensus. And keep in mind WP:NOTFORUM. —Panamitsu (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Getting consensus for cutting down on quotes

I recently made this series of edits aimed at reducing the number of long quotations (and, frankly, getting rid of some pretty badly phrased sentences like "Gender-critical feminists promote the idea that sex is important" without any definition of what that means when a better definition is present in the previous paragraph).

Many of these changes were reverted in this series of edits by Void and Swood Sweet. I suspect, based on the way talk page discussions have gone in the past, that the majority of people watching this page would prefer my version, and so I'm bringing it here to ask. Loki (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you mean me, not Swood. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC) And please explain why you think most people would prefer your version – surely edits are judged on their own merits, not on who makes them? Sweet6970 (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
They are, but I was hoping to just let people see the edits for themselves. But since you asked:
I think that it's obviously an improvement to the article to reduce the number of long quotes. Long quotes are often used to smuggle a POV into an article by putting it in the mouth of an advocate, and one of my major goals in removing the quotes was to maintain WP:NPOV. They're also often just bad stylistically: quotes aren't in Wikipedia's style and so swapping frequently between long quotes and our text can be jarring.
I also frankly think quoting sources at length is somewhat of an abdication of our duty to write an encyclopedia. The source isn't writing an encyclopedia, we are, and that includes a duty to summarize what the sources say. We would never include a long jargon-filled quote from a paper in the hard sciences, but for some reason when it comes to gender studies we have lots of similar jargon-filled quotes. Loki (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Regarding Long quotes are often used to smuggle a POV into an article by putting it in the mouth of an advocate: I think your reasoning is back-to-front. This article is about g-c feminism, and we need to tell readers what g-c feminists’ views are. Therefore, we should not be putting their views in wikivoice – we should give quotes to make clear that these are the views of g-c feminists, and not the views of Wikipedia. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Is the length of the quotes really that problematic? Quotes seem like a good solution to the difficulty of putting anything in wikivoice. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with this, the problem is most of these are WP:RSOPINION in a highly polarised area.
Extensive quotes are about the only way through the issue of wikivoice, when practically every single aspect of this is hotly disputed by oppositional scholars. Void if removed (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Excessive quotes are a problem for the reasons described in WP:QUOTEFARM: Quotations embody the breezy, emotive style common in fiction and some journalism, which is generally not suited to encyclopedic writing. and Quotations that present rhetorical language in place of the neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias can be an underhanded method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia articles; be very careful. It's always important to ask why we're using a particular quote - is the precise perspective of the speaker important? If it's being used to introduce an argument or idea, is that argument WP:DUE? And if we have many quotes, are we really introducing a bunch of distinct ideas that are all worth their own quotes on an encyclopedic, or is it just trying to present arguments to convince the reader? My opinion is that quote-bloated sections are often the result of editors with differing perspectives on an issue rushing to add as many views supporting their preferred interpretation as possible, and especially adding more to "balance out" opposing views when they should be removing or paraphrasing those quotes instead. There's also a risk of nose-counting, where people add a bunch of quotes to just have the view of a lot of people agreeing; or situations where people effectively WP:SYNTH up what the major arguments are and what the broad strands of thought are on a topic by pulling a bunch of quotes out of either opinion-pieces or from news pieces that don't really present those quotes in that context. Situations like that are better-handled by summarizing the views of a bunch of people in one sentence (eg. "X, Y, and Z disagreed, saying this is wrong" rather than individual quotes for each.) The ideal way to summarize broad views is via a secondary source that discusses overarching opinions anyway, which both helps establish due weight and lets us characterize the strands of thought without having to try and assemble it ourselves out of quotes. --Aquillion (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
There are plenty of quotes from those opposed to g-c feminism – I see that these have not been challenged. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant when I said that people ought to be more aggressive about removing quotes rather than adding ones to "balance them out" (which leads to a quote-farm.) Obviously we can't remove quotes in a one-sided manner, not unless there's actually significant differences in WP:RS coverage or something. But editors by their nature are more likely to go "that looks wrong" and notice problems that go against their own personal understanding of a topic, which means that in a controversial topic area it works best if people with different views on the topic work together to cut down on or paraphrase unnecessary quotes. --Aquillion (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Luckily these quotes are in the Views section, where the objective is to explain what the subject’s views are, and quotes direct from the horse’s mouth are often the best way of illustrating this. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
While I agree that a Views section is better than normal for quotes, that's not a reason to go nuts with them. Wikipedia policy doesn't stop applying because a section is titled "Views". We still need to represent their views proportionally to the rest of the sources, and in the manner the sources say they should be represented.
In the article on anarchism, a good article about a political ideology, we do explain what anarchists believe, and even quote some of them, but we never quote anyone for a whole paragraph. The longest quote there is only 12 words long. Feminism (another good article) has some longer quotes, but not that many, and not that much longer. There's still never a whole paragraph quoting anyone. Loki (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Which of the current quotes is going nuts? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-03

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gabiangiuli (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jesstrada.

