Talk:Gender-critical feminism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Potential sources

This is an MA thesis so it's probably not appropriate as a source in itself, but it contains a thorough literature review that may be of interest to editors working on this article: https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/fub188/32780/MASTERS%20THESIS_Simon%2c%20Braedyn%20Ezra.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

So far there seems to be very little citation of sources that identify with and/or argue for the gender-critical/TERF point of view, and a great deal of sources that criticise gender critical feminism. I'm not very familiar with the Wikipedia policies on this, but prima facie it seems rather unbalanced at the moment. Surely the right thing to do is to cite the proponents first and then cite the criticisms? There can, of course, be more critics cited than proponents, to reflect the fact the gender critical views are espoused by a minority of feminists. Nero Calatrava (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

While not all WP editors agree 100% on this, the general community consensus is that articles should rely on WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY sources rather than on WP:PRIMARY ones (such as self-published pieces and op-eds). The distinction between "proponents" and "criticisms" is only really relevant among the PRIMARY sources (except in instances where secondary, scholarly sources are in conflict among themselves, but that isn't really the case here). While finding sources that argue for the gender critical/TERF point of view isn't really necessary, what is important is explaining what that point of view is - and I'm sure the draft will get there eventually. Newimpartial (talk) 12:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

In terms of history, about the earliest reference I've found for the self-description of "gender critical feminism" is this piece on CounterPunch, but there are precious few high quality sources. Some quotes:

"What we all agree on, however, is that sex-based gender roles are oppressive social constructs– not natural states of being in need of protection and celebration– and that the well-documented threats of violence against women who defend women-only space are an abusive and unacceptable response to political disagreement."

"Gender critical feminists do not have a commitment to the naturalism of gendered social roles; but many trans people do. Instead of claiming that the prefabricated binary gender roles of “man” and “woman” are essential parts of ourselves—which again, is a conservative view– gender critical feminists believe that these social roles are harmful constructs that constitute dangerous justification for the on-going oppression and dehumanization of women."

In terms of the UK and with reference to the reform of the Gender Recognition Act, this is possibly a valuable academic source. A quote for the crux of the issue:

"The central contention of this article is that moving to a system of self-identification of gender in line with Part C of Principle 31 of the Yogyakarta Principles collapses sex and gender identity in UK law in a way that undermines important sex-based protections provided by the 2010 EA which, I argue, primarily serve to protect women as a class, as well as making it difficult to fully protect against discrimination on grounds of a transgender identity. " Void if removed (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Anti-gender movement

Perhaps the article should explain early on (incl in the lead) how gender-critical feminism is related to the broader anti-gender movement? I'm thinking specifically of how TERFs and the conservative anti-gender movement have converged, how they increasingly cooperate, how TERFs/gender-criticals have embraced the worldview and terminology originally associated with the conservative anti-gender movement, as many sources have discussed. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I added something in the lead about the anti-gender movement. NHCLS (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That's good, I think the LGB Alliance ought to be discussed in the "alliances with conservatives and the far right", in view if its annual conferences. Newimpartial (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Prospective additions

I haven't checked whether enough Julie Bindel material has been added to the UK section - could someone do that?

Also, while I'm not a Telegraph fan, this piece might provide useful, non-Stock-dominated, "free speech" coverage from the UK. Newimpartial (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Titles/names

For reference: In Google Scholar there are

• 227 results for "trans-exclusionary radical feminism", 382 for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" and 594 for "trans-exclusionary radical feminists". In total 1203
• 99 for "gender-critical feminism", 105 for "gender-critical feminist" and 176 for "gender-critical feminists". In total 380
• 88 for "trans-exclusionary feminism", 56 for "trans-exclusionary feminist" and 101 for "trans-exclusionary feminists". In total 245
• 59 for "transphobic feminism", 41 for "transphobic feminist" and 41 for "transphobic feminists". In total 141
• There are also 1,150 results for "terf" AND feminism

--Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I think I'd support moving the page title to 'trans-exclusionary radical feminism' in that case. NHCLS (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

From a personal point of view, I don't have very strong objections to the term "gender-critical feminism", but the numbers here make a pretty strong case for reversing the order in the first sentence and using trans-exclusionary radical feminism as the title. It is possible that "gender-critical feminism" may be a mainly British term, whereas Americans and others prefer TERF/"trans-exclusionary radical feminism". --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I still think editors should refrain from launching a COMMONNAME battle that will inflame the ants, require the apparent reversal of previous RfC closes (including one at ANI), and not coincidentally pick what I believe to be the declining over the rising label. Could we please not do that, just because one term would be technically more common? Newimpartial (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with gender-critical feminism for now. I think it's useful to be aware of the fact that most sources use a different term, though (it's more than three times as common, not counting the sources only mentioning the acronym), and that we may have to revisit this question at some point. Perhaps the article should also include something about the prevalence of the different terms. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Let's also take into account the fact that, in this rapidly-shifting field, scholarly sources from the last two years may be considerably more "accurate", or at least well-grounded in their assumptions, than ones from 5 or 10 years ago. This is especially true of terminology IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Of the 227 results for "trans-exclusionary radical feminism", 93 are from either 2020 or 2021, and 42 are from 2021

Of the 99 results for "gender-critical feminism", 56 are from either 2020 or 2021, and 25 are from 2021.

Of the 1,150 results for "terf" AND feminism, 520 are from either 2020 or 2021, and 255 are from 2021.

I didn't bother analysing all the terms mentioned above, because I think we get the picture: "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism" and the acronym TERF remain more widely used in the most recent scholarship, although gender-critical is emerging as an alternative term. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Also see my comments below; the term "TERF" is used for non-feminists, perhaps even in scholarship. Any such mentions should be deducted from the counts, in my view of the appropriate scope of this article. Newimpartial (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with the above points that GC would be the better title, and I'll add that, as we've probably all seen explained elsewhere, counting Google results can be inaccurate. I also believe that GC could have been undercounted becauss it is not always hyphenated, and because it is not as likely to have the word "feminist" be immediately after the phrase as with TERF. For example, a source could say something like "feminists who describe themselves as 'gender critical' say...Such gender critical arguments posit..." and be uncounted. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Google Scholar is far more accurate than Google in terms of the number of results. I've often manually looked through all results and found the number of results to be accurate. It doesn't distinguish between "gender-critical feminism" and "gender critical feminism"; that will produce the same results. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

"Sometimes referred to as a fringe movement"

For statements like this, in the lead as well as body, we are going to need to provide immediate inline citations. There is no point painting huge citation-needed targets, even on a draft article.

(This kind of thing, by the way, is the rationale for the bare links I have occasionally inserted: before suggesting any names, I am making sure that reliable sources actually describe the person or org as feminist, and gender-critical or trans-exclusionary. So the LGB Alliance may not fit here, because I'm unaware of any reliable sources actually labelling them "feminist".) Newimpartial (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be odd to have an article on TERF/gender criticals that didn't mention LGB Alliance, one of the main TERF groups. TERF/gender-critical feminism is a specific phenomenon, so whether they present themselves as focused on feminism (in general) isn't the key issue. Finn Mackay refers to LGB Alliance as a GC (the common abbreviation of gender-critical feminist) group[1]; Pedro Monque mentions LGB Alliance as a TERF group[2], for example. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The article includes a specific quote (by Butler) referring to TERF as a fringe movement. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

My support for for this article's existence and development is contingent on its being limited to feminists. This represents an advantage of the current title, because "gender-critical feminists" is, in its signification, restricted to (those presenting themselves as) feminists, and the scholarly literature on them does the same AFAIK. This differs from the term "TERF", which is widely applied to figures like Graham Linehan and J.K. Rowling who are not described by reliable sources as (or known as) feminists. Amanda, if you insist that everyone who has been labeled "TERF" or "gender critical" therefore belongs in this article, setting aside the issue of feminism as not the key issue, then I don't think this article will be fit for purpose in an encyclopedia and will oppose its move to article space. I am not interested in a COATRACK or a catch-all, here.

As far as the Butler citation goes, I am suggesting that it needs to be placed in the lead, and if they are the only one that has used that phrase, it should be attributed to them. Newimpartial (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Look, I'm not "insisting" on anything at all. This is a draft, not an article yet, where there should be room for editors to present their (tentative) ideas for the development of the article, and what it should cover. LGB Alliance is mentioned briefly in the article, and the content wasn't added by me. I'm not advocating any major focus on that organisation specifically. (the first sentence that mentions LGB Alliance states that "LGB Alliance was founded in opposition to Stonewall, accusing the organisation of having "undermined women's sex-based rights and protections", so it's clearly about feminism; LGB Alliance is also widely described as a group of mainly lesbians opposed to transgender rights, and it's not like the lesbian movement isn't related to feminism, or don't see themselves as feminists. I just don't understand your reasoning here.) --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, this is why I argued that if there is a specific page for this movement, it should be called "gender-critical movement" instead of "gender-critical feminism" - people like Linehan and Rowling aren't really feminists, but they are very, very prominent figures within GCism. I don't see how you could have an article on the movement without mentioning them. NHCLS (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I also don't quite understand how we can have an article on this without mentioning Rowling. While she wasn't really a feminist before becoming a TERF, she is now the main figurehead of this movement, and her influence on people who do identify as (gender-critical) feminists is very large. She and her supporters are also clearly using feminist language to justify their gender-critical views, and present themselves as advocates of women's rights. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Amanda, your claim that Rowling is now the main figurehead of this movement, as though this should be reflected in the current article, reflects a profound misreading of what has actually happened. Rowling has been made into a symbol of "TERFism" by its opponents, and in response to that, people (typically celebrities) signal their attitudes towards trans rights by statements against, or in support of, Rowling. But Rowling has contributed nothing to "gender critical"ism, much less gender critical feminism, except her celebrity. This does not make her important - or even worth mentioning - in an article about gender-critical feminism unless the better sources say the opposite. I am profoundly uninterested in helping along yet another article about social media controversies, when we have an actual topic populated by theorists, activists and organizations that describe themselves as - and actually act as - gender-critical (that is, trans-exclusionary) feminists. Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I've only made a few minor edits to this draft and not really contributed much of the current content at all (except the Butler quote and some other smaller edits), and I've not added anything about Rowling or any social media controversies, nor do I believe the article should be primarily about social media controversies. Secondly, the thesis I mentioned above on the development of gender-critical feminism identifies Rowling (she is mentioned first) alongside Stock, Bindel and others "as prominent GCFs with different backgrounds using their high-profile platforms to discuss sex and gender and critique transgender rights activism" and discusses her extensively. Yes, I'm aware that it's just an MA thesis, but it's just an example of how Rowling is discussed in relation to trans-exclusionary radical feminism or gender-critical feminism. Gender-critical feminism/TERF is to a large extent an Internet phenomenon, something that has become prominent through the Internet, especially social media. Rowling isn't a theorist, but the fact that she uses her large platform and influence to promote these ideas have had a profound influence, as many commentators have noted. Again, I'm not "insisting" on anything and don't have a firm view on what exactly to include or how to phrase it, but I'm offering my opinion that I believe it would be weird if the article didn't include something about Rowling using her platform to popularise these ideas, or something along those lines. I believe most readers would expect to encounter the name Rowling somewhere in an article on trans-exclusionary radical feminism/gender-critical feminism. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that you don't believe the article should be primarily about social media controversies. But to me the statement, Gender-critical feminism/TERF is to a large extent an Internet phenomenon is equally misleading. Of course gender-critical feminists, like other feminists, like trans activists, organize and promote their ideas mostly online. But what is of most encyclopaedic interest is their scholarship and activist interventions - including legal and legislative interventions, demonstrations and other actions. As far as I am aware, most of the higher-quality sources on gender-critical feminism, like most of the sources on inclusionary, intersectional feminism and most of the sources on trans activism, focuses primarily on these, rather than purely internet phenomena.

There is a reason why Master's theses are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia, and it would take more than a single RS mention to make Rowling identifiable as a feminist; of course, that doesn't mean she should not be mentioned at all, but the focus of this article should be on those developing and deploying gender-critical feminist ideas in ways that have a primary, not derivative impact IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't really know who you're arguing against. I have not added a single word about Rowling to this draft article, and not a single word about any social media controversy either. I have also not said anything that implies that I believe that "the focus" of the article should be Rowling or social media. All I have said is that I too believe that it would be odd if the article didn't mention Rowling at all. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I have been arguing against the positions that I quote and then raise objections to. If you don't believe my interpretation of those quotes to represent your views, then that's fine. When someone says it would be odd not to mention someone or something, experience tells me that they are usually suggesting that the thing is significant in some way, and not that they are noting a situation where reader expectations could be met through a passing mention. But clearly you meant something other than what experience led me to expect. Newimpartial (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

A brief mention, perhaps a sentence (or two), is precisely what I thought would be appropriate, with a focus on the impact she has had on the broader discourse. That would hardly make her the focus of the article. What I said above regarding trans-excl. radical feminism and the Internet in general is quite conventional wisdom, though[3][4]: "it is important to keep in mind that the TERF movement is above all an online movement. The few demonstrations or occupations of public space attempted by transphobic groups have mobilized very few people. The movement counts on an over-representation of TERF views in the British tabloid press, which is only too happy to fill its pages with scandalous headlines in order to divert attention from the Conservative government’s post-Brexit austerity policies. The TERF movement is an artificial movement that occupies space through a galaxy of Twitter accounts and shadow organizations representing very few real-life activists" I believe the article should somehow address the role the Internet has played in the movement and the promotion of their ideas more generally. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

And, as I keep saying, I don't think everything written about the TERF movement (in The Atlantic or elsewhere) belongs in this article. Things may be true of "the TERF movement" that are not true of feminists who are gender-critical, because "the TERF movement" as loosely defined in American media and on social media, is not notably feminist. But "Gender-critical feminism", the object of this article, is supposed to be. Newimpartial (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I hate to get into philosophy (do I?), but this is really a kind of ontological/epistemological question. The evidence seems strong to me for an actual "gender-critical feminism" emerging from the TERF debates in the early 2000s, with real influence (especially in the UK) in both media and the legal sphere in the 2010s to present.

It is not at all clear to me that a "gender-critical movement" exists outside of gender-critical feminism. The LGB Alliance strikes me as a quasi-astroturf (astroTERF?) organization which, in so far as it has a "real" existence at all, creates a bridge between feminists, other anti-trans activists (Linehan, and Rowling's cardboard cutout), and Conservatives. But it doesn't seem to amount to more than a website and an annual conference.

And that's it. Rowling, and Linehan, and their social media followers aren't a movement and I think it would be foolish to run ahead of the facts and turn them into one. Speaking pragmatically, I think an article about something that exists and can easily be shown to exist is much better for all concerned (readers and editors from varying perspectives) than an article the very reality of which has to be asserted and will be contested. There are reasons TERF is an article about a term, and this article ought to be essentially the opposite/complement of that one.

