Talk:Gender-critical feminism

Need to remove disinformation section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You said:

animus against trans people, which is the sole defining aspect

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

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

I would propose:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Classifying the movement as cisnormative

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

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

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

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

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

views - gay rights

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

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

From a very very quick search

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

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

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

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

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

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

Basic WP:Due weight (emphasis added):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Academic sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TERFism is fringe in society at large. There isn't a single established, old feminist organization supporting it. (The TERF organizations are all new hate groups and described as such). Why do you think all those big corporations—from Apple to Mercedes-Benz[6]—support queer people? It's the mainstream perspective, the only accepted view in polite society. Apple or Mercedes-Benz wouldn't touch terfism with a barge pole. So this isn't a case of academia vs. society at large. It's a case of academia PLUS society at large, from gender studies scholars to Mercedes-Benz, vs. a fringe group that is considered hateful by academics, international resolutions, think tanks, big corporations etc. So it's really quite similar to the antisemitism situation. Note that the existence of some countries that promote transphobia doesn't change this; those countries rank lower on relevant indices and have poorer reputations regarding democracy, human rights, and civil society. For example, the Russian government promotes all sort of extremist positions and conspiracy theories, but that doesn't make them mainstream or accepted from our perspective. Since people like to mention the UK: It's less than half the size of Russia by population, has left the EU, has a government now considered far-right and populist by many observers (an unpopular government that is likely to loose power soon, to boot), and has the very worst reputation regarding LGBT+ rights in all of western Europe, being compared to Russia by the Council of Europe; in this field it's not really a Western democracy, its policies are more similar to authoritarian countries. So if we don't place much emphasis on the Russian point of view on LGBT+, there is even less reason to give much weight to British transphobia in this context. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

in this field it's not really a Western democracy, its policies are more similar to authoritarian countries

Given that is a completely absurd claim, all the more reason not to take "this field" seriously.

the only accepted view in polite society

Today we saw yet another (absolutely scathing) employment tribunal judgment in the UK in which someone with gender critical views was found to have been subject to unlawful discrimination. It is firmly established that gender critical views in and of themselves are not bigoted and transphobic, and that employers cannot act as if they are, or call their employees transphobic on the basis that they believe sex in humans is binary and immutable. The likes of Apple and Mercedes are not calling employees with these entirely mainstream views "TERFs" and sacking them.

The hyperbolic and discriminatory language used here is not an approach that is garnering universal respect, it is not mainstream outside of a particular academic niche, and it is categorically not one respected in UK law. Void if removed (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Why would UK law be relevant to Wikipedia, a global encyclopedia? Why would employment tribunal judgments matter in a discussion about the relevance and weight given to academic sources? TucanHolmes (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about UK or Russian laws; they are not our laws. I care about reliable sources. It's firmly established in academic reliable sources that "gender-critical feminism" is a specific form of transphobia and attempt at rebranding TERF ideology, an extremist, fringe ideology. There is no "right" to subject others to discrimination and prejudice regardless of the context; many employers of the world don't accept antisemitism, transphobia etc. No, TERFism is not mainstream. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Amanda, the idea that GC views are fringe is ridiculous (and I say this as someone who doesn't share them, I should note). Every one of your arguments can be turned on its head. You argue that big corporations wouldn't touch "TERFism" with a barge pole. Well, featuring a trans celeb in their advertising worked out really well for Bud Lite and Nike! But really, why are you even suggesting Apple or Mercedes-Benz might take a position on GCF. MB's "the company's commitment to fostering a culture of diversity, appreciation and respect for all employees, including those who belong to the LGBTQIA+ community" is nothing more than their legal obligations under the law. As are their legal obligations towards women, even women who hold GC beliefs.

As others have noted, societal beliefs are something that academics can study and analyse but we must never ever think that academics are the ones we should look to to determine what to think about each other or as examples of what correct societal thinking is. Academics have a really awful track record on this. Whether it is oppression of gay people as being a mental illness or the eugenics movement, which was a set of beliefs hugely promoted by the very brightest and most academic in our countries, but not in the wider population, who were kept in the dark about sterilisation programmes and such. It was academics who performed the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. I suspect if you looked to academia on how to get around or how to heat our homes, and followed what they recommend, one might think driving a car, taking the plane on a foreign holiday, and heating one's home with gas were FRINGE activities. But the opposite is true. A tiny minority in our countries cycle to work or have installed heat pumps or would take a long distance bus or train. We here might agree that the latter is the Right Thing To Do, but Wikipedia couldn't possibly suggest this is actually what people in 2024 think.

• Where Americans stand on 20 transgender policy issues
• Americans’ Complex Views on Gender Identity and Transgender Issues

Pick a GC view? 60% say a person’s gender is determined by their sex assigned at birth, which is actually a number that's been increasing. 58% insist athletes compete on teams according to their sex assigned at birth. 46% favor making it illegal for health care professionals to provide someone younger than 18 with medical care for a gender transition, and 37% consider their parents should be considered child abusers. 41% want to ban elementary schools teaching gender identity. 46% oppose even allowing schools to use a child's prefered gender pronouns. 50% oppose allowing trans people to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity and only 31% support it. 54% oppose puberty blockers and only 19% support their use. And on and on and on.