— Assignment last updated by Momlife5 (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Terminology

This article is about "gender-critical feminism". Having a terminology section titled "gender-critical feminism" seems completely redundant, seeing as that is the scope of the page. Having that section devoted entirely to criticism of "gender-critical feminism" is merely duplicating content from later in the article, and prioritising this opinionated criticism above the "views" section which explains what gender-critical feminism actually is. The content belongs in the scholarly analysis where Thurlow's views in particular are already represented. Void if removed (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the article reads very oddly with the paragraph on Terminology where it is – this is just a duplicate of material in the Scholarly analysis section. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I disagree. The group of people this article describes did not come into existence in the late 2010s when the term "gender-critical" was first used, nor did they come into existence in circa 2008 when Viv Smythe came up with TERF. The group pre-existed those terms, and those terms simply reflect names by which the group were known at various points in time. The purpose of the terminology section therefore is to document the various notable names this group has been known by, hence why we cite Thurlow and Grinspan et al. for the late-2010s rebranding from TERF to gender-critical. And if the group rebrands again as was noted as potentially occurring during the recent RM, and that rebranding is noted in reliable sources like Thurlow, then we would naturally document that subsequent rebranding in the terminology section.
I also don't agree with Sweet's point that the current paragraph for the gender-critical feminism subsection is entirely duplicative of content elsewhere in the article. Thurlow's work is quoted and summarised in several sections, but the content we include is unique within each of those sections. Grinspan et al. is duplicative, though I think the fix here is to remove the brief paragraph from the scholarly analysis section, as it seems to me to be more out of place there than the terminology section is given what Grinspan are saying in that sentence of their editorial. That said, whether or not the editorial for a special issue of DiGeSt is more due than the other twelve papers within the issue itself is perhaps a better question to be asking. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The group pre-existed those terms
That is of course the opinion of some, but it is not universally shared. That is, it is the opinion of critics that this is so, and the opinion of those who call themselves "gender-critical feminists" that it is not.
The idea that there is some coherent "group" that moves from lesbian separatism in the US in the 60s, to organising on Mumsnet against the GRA reforms in the UK circa 2015 is of course absurd.
The only unifying factor is that all of those disparate people are (either contemporaneously or retrospectively by historical revisionists like Cristan Williams) being called "TERFs", most commonly as a term of abuse. Void if removed (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
[...] That is, it is the opinion of critics that this is so, and the opinion of those who call themselves "gender-critical feminists" that it is not. This only further warrants a "Terminology" section.
The idea that there is some coherent "group" that moves from lesbian separatism in the US in the 60s, to organising on Mumsnet against the GRA reforms in the UK circa 2015 is of course absurd. It is not, that is how all ideologies work. They develop and spread (or don't).
The only unifying factor is that all of those disparate people are (either contemporaneously or retrospectively by historical revisionists like Cristan Williams) being called "TERFs", most commonly as a term of abuse. That is your view of the subject. One might also argue that a unifying factor is anti-trans activism and advocacy. TucanHolmes (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
The topic of this article is the ideology or movement known variously in reliable sources as gender-critical feminism (including abbreviated forms) or trans-exclusionary radical feminism (including abbreviated forms). Unlike TERF (acronym), the focus here is on the ideology/movement itself and not on a specific term, but a terminology section is clearly warranted as a facet of the broader topic, and to document the various prominent terms that have been used. Gender-critical feminism is a term that only gained traction a few years ago (from around 2020), many years after the movement (i.e. the topic of the article) emerged under different names, and it's important to document the history of that term as well. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

What?

What on earth is this article about. Is TERF an expression of XX and XY sex determination? If it is then please say so in a more elegant manner. 92.18.249.104 (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Gender-critical feminism, as its title says. Sorry, I don’t understand your query. Do you have a suggestion for improving the wording of the article? Sweet6970 (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This article reads as a collage essay.

This article feels un-fit for Wikipedia standards Five pillars of Wikipedia. The article is confusing, overly wordy, and spends more words pointing holes in the ideology than explaining what the ideology is. Criticism should go in the criticism section, not in every sentence of the article. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, not a collage essay.

The disambiguation notice at top links to Anti-gender movement which is significantly clearer article both in explaining its topic, and in doing so in a neutral and direct manner. There is also significant overlap which could be a good resource look to.

I get that this is a very loaded topic, and these kinds of subjects of Wikipedia tends to need a lot of people looking at them until they converge to a good point. But this article needs a serious overhaul. 91.130.50.13 (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is written from a neutral perspective, and this includes pointing [sic] holes in the ideology. We don't do uncritical exposition for ideologies, since Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, and an ideology includes a point of view. That's what an ideology is, a point of view is part of its essence. Wikipedia is also based on reliable sources and, where applicable, facts as established by reliable sources. While we might quote adherents to an ideology and explain its structure and basic premises, we also point out where these premises or structures are (obviously) wrong, if applicable. That is not criticism, more encyclopedic evaluation with respect to what reliable sources have to say. If a point is contentious, we attribute it. If it is not contentious, or represents a fringe position in a discussion, we treat it as such. This is to avoid giving false balance to various aspects of a topic. We do this precisely because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
Criticism should go in the criticism section. No, please see this essay about criticism on Wikipedia.
If you see problems with the article, please feel free to be bold and correct them yourself. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

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)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Gender-critical_feminism/Archive_7"