If the sources start to focus on GCism outside of feminism, then that would weigh in a different direction, but I haven't seen that especially from the best (scholarly) sources, Newimpartial (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean, yeah, the LGB Alliance is almost certainly an astroturf organisation, like most of the other TERFy groups are (Fairplay, For Women, etc...), and doesn't really have a concrete record of doing stuff outside of Twitter and a small handful of conferences (and they definitely don't have any track records of doing anything beyond attacking trans rights). But just it because it doesn't have a real existence doesn't mean it doesn't have a real impact - things like government policies, court cases, media portrayal of trans people, etc... have all definitely seen an impact. Even if they're astroturf, even if Rowling and Linehan and co are just symbols, they're still prominent vehicles by which GC ideology is being disseminated and legitimised, and I don't see how you can separate them from the current status of GCism. After all, to quote Philosophical Problems With the Gender-Critical Feminist Argument Against Trans Inclusion: "the case against trans inclusion in the United Kingdom has been presented primarily through social media and blog-type or journalistic online platforms lacking the traditional prepublication checks of academic peer review".NHCLS (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

But to say that Rowling and Linehan and co are prominent vehicles by which GC ideology is being disseminated and legitimised is something that the article can only include based on RS, and we have to be careful with sources like the "philosophical problems" piece to observe a distinction between arguments against trans inclusion in general, and gender-critical feminist arguments in particular. Of course it is true that much gender-critical feminist discourse takes place outside of peer review, but that doesn't mean that all trans-exclusionary discourse on social media is therefore feminist. We have plenty of material to include in this article consisting of writings by feminists, campaigns by feminists, and critique and opposition to these by others in various forms, all of which is clearly within a clearly defined topic. I just don't want to loose the proverbial grub to the organic sludge, here.

As a related point, we can't use terms like movement or ideology in article space unless reliable sources use them, and can't use them without attribution unless reliable sources are nearly unanimous in using them. Now I know this doesn't apply to Talk pages, really, but it is an important thing to internalize IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

What if we reduced mention of them to a line somewhere in the UK history bit something like "in popular media, people like Rowling and Linehan have featured often as GC figures"? NHCLS (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. We can probably even find sources referring to them as gender-critical feminists or making some connection - like actual GC feminists citing them as allies. But what I don't want to see is wholesale regurgitation of their social media controversies within this article because some source, somewhere has described them as feminist or TERF. Newimpartial (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I know Graham hosts a weekly Youtube/Zoom call with Helen Staniland and Arty Morty that a fair amount of the GC crowd follow. Though Graham's reach has diminished somewhat since his Twitter ban, and has had more than a few knocks recently, alas many of which have not received coverage. Rowling and recently Kathleen Stock have been the more acceptable face, at least within the UK. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, I don't think this article should aim to represent all gendercrits everywhere, because I'm not convinced that's a notable (or well-defined) topic. I think the sources, especially scholarly sources, are strong for gender-critical feminism, so that should be the focus. Stock is a much more important figure than Rowling, at least in this context. Low-quality sources and TERF figureheads are less essential. Newimpartial (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it would be best to keep the focus on feminism and the arguments coming from that sort of background. Rowling would probably get a short mention, but not a ton. Something like Dave Chapelle and his comedy special, by contrast, is quite marginal to this topic. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

LEADCITE

Per WP:LEADCITE, it would definitely be best for any article on this topic to have citations in its lead. A pertinent quote (emphasis added):

The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.

I dare say that this topic is complex, current, and controversial. For the sake of the sanity of each of us, and to forestall present and future debates, the lead of any article on this topic should be fully cited. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Aspects not addressed in this article

The gender essentialism and biological determinism eg. here One thing I've read but have trouble finding sources for is that TERFs tend to be those who believe the patriarchy is men oppressing women whereas their opponents tend to be people who promote the idea of more autonomy and choices for everyone. (t · c) buidhe 22:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

'Bodily autonomy' section

None of the material in this section relates to gender-critical feminism, and so I am deleting this section in its entirety. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

My guess is that some of the people who originally drafted this article believed they had sources that connected Bell v Tavistock to gender-critical feminism more clearly. But I have no idea which sources those would be, so until someone finds them I'm fine with removing the section. Loki (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Bev Jackson

The framing of Bev Jackson's tweet is in incorrect context of "arguing" for feminist alliances with the right.

The text quoted from the cited PinkNews source seems to have no direct relationship to feminism at all. She does not mention feminists in the tweet this quote is taken from, and the article she shared in that tweet is not about feminists either, but about parents in the US, and does not mention feminists or feminism once.

The section of the PinkNews article specifically relating to feminists is in fact a second tweet, which says:

"Are you disgusted with feminists who have appeared in events organized by the Heritage Foundation and other rightwing groups? Perhaps you need to get informed as to the reasons they have for doing so. Please take the time to read the attached article before rushing to judgement."

but also in the same article "as a socialist feminist, I do find these alliances problematic.".

I think this is WP:SYNTH, ie an original interpretation of the PinkNews source, in taking a quote from earlier in the PinkNews article and applying it to a different context established later in that article, when the actual words used at that point are weaker (don't rush to judgment rather than only possible course of action).

We should surely err on the side of caution here, given. this risks misrepresenting her as condoning feminists working with Heritage or (worse) creating the implication of working with them herself, since she has also repeatedly made clear her actual personal feelings about Heritage, ie: "Never have, never would work with the Heritage Foundation. "

Given that this article is about feminism and the quotation isn't about feminists, that whole sentence should be removed. Void if removed (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure? I've read the PinkNews article a couple of times now, and it looks like it's the same context throughout. In all three of the quoted tweets in the article, Jackson is attempting to justify why she and other gender-critical feminists have allied with organisations like the Heritage Foundation. The 2022 tweet you've highlighted however was posted long after the PinkNews article was published in August 2020, and seems to run counter to what Jackson said in July 2019 (this tweet is in the PinkNews article) where she acknowledges that the publicity support from the Heritage Foundation was necessary to launch a gender-critical movement in the US. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The first tweet says nothing about feminists. This article is about feminism. A tweet not mentioning feminism linking an article that is only about parental concern, that also doesn't mention feminism, is an inappropriate source for a direct quote in the context of feminism.

Feminism is brought into the PinkNews article later, and her tweet specifically about feminists working with Heritage - made a month later than the one quoted in this article - amounts to: hear their side before judging. Taking a direct quote about one thing and assuming it can apply to another context weeks later is inappropriate.

As for the rest as I linked above she has explicitly stated herself, multiple times, she has never and would never ally with Heritage. There is no conflict between any of these statements, since at no point does the PinkNews article actually say she personally has, it is merely implied. Saying she understands why other people compromise on this, or - what she actually said about feminists - you should hear their reasons for doing so, is not the same as a concession or admission to doing so herself. And it is no surprise that statements denying that she, personally has ever or would ever work with Heritage only appear after PinkNews publish an article strongly implying she has.

Some more quotes beyond that flat and unambiguous denial:

"The Heritage Foundation links are problematic. Still, this is a very small part of the GC movement in the UK, which is dominated by left-wing, secular, lesbian feminists. Completely different from the situation in the US."

"The Heritage Foundation is a vile, incredibly wealthy and powerful organization of homophobic religious fanatics that do their best to undermine LGB rights and women’s reproductive rights." Void if removed (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I think perhaps the sentence should be rephrased as it isn't clear who is or was "working with the Heritage Foundation". The way it currently reads, I think you would assume "LGB Alliance, according to one of its founders". The tweets occurred before LGB Alliance was created, so if we are to mention LGB Alliance at all, it should probably be "who would go on to found LGB Alliance" or something like that. The "The leftwing silence" tweet is entirely unclear who is working with Heritage Foundation. The "Are you disgusted with" tweet is about "feminists who have appeared in events organized by the Heritage Foundation and other rightwing groups" and not clear from that whether Jackson includes themselves among them. Perhaps something like "Bev Jackson, who would go on to help co-found LGB Alliance, defended "feminists who have appeared in events organized by the Heritage Foundation and other rightwing groups", arguing that this is "sometimes the only possible course of action" since "the leftwing silence on gender in the US is even worse than in the UK." I think the "defended feminists who" aspect is entirely in keeping with the thrust of the Pink News article which uses the two tweets (if we were to combine two tweets mentioned in two separate articles, that may well we WP:SYNTH but it is allowed for our sources to do that). -- Colin°^Talk 09:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

But the source doesn't make the claim that the first tweet is about feminists, and this article is about only about feminism. If you're going to attribute a direct quote to a living person purporting to be their views on a subject, it should be very clearly about the subject it is claimed to be about, especially when it is so contentious. Void if removed (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This article is about "gender-critical feminism" and the first tweet mentions "gender" and links to an article about transgender healthcare. I'm not sure why you keep saying that this wikipedia article is about "feminism", because it isn't just about that. Perhaps in their first tweet Jackson wasn't writing as a "feminist" but as a "gender critical" person, but she is a notable "gender-critical feminist" and it is Pink News who link with the second tweet to further their defence of feminists working alongside people who hate gay people. The first story isn't at all about "parents" but is about transgender healthcare, written by a parent and so naturally reflecting a parent's pov and priorities. That doesn't stop it being an anti-trans story that Jackson has linked to and used to defend why working with right wing hate groups is somehow justified. -- Colin°^Talk 09:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The lead in to this section starts "Some gender-critical feminists or trans-exclusionary radical feminists have allied with conservative or far-right groups". The direct context of the quote from Bev Jackson is "In January 2019, the Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think tank, hosted a panel of self-described radical feminists".

It then ends on a direct quote from Jackson which is not on its face about feminists generally, or the panel specifically, or herself as a feminist. The PinkNews source doesn't say this tweet is about feminists, or herself specifically, or the panel in question. The usage of this direct quote in this context is inappropriate. The whole point is that this quote is offered specifically as a defence or justification for feminists working with Heritage, which is a very specific context unsupported by the cited source.

The only direct quote from Jackson about feminist alliances with the right and the panel in question is: "Are you disgusted with feminists who have appeared in events organized by the Heritage Foundation and other rightwing groups? Perhaps you need to get informed as to the reasons they have for doing so. Please take the time to read the attached article before rushing to judgement."

Use that quote, or neither. Void if removed (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

There's a wider point about scope here. Is this article intended to be about gender-critical feminists specifically (which would be the straightforward reading of the title), or is it intended to cover all viewpoints and people that have been described as gender-critical, who don't necessarily come from a feminist perspective? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Then it shouldn't be called "gender critical feminism", and it shouldn't imply a direct quote from a living person is about gender critical feminism when that isn't supported by the source.

Wider, antifeminist and conservative viewpoints are covered elsewhere. Void if removed (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The article about the more general topic is anti-gender movement. This article is definitely specifically about gender-critical feminism.

(It may be useful to say here though that feminists that oppose GCs fairly often also assert that GCs are not feminist.) Loki (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why Void bolded "feminists" and not the "gender-critical" or "trans-exclusionary" adjectives. Are you and Barnards saying Jackson isn't a feminist? Maybe there is an assumption that if a female activist is "gender-critical" that they are also a "gender-critical feminist". Do we have a source that Jackson isn't a feminist or rejects feminist beliefs? -- Colin°^Talk 10:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Elsewhere she has explicitly called herself a feminist, so that isn't in doubt. But is this specific quote from Jackson talking about herself? No, and PinkNews doesn't say it is, and she has clearly stated she herself would not make such alliances. Therefore, whether she is or is not a feminist is immaterial, because the quote isn't about her and doesn't illuminate on the topic of feminist alliances with Heritage. Void if removed (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Well the proposed text I quoted in green above would remove a direct implication that Jackson themselves or LGB Alliance themselves (which didn't exist then) worked with far right groups. But Jackson did then support gender-critical feminists aligning with far right hate groups and gave their "my enemy's enemy is my friend" rationale. I do think it is important whether Jackson is an gender-critical feminist, because then her views on what other gender-critical feminists should or shouldn't align themselves with would matter less. Whether she regrets that now and says otherwise now is frankly her problem. -- Colin°^Talk 13:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Trans inclusion in sports

@Amanda A. Brant, can you please explain your edit summary: "rm excessive quote on topic not directly related to the topic of this article, which is the anti-trans ideology specifically; rm unjustified tag, the article isn't supposed to promote fringe views (as this is explicitly described by several sources here) as if they were equally valid as recognised scholarship, per WP:FALSEBALANCE"

How is the gender-critical position on trans-inclusion in sports not related to the topic of this article? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Barnards, how is the section you added anything to do with "gender-critical feminism"? You quote a bloke talking about rugby who doesn't mention feminism once in the source. -- Colin°^Talk 14:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

He's co-founder of the Gender Critical Research Network, and self-describes as gender-critical. He's written a paper explaining the academic rationale behind the gender-critical position on trans-inclusion in sports. The article is cited by gender-critical feminist groups [5] as explanatory of their position. It seems an eminently appropriate topic to include on this article. Is this about whether "gender critical" should be a separate thing to "gender critical feminism"? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Btg’s justification for inclusion seems reasonable to me.Sweet6970 (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The quote and reference you added don't once mention either gender-critical or TERF, which is the topic of this article. Not every discussion somehow involving trans people automatically belongs here, if it doesn't engage with gender-critical/TERF as an ideology or movement. It would be far more relevant to have a discussion on how the anti-trans TERF/gender-critical ideology/movement uses rhetoric about trans people in sports to promote anti-trans views, which has been extensively discussed by countless sources, and which relates to the topic of the article directly. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but we already have primary topic article on this; transgender people in sports. Should any content here not just be a summary style transclusion of the lead of the primary article, along with a {{main}} hatnote? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Barnard's explanation is correct and is original research. You'd need a source explicitly stating these (Barnard's) views in the context of gender critical feminism. While some have noted that we need to fully describe gender critical ideas (at least so far as GCFs them) we always must do so in this article in the source-based context of gender-critical feminism. Otherwise this becomes a dumping ground for any anti-trans anti-gender-ideology comments, including by blokes talking about rugby and I don't care that some feminists cite him.

Let me put it another way, although gender-critical is one half of the term, so is feminism. Would you think it reasonable to dump all feminist ideas ever in history into this article because we need to fully describe what feminism is? -- 19:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Colin°^Talk 19:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

General discussion – POV etc

Also the tag you added here is rather unspecific. The comment claims "the article is sourced almost entirely to opposition" but the first half of the article as far as I can see, seems to give plenty space to their views and supportive sources. Much of the article is rather unfocused, just a collection of facts, and a "Criticism" section is not always a good way of tackling a subject. I think it would be more useful if you could highlight on the talk page specific areas that could be improved with sources from "the other side". -- Colin°^Talk 14:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this article still needs some work, particularly regarding its structure and focus. It's also important to be mindful of WP:FALSEBALANCE. As noted by several sources, this ideology originated as a fringe ideology and remains a fringe ideology, particularly in the context of feminism and scholarship. There is a growing body of academic research on anti-gender and gender-critical movements. Sources promoting an anti-trans ideology are very much fringe and shouldn't be given "equal weight". Additionally, the article does already cite prominent representatives of the movement and explain their views and even cites a number of explicitly anti-trans sources. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The article's main deficiency is that it doesn't describe gender critical viewpoints head-on, but does so through the lens of detractors. Where does it present the viewpoints of actual gender-critical feminists like Kathleen Stock, Holly Lawford-Smith, or Sheila Jeffreys? Julie Bindel gets two mentions - neither of them explain her philosophy. The first labels her as anti-trans (maybe she is, but why? The article doesn't say, and doesn't cite a source), the second is more about the complaints she received than the beliefs she holds. The overall impression the article gives is that gender critics and their positions are not included in order to illuminate the reader as to what the subject is actually about, but as a coat rack on which to hang criticism. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Void if removed: I suggest that you duplicate here the comment you made today under ‘Potential sources’ .