The majority of US population share some GC views. Many US states have laws that are more aligned with GC views than trans activist views. Your next president... Remember, at least for now anyway, the US is a democracy. That half the population are happy to vote Trump, who wants to lock up physicians offering youth gender affirming care, does not in any way suggest to me that this is a FRINGE view in society. It's time to drop that argument.

The FRINGE idea is actually the idea, expressed by some on this page, that GCF should be treated like white supremacists or child abuses, when greater society, and the law in some countries, requires us all to get along with each other, and agree to disagree with each other. -- Colin°^Talk 13:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

What I've observed in opinion polls on trans issues (in the UK and US, especially) is that if you pose questions in generalities, like "do you support trans rights" or "do you have a positive or negative view of trans people", the polls usually come out favorable to the trans cause; who wants to say they're against rights or that they hate a group of people, particularly when a lot of the media keeps hammering in the idea that this group is highly marginalized (which kind of contradicts the idea that all of mainstream society favors them, but never mind...). However, when more specific questions are asked, like whether male-born people identifying as women should be allowed in women's sports, changing rooms, rape crisis centers, prisons, etc., you see a different story. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it depends on the way the question is framed massively, if one says should trans women be able to access women's sports, changing rooms or whatever (especially if you consider more nuanced positions allowing some requirements) the results change massively. LunaHasArrived (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

According to a Survation poll for MurrayBlackburnMackenzie, a third of people don't understand what trans man/woman even mean or get them the wrong way round. Less than a half of Londoners get these terms right.

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2023/08/07/clarity-matters-how-placating-lobbyists-obscures-public-understanding-of-sex-and-gender/

Any poll that doesn't either test this basic understanding or clearly explain its terms up front can't really be considered a reliable guide IMO. Void if removed (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Anyone interested in the new tribunal ruling can see the full ruling here. It's very interesting reading. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant. Even if it were relevant, you would need citations to back up every one of your non-consecutive claims. TucanHolmes (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I also disagree with your Anglo-/US-centric point of view in general. I believe it has no place on a global encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Selected quotes:

• A tiny minority in our countries cycle to work or have installed heat pumps or would take a long distance bus or train.
• Pick a GC view? 60% say a person’s gender is determined by their sex assigned at birth
• but Wikipedia couldn't possibly suggest this is actually what people [!] in 2024 think. [Sources:] Where Americans [!] stand on 20 transgender policy issues [/] Americans’ [!] Complex Views on Gender Identity and Transgender Issues

I especially take issue with your argument that

The majority of US population share some GC views. Many US states have laws that are more aligned with GC views than trans activist views. Your [whose?] next president... [...] That half the population [again, the world is not America] are happy to vote Trump, who wants to lock up physicians offering youth gender affirming care, does not in any way suggest to me that this is a FRINGE view in society.

This way of discussing a topic has no place on an encyclopedia and is more appropriate to a web forum. TucanHolmes (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The majority of US population share some GC views

No, the majority of the US population share some anti-trans views. Gender critical views specifically are very much fringe in the US.

Trump is by no means a gender-critical feminist or a trans-exclusionary radical feminist because he's not on the left nor does he claim to be on the left. The left in the US is overwhelmingly trans-supportive, and this is the key reason why, while transphobia certainly exists in America, GCF really doesn't. The biggest American GCF organization is WoLF, who are tiny and unambiguously fringe.

You can't just decompose a whole ideology like GCF into a bunch of policy positions. If that worked, I could take polls saying that Americans overwhelmingly support universal healthcare and other European-style welfare policies and claim the average American is a socialist (or at least a social democrat). But that's just not true, because you can't just shove a bunch of policy positions in a trench coat and claim it's a full ideology. Loki (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@TucanHolmes, Amanda has repeatedly claimed GCF views are fringe and certainly not mainstream. I just quoted one GC view, that person’s gender is determined by their sex assigned at birth (i.e. fixed) and cited a well established polling organisation's findings. These views are mainstream. That some think they are held mostly by Republican supporters in the US seems to provide some here some strange cop-out as though such people don't actually count in a civilised society. But those people seem to have forgotten all the liberal journalists who also hold those views.

Wrt the accuracy of polls, I agree they can be very influenced by the sorts of questions asked and even what is in the news that week, but one of the polls I cited asked a question and its opposite in order to try to remove some bias. The point really isn't whether it's 60% agree with the GC view that sex is binary and fixed or 40% but Amanda would have you believe it is 4% and all those 4% are in prison for Evil Beliefs. This is what matters on this page and I wish it didn't have to be debated or people wouldn't persist with ridiculous arguments that the UK is just like Russia. The amazing thing about actual democracies like the UK is that people are free to believe things that you or I utterly detest. And we have to go to work with them, or teach them or fix their teeth. I think one or two people here are so immersed in their silo literature that they think other views don't exist or aren't held by anyone in significant numbers. To that I ask them to offer actual proof of what people believe, not just some ivory tower academic writing to their friends about what they themselves and their friends all believe.