@Barnards.tar.gz: Do you have any specific text you want to add? Or delete?

Sweet6970 (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Duplicating comment here as suggested:

In terms of history, about the earliest reference I've found for the self-description of "gender critical feminism" is this piece on CounterPunch, but there are precious few high quality sources. Some quotes:

"What we all agree on, however, is that sex-based gender roles are oppressive social constructs– not natural states of being in need of protection and celebration– and that the well-documented threats of violence against women who defend women-only space are an abusive and unacceptable response to political disagreement."

"Gender critical feminists do not have a commitment to the naturalism of gendered social roles; but many trans people do. Instead of claiming that the prefabricated binary gender roles of “man” and “woman” are essential parts of ourselves—which again, is a conservative view– gender critical feminists believe that these social roles are harmful constructs that constitute dangerous justification for the on-going oppression and dehumanization of women."

In terms of the UK and with reference to the reform of the Gender Recognition Act, this is possibly a valuable academic source. A quote for the crux of the issue:

"The central contention of this article is that moving to a system of self-identification of gender in line with Part C of Principle 31 of the Yogyakarta Principles collapses sex and gender identity in UK law in a way that undermines important sex-based protections provided by the 2010 EA which, I argue, primarily serve to protect women as a class, as well as making it difficult to fully protect against discrimination on grounds of a transgender identity. " Void if removed (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a significant and growing body of mainstream research on the anti-gender and "gender-critical" anti-trans movements, within gender studies, studies of radicalization and extremism, political science, sociology, anthropology etc. etc., published in reputable journals (e.g. the special issue in The Sociological Review cited in the article). They represent the perspective of mainstream social science. The promotion of anti-trans views as "research"—as mainstream scholars would describe it—by actors widely described as part of an anti-trans movement themselves is predominantly viewed as a form of very marginal and politically motivated pseudo-scholarship by reputable scholars—in the same sense as "race realist" "science". It would not be appropriate to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE here. Also, we already devote significant space in the article to discuss and explain the views of the most prominent representatives of this movement, such as Raymond. Those others you mention are not really famous for academic research, but more for the controversies surrounding them (at their workplaces etc.). This article is not intended as a place to promote their (fringe) views as if they were "equally valid" as the entire body of mainstream research in social sciences on this movement, but we can of course mention the controversies surrounding them, preferably by citing third party sources discussing those controversies and what they meant in the context of the "gender-critical" movement (in the same way that we cite third party sources discussing Raymond). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This article is entitled ‘Gender critical feminism’. Therefore, gender critical views should be fully described, otherwise the article would fail in its duty to inform our readers. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

We write about this transphobic and fringe movement/school of thought. The article is not a place for promotion of the ideology, via a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Our article on what proponents prefer to call "race realism" is simply called Scientific racism and is not devoted to portraying this as a mainstream or accepted scientific view, or having "equal validity" as the mainstream scientific view. The short description of the article on "race realism" is "pseudoscientific justification for racism" – the equivalent here, supported by mainstream gender studies scholars, would be "pseudoacademic justification for transphobia")

There are just a handful of fringe figures promoting "gender-critical" views in academia, their views are not widely accepted in academic contexts, and they tend to be more known for the personal controversies surrounding them. By contrast, there is a large body of academic publications, academic conferences, and other legitimate academic activities devoted to the study of the "gender-critical" and anti-gender movements. So the focus should be on those mainstream, academic sources, rather than a select few individuals with very marginal views. We are describing the "gender-criticals"/TERFs and their views, by citing reputable, mainstream scholars and sources who discuss them. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The analogy with scientific racism is deeply flawed of course, but that article goes into substantial detail about who the main proponents were and what they believed. We don’t need to add an endorsing POV (or its opposite) to accurately summarise what the thing is. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

We are already discussing the views of prominent members of the movement, such as Raymond. The issue is that the article shouldn't portray this as equally accepted as the mainstream view in academic contexts. We already have several sources pointing out its fringeness. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems we may have differing views on what the scope of this article is. I can see a way to have a coherent article on any one of the following:

1. Gender-critical feminist theory as a sub-discipline of academic feminist philosophy
2. Gender-criticism as a more expansive, less academic set of viewpoints that aren't necessarily explicitly feminist but share common ground with the above and are aligned through criticism of gender. This would be what mainstream media mean when they say "gender-critical".
3. The wider conservative/traditionalist/right-wing anti-gender movement

The article is currently a blend of all three. We have sources stating that gender-critical feminism is fringe within feminism, but we don't have any source stating gender-criticism to be fringe in wider society, and the article definitely goes far beyond academic feminism, bringing in figures like Maya Forstater and orgs like LGB Alliance, who aren't explicitly feminist. The article also includes much criticism which is centred on anti-gender figures and institutions, which doesn't obviously track back to the feminists of #1.

IMHO the scope should be #2 because #1 will be a tiny article that possibly doesn't pass GNG (why would it, if it's so fringe?), and #3 is already covered in Anti-gender movement. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Maya Forstater is absolutely explicitly a gender-critical feminist.

The LGB Alliance is sort of borderline because while it's not explicitly a GC feminist organization it does have some pretty strong ties to GC feminists.

I agree with you as to what the scope is, but then I'm confused why you added the section about trans people in sports. If you could source the argument to GCs or sources about GCs then sure, but you appear to have just quoted a random philosopher, as far as I can tell. Loki (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe this is the nub: is there a meaningful difference (in terms of our treatment of scope and content) between “gender-critical” and “gender-critical feminism”? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The phrasing "gender-critical" in my view strongly implies the feminist group. Otherwise you're talking about anti-gender movement, which is not this article.

Which is to say, on reading more closely I actually think your three options contain a false dichotomy. When the media refers to GCs, they're not talking about Mary Daly or Sheila Jeffries, but also they really do mean a subgroup of feminists, and give a lot of attention to the alleged women's rights angle. Your 1 is too narrow and your 2 as phrased is too broad.

(In contrast, the broader anti-gender movement gets talked about explicitly as a conservative thing.) Loki (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The issue with #2 is that it then becomes just another venue for rehashing arguments that appear endlessly on the pages of those mentioned.

I'd personally favour #1 since an article neutrally laying out what gender critical feminism actually is has a lot of potential merit.

That is of course difficult, because the overwhelming majority of sources describe it as "transphobic" or a "moral panic" or "reactionary" or "conservative" or "trans-exclusionary".

But when you actually quote what they say about themselves you get a pretty standard picture of something akin to second-wave continuity radical feminism. Eg. As Holly Lawford-Smith put it:

"Gender critical feminism is not ‘about’ trans. It is about sex."

and

"Gender critical feminists are gender abolitionists, which means, committed to getting rid of this sex caste hierarchy, and achieving the liberation of those subordinated by it, namely females."

It is just that it presents a huge issue with sourcing, as it is niche and largely self-published. Void if removed (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

This article is entitled ‘Gender critical feminism’. Therefore, gender critical views should be fully described In order to be NPOV compliant they should be fully described in the tone and manner as they are described by mainstream reliable sources on this. If the mainstream view is negative and critical, which from my understanding of the sources it is, then our article has to be negative and critical lest we fall into the false balance and fringe trap. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is my understanding too. The complaint above seemed based on the fact that a number of the sources are academic sources that discuss this school of thought or movement in a "critical" manner that supporters of this movement wouldn't agree with. However those sources, such as a special issue of the very respected journal The Sociological Review and other academic sources, reflect the dominant perspective of mainstream scholarship. In scholarship the "gender-critical" movement is often discussed e.g. in the context of populism and the anti-gender movements in general, a field that has garnered significant academic attention in recent years. There are very few scholars who advocate this as an ideology, politically (as opposed to discussing it in a critical manner, as a form of populism and anti-trans politics). There are a tiny handful of people known for controversies who have advocated such beliefs in popular rather than academic channels (like Stock, best known for leaving her job, and whose research output in peer-reviewed journals had little to do with gender, trans people or feminism), but's that's all, mostly, as far as academia is concerned. Of course there are the "classics" like Janice Raymond whose contributions to this movement's ideas need to be presented and discussed, but "gender-criticals" don't really get published in academic journals and have no real standing in gender studies or any other relevant field. It started as a fringe movement, and very much remains so in feminist/gender studies. As a result the scholarship on this movement/school of thought will for the most part – almost always – be critical in one way or the other, and the article should reflect that, not try to create an artificial false balance between fringe views and mainstream views. Note that the article is still work in progress with much to be done, both in terms of structure and content. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the scope of the article: my view is that it should be #2, as set out by Barnards.tar.gz above, because that is what is generally referred to as gender-critical feminism in public discussion. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, which suggests despite what Bernards said, this is not in fact the source of the disagreement here.

Or rather: My position is that where GCs have an opinion about something, we should just tell the reader what they believe. WP:FRINGE is about fringe opinions in academic discourse and not about extremist or obscure political beliefs; we have long and detailed articles about anarcho-capitalism, Marxism-Leninism, fascism, and all sorts of other extremist or obscure political beliefs that describe in detail what each of these ideologies believe.

However, a lot of the time GCs will justify their belief by making claims about facts, and in those cases it's important to not inadvertently spread false information. For instance, if GCs claim it's common to regret transition, it's important to figure out whether or not that claim is supported by independent sources before repeating it. If it's not true, then we should put the same sort of "falsely claimed" wording we'd put in front of anyone else making a false WP:MEDRS claim.

Similarly, if GCs say something and they are widely criticized for it in reliable sources, we should report that criticism. It's up to us to report what the sources say. It's not up to us to play defense for the subject of the article or to insert WP:FALSEBALANCE if the sources are critical. Loki (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

If the article is failing to cover significant GCF viewpoints / arguments / positions (that is, GCF viewpoints which other sources regard as significant), it would be helpful if you could make e.g. a list of those viewpoints, with (independent, nonprimary) sources discussing and attributing wp:weight to them, so we can discuss how to cover them in a way that reflects their weight and treatment by sources. -sche (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm really puzzled. Several editors seem to have decided that our article on "gender-critical feminism" should document any old "gender-critical" viewpoint, whether academic or political or journalism, whether from a feminist or, as we saw above, some bloke writing about rugby who doesn't mention feminism once. Are we going to get Ron DeSantis, Donald Trump and Boris Johnson's views inserted here, because those guys aint feminists and they aint gender-critical feminists but they sure have expressed gender-critical views. I think really you want another article for this. Readers will come to this article wanting to know what a gender-critical feminist is, what gender-critical feminists have said, and what others have criticised them or their views. I don't think we need another dumping ground that simply documents "here's the views of people who rant about 'gender ideology'", cause that's an awful lot and nothing to do with gender-critical feminism. -- Colin°^Talk 07:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I would be happy with a much more restricted scope as long as there is consensus. But how do we demarcate that scope? Who counts as a feminist? In terms of my #1,2,3 above, would you prefer this to be an article on #1? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

We already have Anti-gender movement which seems to be your #2. This isn't so much about whether Wikipedia should document this topic or that topic, but about which articles to have and where to put the content. Possibly your #1 is too restrictive, in that it just covers academic philosophy, which probably isn't what most people think of when they consider a "gender-critical feminist", who may well be a journalist or best selling children's author. But what is vital is that those concerns are made from a feminist argument (whether that has merits or otherwise). The groups that formed to protest against the Scottish gender reform bill were largely women's groups and very much were women who were concerned (rightly or wrongly) with protecting women's safety. They weren't academics or offshoots of LGB activists or right wing. So I think there is something about their views that is article-worthy that is separate from the views of conservative men, for example, even if there are examples of them citing and supporting each other. @WhatamIdoing: who I've seen discuss issues of article scope before and may be able to help. -- Colin°^Talk 09:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

"Anti-gender movement" is a heavily loaded term that is historically a right-wing, Catholic, antifeminist, anti-LGB movement that has in recent years moved towards anti-transgender rhetoric as a convenient wedge against the other two. Conflating it with "gender critical" is not something to be done lightly IMO. Void if removed (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

No, anti-gender is not a "heavily loaded" term. It's the mainstream term used in mainstream scholarship as well as policy/official contexts when referring to this movement working to undermine LGBT+ rights (and other rights) and opposing the very concept of gender, gender mainstreaming, gender studies etc.etc. These anti-gender movements are quite open about being against "gender", this is how they describe themselves. The term is now also used in scholarship to describe the "gender-criticals", which makes sense; the terms mean the same thing, and the gender-criticals have embraced the views and terminology of the earlier anti-gender movement. The article does and should address how this movement is related to the wider anti-gender movement. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

No, AAB. Void is correct. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Which sources state that the terms mean the same thing? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Nobody has said the terms mean exactly the same thing. Anti-gender is a very broad term and covers much more than the "gender-criticals". It is not a loaded term, but a descriptive term used very widely in mainstream scholarship. "Gender-critical" is a specific phenomenon, emerging as an alternative term for what has also been known as TERF. Many sources discuss the relation between the "gender-criticals"/TERFs and the broader anti-gender movement. In fact this is addressed in various ways in the article too:

"Bassi and LaFleur note that "the trans-exclusionary feminist (TERF) movement and the so-called anti-gender movement are only rarely distinguished as movements with distinct constitutions and aims."[1] Pearce et al. note that the concept of "gender ideology" "saw increasing circulation in trans-exclusionary radical feminist discourse" from around 2016.[31] Claire Thurlow noted that "despite efforts to obscure the point, gender critical feminism continues to rely on transphobic tropes, moral panics and essentialist understandings of men and women. These factors also continue to link trans-exclusionary feminism to anti-feminist reactionary politics and other 'anti-gender' movements."[32] ... In a 2020 article in Lambda Nordica, Erika Alm of the University of Gothenburg and Elisabeth L. Engebretsen of the University of Stavanger, said that there was "growing convergence, and sometimes conscious alliances, between "gender-critical" feminists (sometimes known as TERFs – Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists), religious and social conservatives, as well as right-wing politics and even neo-Nazi and fascist movements" and that the convergence was linked to "their reliance on an essentialised and binary understanding of sex and/or gender, often termed 'bio-essentialism'".[12] Engebretsen has described the movement as a "complex threat to democracy."[110] Another 2020 article, in The Sociological Review, said that "the language of 'gender ideology' originates in anti-feminist and anti-trans discourses among right-wing Christians, with the Catholic Church acting as a major nucleating agent", and said that the term "saw increasing circulation in trans-exclusionary radical feminist discourse" from around 2016. It further said that "a growing number of anti-trans campaigners associated with radical feminist movements have openly aligned themselves with anti-feminist organisations."[31]" --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I think I agree with this. So the heart of this article is feminist perspectives that are critical of gender, but not necessarily limited to academic or self-declared feminists, so could include gender-critical viewpoints that are argued on feminist grounds. But in any case this should be distinct from the right-wing anti-gender anti-feminist movement (with which there is a relationship, but with which we should not conflate). Sensible? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

POV tag

The neutrality of this article is disputed. The POV tag should be reinstated. It is not helpful to deny that there is disagreement. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

There are disagreements about the article here, but there are always disagreements about an article on its talk page. I don't see anyone else here claiming the article is POV specifically. Loki (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

No convincing reason has been presented for a POV tag. The article presents a mainstream perspective based on reliable sources, including how the topic is presented in academic literature. Note that the article is also still under development, so it should not be considered "complete". --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

TERF in the lead - disparaging

@LokiTheLiar: You have said in your edit summary: …. we have a whole article on whether or not it's disparaging…. . But the TERF article states clearly in the lead that it is disparaging: Though TERF was created to be a "deliberately technically neutral description", the term is now typically considered derogatory or disparaging. so I don’t understand your comment. I think it’s generally accepted that most people only read the lead of an article – so my addition should be reinstated. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the TERF article says clearly in the lead that it's disparaging. I don't think that "most people only read the lead of an article" is a good argument. Loki (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Since you agree that according to Wikipedia ‘TERF’ is disparaging, I don’t understand why you are opposed to saying so in the lead of this article. Since ‘gender-critical’ and TERF may be used to refer to the same attitudes/people, it is important that we explain at the beginning that TERF is a derogatory term. The lead of our article currently makes it sound as if the term is neutral, which is inconsistent with the body of the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to saying it, I'm opposed to saying it in the lead, for the same reason we don't put every other random piece of information in the article in the lead. If someone wants to know about "TERF", they can read the section on "TERF" or they can click the link to the separate article. Right now, I don't think it's WP:DUE here to mention any more detail about the term than "it exists". Loki (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Loki here. When looking at the current layout of the whole article, the lead is two paragraphs, and the third paragraph of the article ends with TERF is now typically considered derogatory. It's already pretty prominent within the article. If readers don't want to read beyond the lead, or click through to the citations or related articles, then I think that's a problem with the reader and not something we need to address by trying to cram everything into the lead. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The term is not generally considered derogatory. Posie Parker and numerous others use them term about themselves constantly, and it has also been used in a significant body of scholarly literature. As the article on the term notes and has long noted, "there is no clear consensus on whether TERF constitutes a slur". Another question is whether the term is the most up-to-date term; as many scholars have noted the movement has increasingly embraced ideas and terminology of the broader anti-gender movement, cooperated with right-wing anti-gender actors and emphasized their opposition to "gender ideology", and an increasing body of academic literature discuss the movement in the context of the broader anti-gender movement. Thus, while TERF was the dominant term for a number of years, particularly five years ago or so, there has been a gradual shift to terms such as gender-critical, anti-gender etc.; hence both its supporters and critics seem to agree that they are opposed to (anti or critical of) "gender". The whole discussion about the abbreviation TERF and whether it is "neutral" has thus become less relevant in recent years. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

If it said the term was generally considered "a slur" then I'd definitely agree with you. However, I think "derogatory" is pretty well sourced: even most of the sources over at TERF that dispute that it's a slur say it's often derogatory.

I agree that "gender-critical" is a euphemism and would have preferred to call this page "trans-exclusionary feminism" but the people who started this graph settled on GC as a consensus and I didn't want to bother re-raising that argument considering it was hard enough to get the page made as it was. Loki (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree completely. It’s kind of ridiculous to not have that context for the term in the lead—it’s a very important piece of info! Essential, even. And yes, whether it’s a “slur” (lol) is irrelevant to discussion of whether it can reasonably be called “derogatory” (which it definitely is, per the Wikipedia article on the term TERF) Isthistwisted (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that this is clearly a non-starter, the spelled-out phrase is obviously not derogatory (or would anyone like to start presenting evidence to the contrary?), whatever people argue about the acronym. Indeed, I would agree with Loki above that "trans-exclusionary feminism" would be the better neutral title for this article, than the euphemistic "gender-critical". -sche (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Is there now consensus to reinstate ‘derogatory’ in the lead, relating to 'TERF'? Sweet6970 (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it makes perfect sense. Nobody has a good argument against it. Isthistwisted (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I have now reinstated it. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus to add a lengthy polemic about the acronym allegedly being derogatory to the first sentence of the article. That's bizarre, and completely derails and wrecks the first sentence. The first sentence is intended to briefly and succinctly define the topic (WP:LEAD). Potentially having something about the perceptions of the term somewhere in the lead is not the same as turning the first sentence into a polemic against the term TERF. Even the lead of the article on the acronym notes that there is no consensus on whether it is a "slur", so a more nuanced sentence would look much more like that and be more appropriate somewhere below, not in the first sentence. Additionally, this is very much a pseudo-debate, as the term is frequently used by the most prominent TERFs themselves (e.g. Parker). This is the article on the ideology and movement; the acronym has its own article where debates about it can be addressed in detail. The title of the article isn't even TERF, which is just one of several alternative names of this movement. There is no need to make this article as well into an article focused on pseudo-debates about whether TERF is a "slur", debates that are becoming increasingly irrelevant as we (and they) now increasingly refer to them as gender-critical or GC, and given how that topic has its own article. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

How about "Gender-critical feminism, also known as trans-exclusionary radical feminism or derogatorily by its acronym TERF, is an ideology or movement..." Isthistwisted (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Or replace derogatorily with disparagingly Isthistwisted (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It would be better to include something that aligns with the description in the lead of the TERF article itself somewhere below in the lead if it is really necessary to even address this debate in the lead of this article, which isn't really about the acronym (that has its own article). Not even the TERF article itself, the article specifically about the acronym, includes the contentious claim that it is supposedly derogatory (rather than just an acronym formed from a descriptive term) in the first sentence. Instead it is addressed in a much more nuanced manner at the end of the lead section. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The text which I added was ‘(usually considered disparaging)’ . This is not a lengthy polemic, it is a statement of fact which is 3 words long. It does not contain any statement that the expression TERF is a slur.

Regarding your latest comment: The TERF article contains in the lead ‘the term is now typically considered derogatory or disparaging' which is what I based my additional text on. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

1. The TERF article does not include this claim in the first sentence of the lead, instead it is the last thing to be discussed in the lead.
2. Slur can be defined e.g. as a "disparaging remark" or "to speak disparagingly of; "slur", "disparaging", "derogatory" and similar words are all part of the same debate (where the other position is that it is a descriptive term and acronym based on it).
3. The TERF article also includes "there is no clear consensus on whether TERF constitutes a slur", and addresses this issue in a much more nuanced manner. In fact the sentence you mention seems to be a recent addition, while the "no consensus" part has been there for much longer. Picking just the part that supports a particular position and leaving out the rest gives a misleading impression of how this is portrayed in the TERF article itself. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

AAB: You are in a minority in not wanting this inf in the lead. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates based on policy and consensus. This is a matter of neutrality and verifiability. The main article on TERF itself—the article where this issue has been debated and worked out—does not support the claim you are making, in the way you are presenting it. Furthermore, it does not include this claim in the first sentence, which would be even more absurd here, in an article not about the acronym where the acronym is merely the third alternative title of the topic, which is the underlying ideology or movement. Apart from you, I'm the only editor who has even addressed this issue: i.e. where in the lead this material would potentially even belong, so I'm hardly in any "minority". A short summary of the perceptions of the term TERF based on how this is presented in the main article (TERF) could be appropriate somewhere, but certainly not in the first sentence of the lead. In the TERF article itself, it is addressed at the end of the lead section, which seems appropriate for that article, given its focus on the acronym specifically. Here, in an article not about the acronym as such, it would be more natural to just cover this in the "Terminology" section. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

Amanda A. Brant made significant changes to the lead on 28/29 June without any discussion, and therefore, without consensus. I changed the wording back to the previous wording today. AAB has reverted me without discussion. AAB should not have significantly changed the lead without discussion, and should not have reverted my reinstatement of the previous wording without discussion. The previous wording should have stayed in place unless/until the significant changes have been agreed.

Comments, please. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

This is an unfinished article that is under development. It was just moved into article space (being an unfinished draft), and as others have noted too, it still needs much work in terms of content and structure. It's not an article where a specific version has been agreed on over time and through discussion, so the claim that there is a version of this day-old article with "consensus" is flatly wrong. If you have any objections related to the substance of the material, feel free to point them out here so we can have a discussion. What's not ok is to just obstruct the development of the article via blanket reverts of sourced material and general improvements. The claim that one cannot make changes to a brand new, unfinished article "without discussion" is just wrong. The article will never be finished if editors interested in contributing can't do normal editing, i.e. writing the article. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

As a general observation, "every version of the article is days old and has no RfC/discussion-based consensus behind it, thus making it impossible to 'revert to consensus version' pending discussion of changes, because either version represents as change, no 'consensus version' exists" comes up recurringly on this encyclopedia whenever new articles are written, and other than simply having no lead while discussion happens (since ONUS applies equally to either of the new texts, either Sweet's or Amanda's), I don't know what approaches there are to it. (Obviously, discussing and deciding on one version or another solves the issue over time, but in the shortest of short terms, what to do while discussion happens is not clear. I guess people could all try to revert-war each other so much that a rouge admin locks the WP:WRONGVERSION, but let's just discuss versions instead, ha.)
Comparing the two versions, I like some things about Sweet's version and some things about Amanda's. "Ideology or movement" strikes me as a better reflection of how I've seen sources describe it, than "perspective". "opposes ... transgender rights" is also more accurate than the somewhat POV-sounding "skeptical of transgender rights demands". OTOH, I'd want to review sources as far as whether GC / TE feminism always "refers to [what it opposes] as 'gender ideology'", or whether that should e.g. be moved to the end of the sentence, like "opposes ... transgender rights, especially gender self-determination, as proposed by mainstream feminist and LGBT rights organizations, which it often refers to as 'gender ideology'" or something. I do think "'biological sex' [...] is immutable and therefore that trans women are not women" from Sweet's version is clearer than the version with "implies" (some people only imply, I suppose, but enough of them are sufficiently explicit that they don't view trans women as women that I don't think we need to say they merely imply it). Whether to include "[described as X by] a growing body of research on the anti-gender movement" depends on how often this growing body of research does describe them as X; if it does often describe them as X, we should reflect that, but perhaps we can find better wording (e.g. writing about "researchers" instead of paralleling "feminists" [people] and "body of research" [thing]). The clarification of GC / TE feminism as a relative minority position is important, and has also been discussed on the 'Feminist views...' talk page, which it would be good to review and pull sources from if needed. In theory, the citations could be moved into the body, but I think this qualifies as the sort of article where WP:LEADCITEs are OK, because anything in any version of the lead is "likely to be challenged" by someone if not cited. -sche (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, which I need to spend time considering. But to clarify – I didn’t write the previous version, it’s the version which was in place when this article was published. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

To clarify: Before being moved into article space this week, this was essentially an abandoned, unfinished draft. In the discussions over a year ago it seemed like this was going to be a major project, that it wasn't entirely clear in which direction the project was going because we seemed to have somewhat different ideas for whether the article should be laser-focused on "theory" as opposed to also covering a "movement" in a broader sense (many sources specifically refer to it as a "movement"), and other issues, and because of that and all the work ahead the draft was essentially abandoned (at least for the time being). So there was no prior "approved" version of the article. What happened is that somebody had the draft moved into main space, and then people started working on the draft, which still needs much work. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I should note, to fill in a patch of this history, that I was aware of the abandoned draft and, because I continue to feel that not having an article on this topic is absurd, made the minimum required changes to make it main-space-worthy.

In order to do this, I cut a lot of material that probably could be added back eventually. So for instance, wherever I saw an claim that was asking to be sourced or a comment saying "write more about X here", I just deleted it. The draft had been in draft-space for over a year, and there's plenty of time after the article launches to improve it.

I do think that the draft version does count as some sort of consensus version, since it had been worked on for quite a while, and by editors who take multiple different general perspectives on this topic area to boot. That being said, I also basically completely endorse what -sche said above. Loki (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the draft wasn't really worked actively on by everyone precisely because we were having these discussions about the nature of and direction of the article. If it was supposed to be purely theoretical, it wouldn't make sense to elaborate on the "movement" aspect as much. For this reason I was hesitant to make any significant changes that others might disagree with, when trying to figure out what direction the article should have. I was sceptical of a focus only on theory, I wanted a broader focus on GC/TERF as a movement. I also thought a lot of the material could need improvement, but that it would have to wait until we had agreed on the basic direction of the article. The draft is a very unfinished, tentative text developed by some contributors while we were discussing what kind of article we even wanted to have, nothing more. We never reached a real conclusion then, which contributed to the draft being abandoned and everyone losing interest for a long time, with the draft remaining in draft space. The newly launched article should be open to normal editing as an article under development. I believe it's quite clear from coverage in RS–even more so today—that GC/TERF is to a large degree seen as a movement, and many sources have pointed out it's largely Internet-based, and I think it wouldn't make sense to have a very narrow focus only on theoretical debates. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that editing should be open to normal editing, I'm not sure what sort of article wouldn't be. I also agree that GC/TERF is a movement/ideology, and has a large internet component (though its influence in mainstream politics in the UK makes me shy away from saying it's "largely Internet-based"). Loki (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Assigned at birth

The lead presently says: "the gender-critical movement typically maintains that the immutability of sex assigned at birth, which gender-critical feminists often refer to as biological sex"

...and I wonder if that is truly sourceable. Sometimes the sex assigned at birth is wrong (e.g., intersex people). To the best of our knowledge, do any gender-critical feminists actually say that someone with 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency, who is assigned female at birth but develops male genitalia at puberty is immutably female?

I suspect that they don't, and that this particular wording is misrepresenting their actual POV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a source at hand but as far as I've seen intersex people are usually excluded from this claim and treated as either the exception to the rule or an insignificant minority. Many representatives of gender-critical feminism would presumably also reject the idea of "sex assignment".--TempusTacet (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The wording is awkward, because it has to balance between what GCs actually say ("biological sex is immutable") and the facts ("biological sex" is a super complex thing and definitely isn't immutable). I don't think it really gets there, though, because like TempusTacet said GCs generally reject the idea of sex assignment (possibly outside the narrow original context of intersex babies).

I think it might be better to reword it as The gender-critical movement typically maintains that biological sex is immutable and that this implies that trans women are not women and trans men are not men, possibly with a They therefore reject the concept of gender just to make it clear why they're called that. I'll make this edit now and see how it reads. Loki (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @LokiTheLiar. Your suggested re-wording sounds clearer to me.

Is it true that they "reject the concept of transgender identities", or would it be more accurate to say that they think gender identity is less important than biological sex? The "reject the concept" wording makes it sound like they think that gender identities are a logical impossibility. I thought (and I could be wrong!) that the idea was more like they think everything about gender (trans identities, cis identities, roles, etc.) is harmful, and that they therefore oppose the view that gender identity is more important than biological sex. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

They don't, obviously, reject the idea that someone can say that they're a woman, but they do reject the ontological validity of that statement. They believe trans women are men pretending to be women. That sounds a lot like "rejecting the concept of gender" to me, and as that's literally why they call themselves gender-critical (and why the broader anti-gender movement is also called that) I feel it's very fair to say. Loki (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I would say that they reject the idea that sex and gender are distinct and/or can differ. They typically do not argue that gender roles/identities don't exist or aren't socially influenced but they tie gender identity to "biological sex" (as they understand the latter).--TempusTacet (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

That's pretty much the opposite.

The core belief is that sex and gender are different, that sex is real and material and gender is socially constructed, that sex is a primary axis of oppression, and that gender is the mechanism of oppression.

They are gender abolitionists. Saying they tie gender to sex is backwards - they seek to free sex from gender. Void if removed (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm certainly not an expert here but I don't believe that this is correct. No serious position in the wider debate claims that sex isn't real or material. Gender-critical feminism only considers people with female "biological sex" to be women and only represents this group (sometimes even including trans men). They generally don't argue that gender roles or identities don't exist but that these are inseparable from "biological sex".--TempusTacet (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

It is the latter part I think is incorrect, in that they argue against such things. From the GCF point of view, gender is the restrictive, socially constructed stereotypes projected onto sex. Gender roles are not only separable from sex, they are a harmful fiction, and the mechanism by which sex-based oppression operates. Void if removed (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Void on this point. The whole point of gender-critical feminism is that it is critical of gender being associated with sex. Perhaps you are thinking of ‘anti-gender’ movements, which are the opposite of gender-critical? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Can both of you explain then if they don't tie gender to sex, what is the purpose of gender at all? If gender is the mechanism of oppression, what use is it? If void says they are "gender abolitionists" then that's as anti-gender as you can get. The site sex-matters is in my understanding a good example of gender-critical feminism in the UK. They are against "gender ideology" and don't believe in "gender identity". Their whole focus, per the name, is that really the only thing that matters is biological sex. They are against gender-neutral toilets. They believe the words man and woman and father and mother can 100% only apply to those with correct chromosomes and anatomy. I don't think Sweet can say they are the opposite of the anti-gender movement if they share very much a similar set of beliefs. Our own article on Anti-gender movement say there is often very little to separate the movements, other than who is talking (one set is mostly men coming from a religious or right-wing background and the other is mostly women coming from a feminist background). Colin°^Talk 12:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking of gender-critical feminism as defined in the article. When I say "gender is tied to sex" I mean what Colin has described: Whether one is a man or a woman is exclusively tied to "biological sex" and "gender" is not a meaningful separate category but essentially the same as "sex".--TempusTacet (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

…what is the purpose of gender at all? Quite. If gender is the mechanism of oppression, what use is it? It is of use to those who want to reinforce traditional gender roles and stereotypes. Gender critical feminism is the opposite of the attitudes of the anti-gender movement; our article on this is confused, to put it politely. The anti-gender movement says that gender is tied to sex; gender-critical feminism says that gender doesn’t exist. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure that this is a "mainstream" view within gender-critical feminism? It seems to contradict eg Kathleen Stock's positions who is commonly viewed as a well-known representative. I don't doubt that there are people arguing that gender doesn't exist at call but from my current understanding this would be a fringe view. Who are the major voices taking this position?--TempusTacet (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

No, Sweet is right except about gender-critical feminism being distinct from the anti-gender movement. It's pretty clearly a part of the anti-gender movement, though our article about the anti-gender movement does focus very strongly on a sort of traditionalist segment of it.

But like, even in actual practice GCs are very willing to work with the rest of the anti-gender movement despite allegedly being "opposites". Loki (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

You are confusing what the "anti-gender" movement is with gender abolition. Though the words are similar, these are complete opposites.

The "anti-gender" movement are against the progressive gains related to feminism and LGB equality. They are for traditional, patriarchal, normative, heterosexual values. Sexism and homophobia are baked in. Better to think of them as "anti-gender theory". See eg. this from 2009:

• "The idea of gender separates the biological sex of masculine or feminine identity in stating that it is not intrinsic to the person but is a social construct. This identity could -- and must -- be torn down to allow woman to reach an equality of social power with man and for the individual to 'choose' their sexual orientation. Man-woman relations would be governed by a struggle over power." [...] this "unrealistic and disincarnate ideology" denies God's plan, and upholds the "right to choose" as its supreme value, making homosexuality a "culturally acceptable choice."

To GCFS on the other hand, "traditional, patriarchal, normative, heterosexual values" pretty much are gender. That is what they seek to dismantle or challenge. You ask what use is gender. GCFs ask the same thing. They theorise the mechanism of gender in order to dismantle it and achieve equality. The anti-gender movement opposes this analysis.

While GCFs might say the words man and woman only apply to male and female people, what they are critical of is the social meaning applied to those words, ie gender. The anti-gender movement uphold traditional ideas about male and female roles and behaviours, while, as Greer put it: "Female is real, and it's sex, and femininity is unreal, and it's gender".

GCFs are not "against" gender neutral toilets, that's moving from an abstract philosophical viewpoint, to broader - and diverse - campaigning platforms of political groups.

To GCFs, sex is a primary axis of oppression, so removal of services and protections that are there to ensure equal participation in society on the basis of sex is oppression. The defence of rights and representation on the basis of sex is what is key, and this is what inevitably causes conflict with those who say it should be instead based on gender identity. These are not viewpoints that can coexist. Void if removed (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident that I do understand the difference between the idea of gender abolition and the anti-gender movement's core position. However, what you're saying does not reflect what is written in the article and (at least to me) contradicts the positions of figures that are viewed as "TERFs", who share much of the rhetoric of the wider anti-gender movement denying that anyone could possibly be of a gender that does not match ones sex. Functionally, a society where only sex matters is equivalent to a society where gender roles and sex are always aligned, no?--TempusTacet (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

No. In a society where the view is that sex matters, and gender does not exist, gender roles would not be aligned with sex, because gender roles would not exist. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@TempusTacet Sweet's right here, this is the thing that actual GCs believe.

(Well, more or less: they're not a monolith, but to the extent they are a coherent ideology they believe that "gender" does not exist, only "sex" exists as well as "sex-based oppression". According to GCs there is no second category "gender" on top of sex: they lump anything other feminists or sociologists would call "gender" into either "sex" or "sex-based oppression".) Loki (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

What you're saying in the parentheses is what I've meant to say (unsuccessfully, it seems). If no concept of gender (that is distinct from "sex") exists one cannot be grouped/categorized based on gender and, in turn, it is impossible to be oppressed due to ones gender or share experiences with people of the same gender.--TempusTacet (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to stray into into arguing the merits of a philosophy when all I'm trying to do is give a clear explanation of what adherents believe their philosophy to be, but:

A society where only sex matters is not necessarily equivalent to a society where gender roles and sex are always aligned. If you uphold and naturalise the roles, it is. If you dismantle them, it isn't. Theorising that the roles and expectations placed upon the sexes are not the same as or an inherent aspect of sex itself - that gender is a distinct, socially constructed mechanism of oppression - is what allows those roles and expectations to be critiqued, challenged and dismantled.

The anti-gender movement opposes that theorisation, and insists such roles and behaviour are innate, natural, or "god's plan".

These are opposites.

I already linked Holly Lawford-Smith above, but this is perhaps worth restating:

"Gender critical feminists are gender abolitionists, which means, committed to getting rid of this sex caste hierarchy, and achieving the liberation of those subordinated by it, namely females. " Void if removed (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how the article/talk by Lawford-Smith contradicts what I wrote. She equates "woman" with "female sex" and "man" with "male sex" and hence considers trans women to be men and trans men and AFAB non-binary people to be women. This position is shared by the anti-gender movement as a whole, even if the underlying reasons might differ. It is not compatible with eg Postgenderism that also advocates for the abolition of gender.--TempusTacet (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Gender abolitionism and anti-genderism share the idea that internal gender identities do not exist. They have different positions on socially defined gender roles. The anti-gender movement might say that men should be breadwinners and women should stay home and raise children. The gender abolitionist position is that either sex can be a breadwinner or a homemaker if economic circumstance permit a single income household (critiquing the breadwinner/homemaker dynamic is of course a broadly feminist position). Plantdrew (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Gender critical feminism is a subset of the anti-gender movement, and are not really gender abolitionists.

The key distinction is that gender abolitionists believe that gender exists but want to get rid of it (or radically transform it somehow), while the anti-gender movement does not believe gender exists. They believe that there is only sex (and for gender critical feminists, also "sex-based oppression") and no gender.

In the hands of a traditionalist conservative, that general position is usually used to argue that what other people would call "gender roles" are natural psychological traits. In a GC feminist narrative, "gender roles" are instead a form of sex-based oppression. But the shared commonality between them is that they believe gender does not exist. Loki (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to chime in, but wanted to add that gender critical feminists do believe gender (the social construct of sex based roles and stereotypes) exists, they just want to abolish it because they view gender as tool for oppression. However, they don’t believe in an innate gender identity. 2603:7081:A00:D549:3835:7EEB:E436:4E81 (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I have a hard time with a claim that X does not exist when it patently does. We should be careful perhaps to confuse the extravagant language an author might use with a solid claim that it really is entirely non-existent. Whether one thinks gender is useful or universally agreed upon and fixed and so on are other matters from whether it exists. It is like saying money or capitalism or social justice or environmentalism don't exist, because all of these things are social constructs of varying meaning and value to people and some people think we'd be better of if they didn't exist. But the biggest problem is that the GCFs really have adopted the same language and activism as the anti-gender movement, even if they disagree on LGB issues or men's and women's roles. They celebrate the victories of the right-wing politicians and both are obsessed with the contents of people's underwear as defining features of what one is and what one should be permitted to do. For example, to go to the toilet one does not need a passport, a gender recognition certificate, or birth certificate, a chromosome test or to drop one's pants and wave the contents at a security guard. The rules for which toilet one can use are therefore being determined by whether one looks feminine enough. And this satisfies both movements. If you look like a man, you belong in the men's toilet. -- Colin°^Talk 14:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

An important point here is that GCs don't believe that the things people call gender don't exist. They just call it all either "sex" or "sex-based oppression". Loki (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think "pretending" is the correct word to use, as that suggest knowledge that you aren't really a woman and are faking it. And while that may indeed the the predatory transphobic picture that is being painted for the bathroom and changing room and shelters being "single sex" I think it is more they believe trans people are simply mentally ill or at the least are naively suggestible to social contagion. The concern for such people then is no different to concern for someone who believes they are the prime minister or Jesus, and needs our help and sympathy. But otherwise I agree that they think the concept of gender being distinct from one's sex or that either could change are simply nonsense any more than a rock could turn into a frog. For example, they reject even the idea of "cis" that there is a word for when one's gender and sex align that is different from "sane" or "not a pervert", or that one might even have a "gender identity". -- Colin°^Talk 20:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

GCs have two different stereotypes for trans women and trans men. Trans men they believe are naively susceptible to social contagion, trans women they believe are men pretending to be women in the strong sense of intending to deceive. Loki (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know, they don't believe in gender identity as a concept. I think they would argue that you cannot "feel" like one gender or the other, you can only "be" the sex you were born as. --Nsophiay (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is certainly what they claim to believe. One of them once told me on Twitter "I have no gender. I am a woman." which is a completely nonsensical or oxymoronic statement when interpreted through anything but that very specific ideological framework. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Spitballing here, another idea is to write something along the lines of "maintains that "biological sex" (by which they mean [...]) is", to clarify their other-than-standard use of the term. (The current "based on biological sex, which they believe is immutable" is alright. "many of the social and cultural signifiers ascribed to gender ought to instead be assigned based on biological sex" is a little unclear, as the article does not seem to mention "cultur(e|al)" or "signifiers" again.) Also, as I recall coming up on the 'Feminist views...' page, they don't solely oppose "efforts to expand transgender rights", they also oppose currently-existing rights. -sche (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I have deleted the wording ‘"many of the social and cultural signifiers ascribed to gender ought to instead be assigned based on biological sex"’ since I have no idea what it means. I have also deleted ‘and typically oppose transgender rights' because I don’t think this is accurate – I think the general gender-critical view is that trans rights may conflict with women’s rights. If this is to be added back, then it needs a source. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Would you please consider self-reverting both those edits before somebody else does? The first is a perfectly comprehensible sentence and the second is an uncontroversially true statement. I would even argue that "typically" is a compromise far too far. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

1) I’m not generally regarded as stupid, and I have no idea what "many of the social and cultural signifiers ascribed to gender ought to instead be assigned based on biological sex" means. It may be comprehensible to you, but I doubt if many, or any, of our readers would understand it. Please provide an alternative in normal English.  

2) Please provide a source for ‘and typically oppose transgender rights’.

Sweet6970 (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

There are many sources that discuss the TERF or GC movement's opposition to transgender rights. Here is one, stating that the movement employs "weaponization of recognized misinformation to oppose transgender rights."[6] Other sources can be found, but how many sources do we really need for something that is both uncontroversial and self-evident? And that is in fact discussed throughout numerous of the sources cited in this very article? --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

How about ‘is widely regarded by sociologists as typically opposing transgender rights’? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a little bit odd to highlight just sociologists, among many other social scientists. Political scientists, anthropologists, feminist studies scholars and many others have also contributed to research in this area. Also, given how it's uncontroversial that they oppose transgender rights, as normally understood – many of them are quite open about it – we should state that directly. We don't say "geologists widely regard the Earth as not being flat." --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Do we even have any pro-GC sources describing themselves otherhow?

I'm not sure "typically" is even warranted but that GCs oppose trans rights is entirely uncontroversial. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 17:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I already linked this paper earlier in the talk which is precisely about amelioration (in a UK context) to preserve both women's and transgender rights in the Equality Act. Void if removed (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The UK has been condemned by the Council of Europe specifically for virulent attacks on LGBT+ rights and compared to Russia, so this is like citing a pro-Kremlin Russian author to support some general argument on how the Russian invasion of Ukraine is viewed by international legal scholars; it carries little weight, except as an illustration of the rhetoric employed by a fringe movement with hardly any scholarly recognition internationally. The author is known for anti-trans/TERF views and the rhetoric in the article is characteristic of the phenomenon Thurlow discusses regarding the language of dogwhistles and obfuscation employed by the anti-trans movement[7]. This is a fringe view, particularly in an international context. It's uncontroversial that the TERF movement opposes transgender rights and many of them (including some of their best known groups and campaigners) are quite happy to say it openly; their most well-known group wants to "eliminate" "transgenderism" completely[8][9]. So if we were to use the description and language favoured by the best known TERF group, we could just as well say it's an ideology that wants to "eliminate what they refer to as 'transgenderism'." But perhaps we should just stick with the fairly neutral "opposing transgender rights" language used by many scholars? --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It's wholly uncontroversial that the TERF/GC movement opposes transgender rights (as normally understood), and they are quite open about that. For example WDI (the best known group) wants to eradicate "transgenderism" and all rights that are typically covered by the term transgender rights. The opposition to transgender rights is the very definition of the TERF movement. Claire Thurlow discusses the language of dogwhistles and obfuscation in her article (cited in the article). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Wrt the original question, there is a difference between that being a sourcable claim and it being a fact that if closely examined they might agree is not quite as binary and absolute as often stated. I think WhatAmIdoing, you are expecting more intelligence and nuance than occurs. It is like a politician claiming to be absolutely committed to dealing with climate change, while simultaneously banning wind farms and subsidising Big Oil. We're here to document what Gender-critical feminists believe, not whether it adds up to a coherent argument. -- Colin°^Talk 20:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Opened a protection request.

Noticing some IP edits on this page. I've opened a request for protection. Please watch the edits. Theheezy (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive removal of explanatory footnote

An editor is disruptingly removing an entirely uncontroversial explanatory footnote that merely lists the terms and abbreviations already used in this article and its sources (with its two main forms already included in the lead). The only reason for having a footnote for this is that it would make the first sentence very difficult to read if we were to list half a dozen variations of the names of the article's topic there. This should be reverted immediately, and we may have to consider increasing the protection level. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no editor ‘disruptively removing an entirely uncontroversial explanatory footnote.’ Another editor and I have both reverted you, stating clearly in the edit summaries that this matter is still being discussed – see above. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

FWIW I also don't think that footnote is necessary. I don't think we need to have everything anyone has called this group of people in the lead at all. Loki (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Lemkin Institute

The text: ‘The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention described the gender-critical movement as "a fascist movement" and "a loose international affiliation of people and groups who promote far-right ideas" and that focuses primarily "on the imagined threat posed by transgender women".’ has been added to the article. The source is a primary one, and constitutes a political statement by a non-notable organisation. This text should be deleted. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. A look through their website shows nothing that demonstrates notability. The website seems to suggest that it's been around for 6 or 7 years. Willbb234 22:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Content removal

I have restored the content in this diff. The content was removed of the grounds that it is allegedly uncited or not validly cited. On a first glance it appears plausibly cited to me, but that is only on a first glance. What do we think? --DanielRigal (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

"Although trans exclusionary feminists, focus on trans women, they often hold controversial positions on intersex women. Women with XY AIS as an example were called "men" and "defective males" by Germaine Greer. The deceleration of biological "femaleness," often excludes cisgender women who do not fit into the a clearly defined "biological" box."

The first sentence, besides being nonsensically constructed, has two uncited claims. The Greer example has a poor source which does not quote from Greer directly in a way that supports the wiki text, and needs a direct source from the book the cited sources are referring to. The final sentence, besides misspelling "declaration", would need a citation, in-text attribution (as in, "scholar Firstname Lastname wrote that...). But really, its inclusion in the middle of the Greer example makes no sense.

Isthistwisted (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Isthistwisted, DanielRigal It's cited quite well, this text is from the ISNA, Greer stated this herself in her work from The Whole Woman:

"There is nothing new in using the catch-all category “female” to describe incomplete males. In August 1996 the British media were alerted to the existence of 'women' with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. AIS is the name given to a condition in which a male fetus does not respond to androgens and fails to develop masculine characteristics." The section then goes on to state factually incorrect information of the phenotype of AIS, women with AIS do not develop any male traits during puberty, in fact the phenotype of a woman with CAIS tends to be more less masculinized then endosex women, I think she meant DHT insensitivity syndrome? That's neither here nor there but as an intersex person reading that horribly bigoted text simply made me a bit mad.

The text also cites this Progress and Politics in the intersex rights Movement Feminist theory in action:

"They (intersex people) could use this work to see how one particular construction had been forced on them and how their lives might have been better (and could yet be better) under different social constructions. 68 Social constructivism also gave solace to those who felt their gender identities did not fit into the simplistic male-female dichotomy promoted by Western popular culture. It was especially painful, therefore, for some intersex women (particularly women with AIS) to find their self-identities as women rejected by Germaine Greer in her book The Whole Woman because she insisted that 'it is my considered position that femaleness is conferred by the final pair of XX chromosomes. Otherwise I don’t know what it is.' As Morland has noted, when Greer was challenged by women with AIS and family members of girls with AIS, she was 'dismissive; she then used the book’s second edition not to retract the claims, but to publicly mock the AIS correspondents by referring to them too as men.'" Des Vallee (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Where in that text does she refer to anyone as a “defective male”? Isthistwisted (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

That's from another section, she used the term "incomplete males," to refer to women with AIS. Des Vallee (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

1) The text ‘Although trans exclusionary feminists, focus on trans women, they often hold controversial positions on intersex women’ is badly formed, and is too general for an article. Instead of speaking generally about what ‘trans exclusionary feminists’ ‘often’ say, we should only include specific views of specific people (properly sourced).

2) The text ‘The deceleration of biological "femaleness," often excludes cisgender women who do not fit into the a clearly defined "biological" box.’ is meaningless, even if ‘deceleration’ is a typo for ‘declaration’.

Sweet6970 (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree! Isthistwisted (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This seems more appropriate for an article on Greer. We'd really need sources saying GCF "often hold controversial positions on intersex women". That's assuming there even is a non-controversial position on intersex women, a topic I imagine a tiny fraction of 1% of the population have even given thought to. A comment that GCF ironically is leading to problems with non-conforming cis women who appear "too male" is probably sourcable, though needs to be better written than this. -- Colin°^Talk 10:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOPAGE?

This seems like a WP:POVFORK. We already go over the ideology at Feminist views on transgender topics § Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism and the label at TERF. It seems very odd to me that we have an a separate article for this now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I think "gender-critical feminism" is loud enough online and well-enough connected politically (at least in the Anglophone Global North) that the movement merits its own page. Clearly this page should be consistent with feminist views on transgender topics § Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism and TERF, rather than potentially being a WP:POVFORK. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I dunno. This seems more like a WP:SUBPOV than a POVFORK to me. While it's certainly a minority within the broader feminist movement, it is a sizeable and very vocal one. As a result there's more than enough sources both inside and outside of academia that this seems like a notable subtopic in its own right. If we were to try and cover all of this in the feminist views article, I think we'd quickly get to the point where size splitting would be warranted.

I think the ideal way to handle this is for TERF to remain an article about the acronym/label, Feminist views on transgender topics § Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism to be the summary style section that points here and trimmed accordingly, and this to be the main article for this subtopic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it was absolutely bizarre that this article didn't exist for decades while TERF, the article on a term to refer to them, did. For reference, transfeminism has been an article since 2007.

There are much greater POV issues caused by leaving GCs as a section in an obscure and unrelated article than by splitting out an article for them just like any other topic would have. Loki (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Any approach has issues; having a separate article here means we have to mind that it continues to cover GCF as the sources do, without lapsing into false balance or other POV-fork-y issues, it's true, but having the only coverage of GCF be in the main 'feminist views...' article meant that article had to constantly deal with WEIGHT issues due to the feminist view of trans people that gets the most publicity being the minority one. So, meh. -sche (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I see I'm late to the party on this one, but I agree with you MJL that it was not necessary to split this out and that it was better contextualized and weighted at the "feminist views" article. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Resolution 2417

@Sideswipe9th: take it to the talk page instead of reverting me in 3 minutes and giving some edit summary which doesn't even make sense. I must be blind because I'm not seeing this quote. Willbb234 20:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

It's paragraph 5 of the report; The Assembly condemns the highly prejudicial anti-gender, gender-critical and anti-trans narratives which reduce the struggle for the equality of LGBTI people to what these movements deliberately mis-characterise as "gender ideology” or "LGBTI ideology". (emphasis mine for clarity), which was already quoted in the content that you removed. That report is pretty clearly talking about the same subject matter as this article, right down to the mischaracterisation of gender identity being an ideology. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

No but it really isn't, is it? The article is talking about gender-critical feminism (emphasis mine) while the resolution doesn't even mention feminism. It has no place in the article. Willbb234 20:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Depending on how you want to look at it, the gender-critical feminist movement is either a subset of the broader gender-critical movement which itself is a subset of the anti-gender movement, or it is a synonym for the same movement. To wit, one cannot be a gender-critical feminist without being gender-critical. In either definition, the report is clearly applicable to the subject of this article. To borrow from what Colin said above, I don't know why you've bolded "feminism" and not the "gender-critical" adjective. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, come on! Are you seriously trying to argue that "gender-critical" is anything other than a shortened way of saying "gender-critical feminism"? We are allowed to recognise synonyms. People can argue about whether "gender-critical" is actually a feminist stance or not but nobody can argue that the two phrases refer to the exact same movement/ideology/group.

Imagine a man called William Smith is in court accused of a burglary. Smith, representing himself against the advice of the judge, argues that as the witness who identified the burglar said "Oh, yeah, I know him. That's Bill Smith" there is no testimony implicating anybody called William and he should be free to go about his way. Ask yourself, how impressed is the jury with this argument? DanielRigal (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know who this Bill Smith chap is or what burglary he did. Sounds like an interesting story though. Willbb234 20:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the movement or ideology known as TERF, trans-exclusionary radical feminism, gender-critical movement, gender-critical feminism or just gender-critical or even GC. The article addresses the fact that this movement or ideology is known under different names. Anything referring to either of those terms is referring specifically to the topic of this article. Many sources will just use the short form gender-critical. (Perhaps we should consider moving the article to gender-critical movement. Many sources specifically refer to it as that. We already have anti-gender movement as a title, so it would make sense. The gender-critical movement is increasingly seen by scholars as a subset of the anti-gender movement, or a closely related phenomenon.) --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

We'd need to discuss it more thoroughly, but moving it to a target like gender-critical or gender-critical movement might help with some of the confusion on scope, and there does seem to be some support for such a move above. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think it might clarify things for some readers, even though the terms refer to the same thing. Also, the word feminism is frequently omitted when the movement is discussed, "gender-critical" or GC is the main term here. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it is borderline as to whether this material should be included, as there is only one mention of ‘gender critical’, which does not refer to feminism- this article is about a branch of feminism. Also, there are no details as to what the attacks are, and the report seems to equate the position in the UK with the position in Poland. I have just made some amendments to the wording to add some clarifying details. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't need clarifying details, it needs removing. It has no place in the article. Your edits are making the situation worse. Willbb234 20:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Nope, we're not going to remove it. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

All you've done is babbled on about some name change and not given a good reason why this should stay in the article. Please get some consensus and the onus is on you for that. Willbb234 20:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

There is consensus, and at best, your arguments are founded on a complete misunderstanding of what the topic of this article is. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Where's the consensus? I have not misunderstood anything. Willbb234 21:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no other movement than the movement also known as TERF that is known as gender-critical. This is a pseudo-argument. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

No. This article is about something called "Gender-critical feminism". That is a name not a description. It is not for Wikipedia to say whether this is actual feminism or not. We just note what it is called and what reliable sources say about it. DanielRigal (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Also: The article was always intended to cover the movement that is known as both TERF, trans-exclusionary radical feminism, gender-critical movement, gender-critical feminism and just gender-critical or GC. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

this article is about a branch of feminism Respectfully, that seems to run counter to what you said above, where you supported Barnards.tar.gz's second definition of Gender-criticism as a more expansive, less academic set of viewpoints that aren't necessarily explicitly feminist but share common ground with the above and are aligned through criticism of gender. This would be what mainstream media mean when they say "gender-critical". If you support that version of the article's scope, then this isn't an article on the feminist only subset of the gender-critical movement. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Views which are not ‘explicitly feminist’ can still be feminist. But the point I was making was that it is not clear from the report what the Council of Europe mean by ‘gender critical’ – they refer to harming women’s and children’s rights as if the ideologies they refer to are anti-feminist. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

They are certainly anti-mainstream feminist. No matter what you want to call them (TERF or gender-critical feminist), as Amanda has said above, they exist at the fringes of the broader feminist movement, which is broadly trans-inclusive. Many gender-critical feminists support policies and activities that have caused harm to cisgender women (see the whole bathroom bill/bathroom panic stuff that disproportionately harms masculine presenting women), and go against the idea of bodily autonomy (restricting the right to informed consent based healthcare, something which is vital for free access to abortions). Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

My original point is that we don’t know what the Council of Europe mean by ‘gender critical’, and you have not answered this. Also, having different views from other branches of feminism does not make them anti-feminist. One might as well say that if what you refer to as ‘mainstream feminism’ is opposed to gender-critical feminism, then ‘mainstream feminism’ is anti-feminist. And if you are claiming that gender-critical feminism is opposed to the right to abortion, then you need some sources to support this. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The Council of Europe directly refers to the topic of this article. Gender-critical only refers to the topic of this article. This is made even clearer from the context of the resolution, which specifically describes gender-critical narratives as narratives "which reduce the struggle for the equality of LGBTI people to what these movements deliberately mis-characterise as “gender ideology” or “LGBTI ideology”. Such narratives deny the very existence of LGBTI people, dehumanise them and often falsely portray their rights as being in conflict with women’s and children’s rights." This is a clear description of the movement/ideology covered by this article. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say they opposed the right to abortion, though some gender-critical persons like the founder of Hands Across the Aisle Coalition certainly do. I said they support policies and activities that go against the idea of bodily autonomy, specifically in restricting the right to informed consent based healthcare. There's a rather voluminous body of work on this in academic literature, but I think this quote from Transcending the Gender Binary under International Law summarises it well Most important to note from the report is that it is the backlash against trans* rights, and not the proposed adoption of a gender-expansive legal framework, that poses a significant risk to the rights of women and LGBTQI+ people. To the former because, the anti-gender movement contributing to the backlash utilizes a framework of biological determinism that ultimately undermines the autonomy and bodily integrity of all cisgender women, stripping them of their agency and reducing their role in society to their sex characteristics.

As for what the Council of Europe meant, I agree with Amanda. It's pretty clear from the text of the resolution that they're referring to the movement/ideology that is topic of this article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe: your quote refers to the anti-gender movement, not gender critical feminism. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it is hard to conclude anything other than that "The Assembly condemns the highly prejudicial anti-gender, gender-critical and anti-trans narratives" is specifically condemning all three groups: those who are anti-gender, those who are gender-critical and those who are simply anti-trans. They all have common purpose, common language and to the degree that they are attacking trans people and their rights, support each other with glee either by citations or social medial likes and retweets. I mean, which part of "falsely portray their rights as being in conflict with women’s and children’s rights" has not been the entire basis of the campaign against self ID in Scotland by gender-critical feminists (you can choose to disagree with the "falsely" if you wish, but the purpose very much was that self ID for trans people was in conflict with women and children's rights, specifically to feel safe in so-called women only places such as toilets or prisons. And "deny the very existence of LGBTI people" is an inescapable conclusion of gender-critical believe, as you have explained, since there are in their view only men and only women and those are determined by sex at birth which cannot be changed.

The quote Sideswipe9th gives was indeed talking about the anti-gender movement, and mentions TERF/gender-critical feminists as "allies". But goes on to say they are in "alignment" together as an "anti-trans movement" and repeats the "biological sex" and "threat to the hard-fought human rights of cisgender women and girls" that the assembly condemnation covers. That the concept of a transgender person makes no sense and that they are a threat to women's rights. We do need to be careful with sources that cover both groups, but also such sources allow us to comment on their common features. -- Colin°^Talk 13:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

But not "gender critical feminists" which brings us back to the distinction that this article resists making.

Especially when those who are "gender critical feminists" frequently and at great length criticise and disown the actions of the wider "gender critical movement" (whatever that is).

• "Firstly, we have the question of whether the ‘gender-critical movement’ is really a movement at all, or whether it is just an aggregation of individuals who all think trans ideology is bollocks for various reasons. When it first got off the ground back in 2017/2018, many of the women organizing resistance were steeped in feminist analysis, and ‘gender-critical feminism’ was the name for the feminist analysis of what was wrong with the trans-rights project. Over time, more and more people have joined this political battle. Initially, many of them were at least respectful of the fact it was primarily a feminist movement, whereas now significant numbers are explicitly anti-feminist. Under these conditions, what ‘the gender-critical movement’ is has become a source of increasing tension."
• "There is nothing wrong with sitting on neutral platforms, openly debating with people you have fundamental political disagreements with. Indeed, it’s necessary to the functioning of a healthy democracy. That’s a different business from making concrete political cause with, or taking platforms from, people who have a specific political interest in using your voice to further their own political ends. That’s not about moral contamination. That’s about giving arguments, credibility, and political energy to people who are working against your political interests and aims. It’s about being co-opted."
• "What is going on is that some people seem to have decided we need to make common cause with extremely right-wing actors, many of whom are opposed to trans ideology from a place of gender conservatism, many of whom are actively working against women’s reproductive rights, and many of whom are explicitly anti-feminist. A lot of feminist women object to this, for reasons grounded in a coherent account of women’s political interests, just as in the case of the fight against trans ideology."

Saying that anti-gender = gender critical = gender critical feminism is not neutral. In fact, I would argue it is the key conflict this article has to resolve. There are a preponderence of sources - especially academic sources - being brought to bear to insist that all three of these things are the same thing, but those sources are explicitly hostile to all three. By contrast, gender critical feminists have long complained of an inability to work in this area, and a student who studied it had that research quashed.

• "After she presented the university with a 200-page document evidencing the aggressive silencing and persecution of feminists, for instance, management suggested she needed to offer a “both sides” narrative."

An earlier article about her work specifically covered feminists, described their position, and the nature of the conflict too:

• "All of my interviewees self-defined as feminist, with 14 of those approached holding views now described as “gender critical”. For them, there is a clear difference between “sex”, which refers to biological categories that are binary and immutable, and “gender”, which describes the roles, behaviours and attributes that a given culture deems appropriate for people by virtue of their sex. Recognising this difference is important because, as well as constraining both sexes, gender serves to justify the subordination of females. This group of academics also noted that their perspective was, until recently, largely shared across feminism, as well as within many academic disciplines. It was clear that the “gender-critical” feminist academics I interviewed had faced negative repercussions for years for expressing their view "

This is a good source both for a conceptual description of gender critical feminism and for the nature of the conflict as perceived by that "side". The continual insistence that gender critical feminists "reject the concept of gender" is simply wrong. Void if removed (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think folk here are suggesting anti-gender = gender critical (with or without feminist tag). But the organisation cited here is criticising all three agendas. I don't think they would list "anti-gender, gender-critical and anti-trans" if the first two were just the same thing.

I'm not seeing anything in what you've offered that suggests "gender critical" is separate from "gender-critical feminism", only that both labels are used and mainly used about women who hold the various beliefs we've already described. This isn't a forum to complain about gender-critical feminists being censored in the UK (or not). -- Colin°^Talk 10:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Colin has said:'I don't think folk here are suggesting anti-gender = gender critical'. But Sideswipe9th said (at 20:23 3 July 2023 above): Depending on how you want to look at it, the gender-critical feminist movement is either a subset of the broader gender-critical movement which itself is a subset of the anti-gender movement, or it is a synonym for the same movement. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

WRT the "gender critical 'movement'":

• "significant numbers are explicitly anti-feminist"

The feminist beliefs are not being accurately described anywhere on this page and the distinction between that feminist analysis and the wide range of other perspectives that are getting thrown in together is not being made clear. Until the scope of this article is resolved by at the very least changing the title and isolating the "feminist" aspect in a subsection or moving to a separate article, addressing criticism of a more nebulous movement towards "gender critical feminists" is inappropriate.

Bringing in a reference to this resolution before that's resolved is begging the most important question. Void if removed (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't search that PDF thing for the text you quote. I'm not really sure that someone moaning in magazine amounts to a serious or accepted view. The text "significant numbers are explicitly anti-feminist" would appear to be totally lacking in citations or evidence or specifics, just someone's opinion. Who exactly are these "gender-critical" people who are also "anti-feminist"? While I would reckon much of the UK right politics are anti-feminist, I wouldn't class them as gender-critical either. Johnson and his culture-war companions are not "gender-critical". I get it that various in the GC group are unhappy with associating with the right wing who are anti-women but plenty seem to have no problem. Any group is going to have a mix of opinions. Wrt the text Sideswipe9th wrote quoted by Sweet, yes, I think I disagree with that. -- Colin°^Talk 12:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

If the enough of the sources support that then I'd be in favour but, if not, WP:COMMONNAME would still apply even if the name is a misnomer. DanielRigal (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

We had a discussion of what the most common name was before, and the results seemed to indicate that some version of TERF is the most common name. On the other hand some sources note that there is an ongoing shift towards the term gender-critical (movement). I don't think the specific phrase "gender-critical feminism" is the most common term, strictly speaking. It was chosen mostly because we anticipated that it would be the most uncontroversial title, not for any other reason. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Willbb234:, @Sideswipe9th:. please try to stay civil for now. I'm happy to mediate a bit in this discussion. Let me take the time to read and understand what's going on in these edits. I agree that WP:BRD is the policy, but a reversion should not lead to a confrontation, but rather a good faith discussion. Theheezy (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

From my understanding of reading the edits and the subsequent discussion, we're getting into the question of what does and does not belong on this article as well as whether the term TERF should be explicitly used, and whether it is different from Gender Critical Feminism. As an outside observer, I would say that overall, the majority of the editors are making the correct good faith presentations of the reliable sources. Wikipedia does not require established beyond a reasonable doubt, however we are somewhat more stringent than merely a preponderence of evidence. I would interpret WP:CONSENSUS as clear and convincing evidence, and hopefully going forward @Willbb234 can be more respectful of this. Theheezy (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I think I'm coming to the conclusion that "gender critical" is used merely as a shorthand for "gender critical feminist", and that phrase was not (previously) used by the wider anti-gender politics we see coming from religious or right-wing conservative ideologies. Maybe we can find sources for that. It may be then that it is worth debating (at some point, but maybe not now) whether gender critical is the most appropriate article title, with gender-critical feminism a redirect. But if we agree they are equivalent, just shorthand, then we also still agree that anti-gender rants from right-wing men do not belong here. And possibly a fair amount of culture war rhetoric doesn't belong here. For exampe, when Suella Braverman claimed it was an “unfashionable fact” that “100 per cent of women do not have a penis”, I don't think she was being "gender critical" or speaking as a "gender-critical feminist, but was engaging in a culture war for purely political purposes. I think the Council of Europe attack on "gender critical" movements that Sideswipe9th is discussing above is very much including gender-critical feminists, and there is nothing about what they criticise them for that one could say "Oh, no, these GCFs don't do that, its the hateful US rightwing politicians who do that" We've seen above that the beliefs of GCFs have no place where a trans person can legitimately exist as the person they claim to be, only as a person with a mental illness. A person who remains restricted by the sex they were born with as to which bathroom or changing room they are permitted in, whether they can view themselves as a mother or father. For example, when a trans woman has long hair and wears a dress they are told by GCFs they are demonstrating harmful gender stereotypes but if a AFAB person has long hair and wears a dress they are just being typical. In the UK think we can likely source that for some in the GCF domain, it is the fight against "men" being allowed in women's shelters or bathrooms or prisons that is their priority and have adopted GCF as an ideology for the legal convenience of it now being a "protected belief", whereas a belief solely that trans women are perverts who shouldn't be allowed near women's spaces would likely not hold legal protection. -- Colin°^Talk 07:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

This article is definitely about the faction of feminists, so I would oppose a move to just "gender-critical". (Personally, I would have preferred it be called "trans-exclusionary radical feminism", but alas that position wasn't popular in the discussions back when we were naming this thing.)

That being said, I agree that easily 9 times out of 10 the phrase "gender critical" is shorthand for "gender-critical feminism". The broader anti-gender movement doesn't really use that phrase. Loki (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Can we find a source that the full GCF is often shortened to GC? Then we could say as much in the lead. Or at least convince ourselves that GC is used as an adjective about this group of feminists and not as an adjective about e.g. male religious/conservatives who are also anti-abortion and anti-equality. If we are going to discuss in the article how they end up sharing the same objectives and language and tweets and so on, then we need to avoid conflating them accidentally.

Btw, I think the language in the lead "rejects the concept of gender" (and the consequence that it "reject the concept of transgender identities") is the correct term to use rather than some of the claims above that they don't believe it exists. I can see how one may think "gender" is something in one's head that humans invent and talk about whereas "sex" is in your chromosomes and genitalia, but so many other things that are in our heads and humans invent and talk about "exist" even just as a concept, useful or otherwise, without being visible and tangible. -- 09:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC) Colin°^Talk 09:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Again - "rejects the concept of gender" is wrong. They theorise gender, in order to critique it. They don't reject that it exists, they understand it as the means by which female oppression acts and thus something that should - as far as possible - not exist. But should and does are different things.

You're missing that they are a rejection of the Butlerian idea that sex and gender are not distinguishable, that "gender acts" do to some extent construct what we think of as sex. Void if removed (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Colin: I find it concerning that on more than one occasion you have mentioned "finding sources" to support your opinion. Isn't this akin to cherrypicking sources? Going out there to find sources to support this viewpoint and ignore others that offer other viewpoints or contradictory information is suspicious to say the least. It brings into question your real intentions here. Willbb234 19:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. You should not need reminding. Theheezy (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

What are you on about? Willbb234 20:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the behavior you have demonstrated on this talk page is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. It's good that you've stopped participating in this discussion and stepped away. If you'd like to come back to this discussion then certainly try to come back in a more good faith way. Theheezy (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Theheezy: Can I suggest that, as a user of 2 years, with a few hundred edits, without having been elected to any functionary positions, it can come across as hostile to be tone-policing other users who have been editing for a longer time and to a greater extent.

I can see that your intention seems to be to try to keep the conversation calm and reasoned, but almost all of your contributions to this discussion have been chiding other users to remain calm and, given this is a contentious topic, editors are already likely to be passionate and, at times, irritable.

Your recommendations might not come across in the spirit that they are intended, so it might be advisable to back away from providing them 🙂 — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 17:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Right, that's fair. I have no formal position and reading your linkedin, you *do* work for the wikimedia foundation. I will back off since I'm sure this discussion is in more professional hands. Theheezy (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Can we find sources to support a statement. It works both ways. If we can, then yes, there is an argument that there may be sources that support the opposite and we are ignoring them or didn't look for them (though I haven't asked anyone to ignore them, and there are plenty people on this page who could provide opposing sources). But if we can't, then the statement is unsupportable. We've had a lot of people contribute their opinions on this page. I think that has been useful though we have to be aware that this isn't a forum or twitter to discuss the merits of GCD. We need to write sourced claims on this page and be aware of the misinformation or misconceptions people (including me) may have that need addressed. Let's keep all this in mind. Can we find sources to back up X. Can we find sources that discredit X. It would be tedious if we had to mention both angles all the time, and I think there are enough differing views on this page that people will contribute opposing opinions.

Sometimes, viewpoints simply don't have a sourced opposite. If I said that Elon Musk was one of the Clangers then you might challenge me to find sources to back up that claim. It wouldn't be reasonable for me to insist you find sources that Elon Musk wasn't a Clanger. So if there are simply no reliable sources supporting a statement, it seems a bit premature to suggest I might be "cherry picking" Musk-Clanger conspiracy sources. -- Colin°^Talk 22:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

There is also a third element at play here. We're discussing a topic where terminology and talking points are changing somewhat rapidly. There is always a lag time between when something happens, and when something gets described in high quality reliable sources, like academia. It's not outside the realm of possibility that what we're discussing here, with respect to the contraction of gender-critical feminism/ist to just gender-critical is both true with respect to the people involved in the movement, and also somewhat unverifiable with respect to what we have decided are reliable sources. So Colin asking for sources is not a warning sign, or evidence of cherrypicking, it's simply something that's somewhat unavoidable when writing about current events.

For example, though it might be more relevant to another article depending on its content, Judith Butler is publishing a book on the anti-gender movement with a publisher's date of February 2024. Works like this normally take years to write and edit, time during which the relevant "big names" might have changed or terminology shifted. It's possible that it might be a relevant source for aspects of this discussion, while the rest of the anti-gender movement has moved on to other talking points. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with the rejects the concept of gender phrasing. Loki (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

What sourcing do we have for that? It's recently been removed from the lead and it might be a good idea to examine the sourcing now that it is disputed. --Aquillion (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I would say that "gender critical" should be the article title, and "gender critical feminism" a dedicated subsection, as it is distinct, and important in the history of the term, not just a redirect and definitely not a straightforward subset.

"Gender critical feminism" was a specific label adopted by continuity 2nd wave/radical feminists trying to assert sex as a primary axis of oppression. If it isn't a feminist critique of gender, it isn't "gender critical feminism".

In wider usage, "gender critical" has come to be adopted by people who are, essentially, "transgender critical" and nothing more, which is reflected in a diverse range of statements, politics and behaviour that have nothing to do with feminism. Void if removed (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Void, I think one of the problems with language is that the people who come up with words and terms don't ultimately get to control what it means and how people use it. Like the TERF word, which when invented was not considered something people might shout in anger and hate at someone. Genie back in the bottle and all that. If women who are "transgender critical and nothing more" call themselves gender critical feminists, and the world goes along with that, then there isn't much we can do other than find sources for a "History" section to document some a supposed original meaning of the term. -- Colin°^Talk 09:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps "Woke" is a even stronger example. There's no point shouting from the rooftops that you are all using it the wrong way from what it originally meant. That word now has at least two quite distinct meanings, only one of which is even remotely related to the original one. -- Colin°^Talk 09:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Saw a link to Metro Bank ‘prevents gender-critical parents’ group from opening account’ (take care to note that even this unreliable source puts the claim in scare quotes). It isn't a paper, you might have guessed, that I normally read. What I noted was it used "gender-critical" really as a euphemism for "anti-trans". I tried to see who this "wave of Brexit supporters and gender-critical commentators" were who had had their accounts closed, and followed the link to The secret databases that tell banks which accounts to shut and Banks told to uphold free speech after blacklisting customers holding certain views and Building society admits it would close customers’ accounts if they are ‘rude or discriminate’ after Farage row. I could probably keep clicking on links to stories in the Telegraph all based around Nigel (lack of funds) Farage's bank account and a myth that our banks have gone woke.

I don't know if this helps at all. It seems Telegraph writers will bandy about "gender-critical" even to refer to a "wave" of people that is entirely made up of Nigel Farage and a vicar who doesn't like Pride (i.e. presumably all the ungodly perversions, not just the trans ones). Do we have any more reliable sources than the Telegraph (and I mean this quite seriously, the paper is in outer space wrt the trans debate) to see how "gender-critical" is being used today. It it really the case that this term has been adopted, in the UK anyway, as a euphemism for "anti-trans" (or transphobic), never mind a euphemism for TERF.

But this may also mean it is hard to establish what "gender-critical feminism" is, when someone who is a feminist (to any degree, including just being a woman) claims to be "gender-critical" when what they mean is that they align with the anti-trans politics around bathrooms, sport and social contagion. I have a feeling we may end up with an article that documents the history of the term, but can't really be focused on what it means today. I still don't think this article should become a dumping ground for every comment made by or against an anti-trans female commentator or group. -- Colin°^Talk 07:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I do think that sourcing increasingly makes it clear that "gender critical" is a larger perspective or movement that is not feminist in character, and that "gender critical feminism" is a subset of this. So it would make sense to rename the article to "Gender critical" or something along those lines to broaden its scope. --Aquillion (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 14:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Studnik and edits 31 July 2023

@Sideswipe9th: For heaven’s sake! The text: Joane Studnik argued that "TERF positions are now mostly heard from conservatives and right-wing extremists." is about the views of a journalist. How is this factual? Would you agree that I should add text based on Sonia Sodha’s articles in the Guardian in support of gender-critical feminism? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Sodha is not a good comparator here, as she only writes opinion columns in The Observer and doesn't seem to contribute towards any factual reporting by the paper.

Is your issue here the attribution to Studnik? If so, then we could resolve that by rephrasing to something like Der Freitag reported that.... When looking at the source article, this does not appear to be an opinion piece published in Der Freitag, there's nothing in it that seems to be solely the view of the author and the entire piece appears to be written in Der Freitag's editorial voice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

We need some facts. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

See the translated quotation that was in the text you removed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Do we really need to have this same discussion here and at Talk:Women's Declaration International? Anyway, I don't see any intrinsic problem with the source here and I think that Sideswipe9th's suggestion is a good one. It would give the reader a better idea of how to judge the weight of the source. Giving a name means nothing to the reader while giving the name (and a link) of the paper lets them know that it is reporting in a newspaper. A reader will then know to rank this lower than a peer-reviewed academic publication but above some rando commenting from the peanut gallery. DanielRigal (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I have now read the Studnik article (computer-translated). The only relevant thing she says is ‘In fact, TERF positions are now predominantly heard from conservatives and right-wing extremists.’ This is not an argument, and she does not provide any information to back up her statement. It is merely her opinion, and, as such, it should not be included on Wikipedia because she is not a notable person. And I do not see anything which says that it is the view of the publication. So there is no justification for including this text in either the gender-critical article or the WDI article. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

No, that is not "the only relevant thing she says" and the whole article, an in-depth high-quality journalistic piece from a respected weekly newspaper, is directly related to the topic of this article, in discussing the connections between this movement and right-wing extremism. It is also patently false that she doesn't back up that statement. There are many very relevant parts of the article that we could quote; the fact that this specific quote was used here does not mean that it's the only relevant part of the article. Also, I think we cannot rely on how someone who admits that they don't understand the language interprets the article, especially when what they're saying is obviously wrong and editors who do understand the language disagree. I'm also astonished that you say you have only read it now, after edit-warring against multiple editors over it previously. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

It is merely her opinion Please quote something from the article that uses first person phrasing. In English that would be something like "I" or "My", or "In my opinion". In German, you'd be looking for words like "ich", "mein", or "meiner Meinung nach". Amanda A. Brant you may be able to answer this, as I see on your user page you speak German to an advanced level, much higher than I do anyway? Because I've read this multiple times and I cannot see anything that is the author's personal opinion, and not written in the publication's editorial voice.

she does not provide any information to back up her statement There is no requirement in WP:RS or WP:V that the sources we use show their working. For reliable sources, like Der Freitag, we only care that they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. To do otherwise would require us to exclude a great many sources, particularly those from news organisations, that we otherwise consider reliable for asserting facts in articles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your assessment. The article is very clearly a journalistic piece. Its focus is on the ties between the TERF movement (the topic of this article) and the far right. It discusses how the "gender-critical" movement in the UK has been radicalized, extending into the far-right extremist sphere, and what this also means for the situation in Germany. It discusses examples of TERFs and far-right trolls cooperating in attacking trans people. The quote that was used here was clearly meant as a statement of fact, against the broader backdrop discussed in the article. It is in line with what many others have observed too, so it's not a very novel claim, and it can be attributed to the newspaper, so we don't have to make it in Wikipedia's voice. Hence, I don't see any problem with the source or the use of it here. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th, it is a fairly common rhetorical device to state one's opinions as though they are facts. Signalling that one's opinions are "mere opinions", with "In my opinion", or that one's beliefs are not solidly evidence based, with "I believe that", would perhaps be a mark of very formal scientific writing, but not necessarily journalism. Identifying opinion and fact isn't an easy problem to solve. I note that in the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#What is a fact, and what is an opinion? It's time for a more rigorous delineation between these concepts. a wise editor wrote "There is certainly a tendency among some editors to declare that anything in a news article they disagree with is just an injection of the author's opinion or view into the prose". Maybe we are all guilty of that at times. I read the piece, via Google Translate. I note that Joane Studnik does not appear to be a regular journalist at this newspaper but is a regular at berliner-zeitung.de.

I'll compare it to this Guardian article, which covers the same topic of transgender self-ID. In the Guardian article, the opinions of those for and against the proposal are attributed. The two authors of the article are not explicitly for or against the proposal. One might assume something from the degree of quoting those critical of the government decision to drop the proposal, leaving only a brief paragraph citing those pleased. But this might also reflect reality (the degree of disappointment) or the paper's anti-Conservative-government editorial position. Whereas the Studnik article is straight out pro self-ID, with the current system described as "time-consuming, expensive and degrading" and labelling those opposed to self-ID as "TERF activists", who claim "alleged abuses" and make "wild warnings".

The Guardian article is quite plainly straightforward reporting and easier for us to use on Wikipedia as it is at least superficially neutral. But we don't require our sources to be neutral. See WP:BIASED and WP:NPOV#Bias in sources. That the article text was written "Joane Studnik argued that" does imply an opinion being argued for, rather than a fact being declared. Which is a little odd since the text "TERF positions are now predominantly heard from conservatives and right-wing extremists" is really a claim that is either accurate or inaccurate, rather than an opinion like whether one side is right or good. I don't think it is a controversial claim. While people might choose to use another word than "TERF", I don't think anyone seriously claims there hasn't been a tsunami of gender-critical articles in the right wing press/media and comments and new trans-hostile laws (or opposition to pro-trans laws) from right wing politicians. There is I suppose a danger that it only reflects an experience relevant to some countries and the inclusion of the word "now" gives us dating problems that might need fixed by saying when this was said. It seems to me a little odd to include that remark alone, when their point in the article is that "the term TERF originates from a decidedly left-wing discourse of British and US materialism". Without this, we are left wondering where "TERF positions" were "heard from" before "now" (whenever that is/was).

I'm rather wary of building up an article with snippets of bits one found here and there on the internet. But it seems that's how articles in this domain get written. It just becomes a collection of factoids. Wikipedia:No original research says "The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words". We aren't really summarising here, but cherry-picking people to quote from. And rather than debate whether Studnik is notable, if we wanted to include Studnik's opinions (and I don't think that claim is an opinion) then an ideal measure of that would be to cite a secondary source that itself quotes Studnik. Because Studnik's article is a primary source of their own opinions and doesn't itself demonstrate they have weight. -- Colin°^Talk 18:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

New addition regarding bathroom panic etc.

There is no consensus for this new addition[10] which frames discussions about the anti-trans bathroom panic and various conspiracy theories advocated by the anti-trans movement (that have been widely critiqued/debunked) in highly laden, transphobic dogwhistle language. These discussions are framed very differently in scholarship, where anti-trans activists' claims of "defending" "women" in toilets etc. are certainly not taken at face value ([11][12], as "anti-trans bathroom panic" by Catharine A. MacKinnon et al.[13]). Some more general sources regarding the toilet debate: [14], [15]; this is a highly complex topic that cannot be summarized as a supposed "right" to "single-sex" spaces in toilets etc. without contextualization, and when summarized by most RS it is commonly referred to as an anti-trans moral panic, bathroom panic etc. Also note that the word "sex" (of women) in a legal context obviously also refers to trans women, which is how the CEDAW Committee has interpreted it. In other words, the language used in the new addition is also misleading and confusing. While these discussions / moral panics / the debates and analyses of them should be addressed in the article, they should be addressed in a nuanced way and contextualized. Yes, we can probably include the quote regarding "single-sex spaces" somewhere below in the body of the article, but in a context that also includes scholars' perspectives and analyses of the anti-trans bathroom panic and related themes. Within scholarship of the TERF movement, this is simply one of several moral panics and conspiracy theories that TERFs whip up. The grandiose attempt to frame TERFs – as a fringe movement – as representatives of "women" is general, in the context of organizing, is nothing but POV and exaggerates their importance to a bizarre degree, and is not appropriate for the lead section. Do not reinstate this addition without consensus. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

That sentence describes what gender-critical feminists believe. Clearly you are entitled to disagree with them, but we are here to explain to readers what the subject of the article is about. Feel free to follow it up with a summary of how others believe they are mistaken, but we won’t achieve NPOV by describing the subject exclusively through a single POV lens. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

You are the one adding a very one-sided version of this to the lead that only frames this in the laden dogwhistle language employed by TERFs that is very misleading and confusing to boot. The way to go about it to work on a more nuanced discussion of this topic in the body first, based on more sources (some of those I mentioned, for example). Then we might consider how we could summarize it in the lead, if appropriate and WP:DUE (I have doubts whether this debate specifically belongs in the lead, but if it did, it would be in the context of what is commonly called the anti-trans bathroom panic; also compare bathroom bill and other articles related to these debates). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

AAB has described the wording: The gender-critical movement also argues that women have the right to use "single-sex spaces and to organise on the basis of biological sex" as which frames discussions about the anti-trans bathroom panic and various conspiracy theories advocated by the anti-trans movement (that have been widely critiqued/debunked) in highly laden, transphobic dogwhistle language. whereas, on the contrary, there is no reference in the added wording to ‘bathroom panic’, there are no references to ‘various conspiracy theories’, there is no ‘transphobic language’ and there are no ’dogwhistles’. I recommend that AAB should read the wording again. The wording added is simple, factual, neutral, and highly relevant to this article, and should be reinstated. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe it was @X-Editor who added this sentence; I just reinstated it, because I agreed that it added a plain explanation of gender critical beliefs that was (and still is, even with this addition) sorely lacking from the article. I then added the Sex section to the article so that we have some article body content of which the new sentence can serve as the summary. Both could be expanded and improved a great deal. So how about we do that rather than delete them? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the sex-views section was appropriate. The aspect you were trying to address there is already covered in the "transgender rights and woman's rights" section, cited to a better source: The gender-critical movement argues that recognition of transgender people, particularly trans women, conflicts with women's "sex-based rights" - this could be elaborated on but I don't agree with using magazines or government sources to "clarify" something from an academic source. --Aquillion (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The aspect I was trying to address was a plain statement of what gender critical feminists believe about sex:

Gender-critical feminists equate “women” with the female sex class, and view historical and contemporary oppression of women as being rooted in their being female. They believe sex is biological and cannot be changed, and that biological sex should be a protected characteristic under equality legislation.

None of this is covered by the “transgender rights and woman’s rights” section.

There’s also nothing uniquely British about this. The ideal academic source would be Gender Critical Feminism by Holly Lawford Smith, but I don’t have a copy of that so couldn’t cite page numbers. Instead, one of the sources is a review of the book, which contains the same information.

The nature of sex is absolutely central to the subject, but our article barely scratches the surface. We could have rich coverage about what sex means, why different people mean different things by it, what the consequences of these meanings and beliefs are, why it is controversial etc.

Summary: sources not being as strong as they could be isn’t a reason to delete relevant and sourced content.

Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• At the very least, I don't think it's leadworthy based on the article as it stands or the single news source presented for it. (The sourcing for the new sex subsection of the views section is also slightly weak.) Also, I'll note that all the sources used in both the proposed addition to the lead and the Views section are from the UK - aspects unique to the UK should be placed in the United Kingdom section to avoid presenting them as global views. It isn't hard to find academic sources on this, surely? There's no reason for us to rely on magazine articles and the like. --Aquillion (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree, much of this is a very UK-centric debate. There is a growing body of scholarship that analyzes the claims of "defending women's spaces" and similar rhetoric. While the article should address this topic, the claims made and analyses of them, the sentence in the lead gives a misleading and undue impression the way it is presented in the lead. So the focus should first be on improving coverage of this topic in the body. Several articles in this journal issue[16] engage with the topic in some way, and it's easy to find more sources on this. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
    • I disagree with Aquillion’s removal of material [17] I don’t follow the argument that this should not be included solely because the sources are from the UK: I don’t wish to be fatuous, but the UK exists, and this reason given for deletion makes it sound as if Wikipedia thinks that the UK somehow doesn’t count. The issue is probably clearer in the UK because of the legal cases which have established that gender-critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010. As regards the source which Aquillion has referred to as a ‘government’ source, this could be supplemented by, for instance [18] - this was laid down by the legal judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, not the govt. For practical purposes (e.g. those of our readers) the legal views are far more relevant than academic ones, and are also likely to be more up to date. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

      I have to agree with @Sweet6970 here. The UK is one of the main centres of gender-critical discourse and we have a media industry that is largely hostile to trans-inclusive positions; it is inevitable that British news sources are going to feature heavily in coverage of GC politics. If the article only showed a British perspective on things that would be a problem but, if there is a genuine concern that sourcing is too British, the solution is to look for additional sources, not to remove reliably-sourced information.

      More widely, I would suggest that a simplified definition of GC beliefs belongs in the lead, with additional detail and nuance later in the article. That nuance would include scholarship that analyses the claims, of course, just as articles about the US Civil War analyses the slave states' claims that "states rights" were the rationale (rather than slavery) and articles about Unequal Treaties analyse the claims made by both subject states and the states imposing those treaties.

      That nuance should also include discussion of caselaw, including Forstater, Mackereth and Bailey — and, presumably, that the Forstater tribunal case established that the bar for beliefs “not worthy of respect in a democratic society” is very high (“only those beliefs that would be an affront to Convention principles in a manner akin to that of pursuing totalitarianism, or advocating Nazism, or espousing violence and hatred in the gravest of forms”). We should also summarise the non-UK cases mentioned in Preferred gender pronoun § Legal issues and legal recognition, including the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decisions and whatever has happened since Amul Thapar's 2021 ruling regarding Meriwether and Shawnee State University. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 15:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

      Accordingly, I have restored the section. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

to OwenBlacker: do you have any specific proposals for alterations to the wording? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2023

In place of ‘Because anti-trans positions are associated with feminism in Britain, they are present in left-wing British media to an extent they are not in the US.’, may I suggest ‘Because questioning or challenging some trans positions is associated with feminism in Britain, they are present in left-wing British media to an extent they are not in the US.’

Reason: ‘anti-trans’ is not how a fair minded reader would describe say Professor Kathleen Stock and Helen Joyce and Hadley Freeman. 86.165.163.36 (talk) 06:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. We do not replace meaningful content with vague euphemisms based purely on personal suppositions of what a fair-minded reader might think when encountering an anti-trans position. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I have had a look at the sources for the statement ‘Because anti-trans positions are associated with feminism in Britain, they are present in left-wing British media to an extent they are not in the US.’ They are both opinion pieces, and therefore, not suitable to support the text. So I am deleting this sentence from the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I have partially reverted this / reworked into another sentence. I agree the source is opinion, however Shon Faye is notable (i.e. has a Wikipedia article), so we should be able to include her opinion with attribution. Not so much for the Miller source. I'm not convinced the wording is optimal yet, but this distinction between UK and US is interesting and noteworthy so we should find a way to include it somehow. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)