As far as people dismissing legal rulings in the UK go. Well the UK is a bit different to the US. These findings aren't just playing the odds of whether you got a Republican judge or a Democrat judge. And in several cases, the judgement has found an organisation has developed exactly the same silo thinking that is appearing on this page, that All Correct People believe X and all other Heretics Shall be Burned. And a judge has had to remind them that's not how a free democracy works.

Loki and other's comment suggest to me that this article needs to work better to explain what GC and GCF views actually are. Because on the one hand we have people claiming there are no GCF in the US and on the other hand we have people moaning about all the TERFs in the US media and politics. I'm not going to list names, but go on one of those websites that list who the Bad People are in the trans debate, and most of them are mainstream writers in mainstream US publications. Many are liberals. I don't know really where this idea comes from that this is a UK only thing can thus can be dismissed. -- Colin°^Talk 07:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Bit of an aside, but I don't think this is actually a GCF belief: gender is determined by their sex assigned at birth (but it is a conservative belief). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, and I think this is the crucial distinction between "gender critical feminism" and the far more varied grab bag that is "gender critical" which (perversely) doesn't actually require any critique of gender.

From Chapter 6 of Sex and Gender: A Contemporary Reader:

One of the second wave's most important achievements was to develop an important distinction between sex - in the words of British sociologist Ann Oakley (1972) the biological differences between male and female' - and gender, which she described as the social classification into "masculine" and "feminine"' (16). [...] Decoupling sex from gender enabled feminists to successfully argue that women required certain rights and services by virtue of their sex and challenge the sexist assumptions that justified women's inequality with men. They explained that women's biology, particularly their ability to bear children, means they required specific rights and resources. But they used gender to argue that women's biology does not make them inferior to men. They recognised that women's specific needs were neglected by policymakers and medical practitioners not because women's needs were inevitably less important than men's but because the world was male-dominated. They also showed that women's inequality is often justified by the claim that women are best suited to perform 'feminine' roles. Feminists demonstrated that there was no evidence to substantiate this notion that gender is innate. They also showed that masculinity and femininity are not simply different from one another but also inherently unequal (which explained why, for example, 'women's' work was paid less than men's). As Angela Philips (1974) wrote in the feminist magazine Spare Rib, ending women's oppression relied on creating a new relationship between the sexes 'which is not built out of domination [commonly perceived as masculine] and submission [widely defined as feminine]' (31). Feminists therefore critiqued and sought to eradicate gender.

new groups emerged, such as Woman's Place UK (WPUK), founded by socialists and trade unionists in 2017 to campaign for women's sex-based rights. WPUK's conscious debt to the second wave is evidenced by their 'Five Demands' (WPUK 2018), and their distinction between sex as biological - which underpins their emphasis on women's bodily autonomy - and gender as a restrictive construction that feminists must challenge.

Void if removed (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Clearly I have much to learn/remember about this topic! -- Colin°^Talk 10:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

ill-suited discussion

This is pointless. Without considering specific sources, this discussion is bound to go off-topic, as is already happening with discussions of polls, arguing about the prevalence of various sentiments towards trans people in the Anglosphere. I invite editors who take issue with the sourcing in this article to consider relevant policies of Wikipedia:

• Wikipedia is written from a global perspective. In particular, an Anglo-American focus is contrary to our neutral point of view policy. To someone not from the Anglosphere, it appears like issues and debates prevalent in certain regions of that sphere are imported to and enacted on Wikipedia, which is unhelpful. The legal status and proceedings surrounding Gender-critical feminism in the UK and elsewhere in particular are irrelevant when it comes to determining the due weight (or "fringeness") of Gender-critical feminism in the wider discourse.
• Wikipedia does not care about the prevalence of beliefs in certain parts of the world when it comes to determining reliability, due weight or balance given to different sources. Wikipedia only cares about those sources, and what those sources have to say. In particular, surveys like Where Americans stand on 20 transgender policy issues are irrelevant for determining these aspects. These are also irrelevant for determining whether a viewpoint is WP:FRINGE. An academic field and the wider population can disagree about the relevance of different aspects of a field, even in the much-heralded "physical sciences": string theory was still widely believed to be a useful candidate for a Theory of Everything by many people long after mainstream physicists had abandoned it as a path to TOE. So, even if, for example, Gender-critical beliefs were prevalent, e.g. in Britain, that would still only mean that a huge part of the British population subscribes to beliefs on the fringes of the academic mainstream.
• Wikipedia is not a British encyclopedia. The more discussions on this talk page revolve around the UK, the more it seems like this article is a regional POV fork in disguise. I particularly distrust the premise of this discussion, which in my opinion veers dangerously close to asking for special exemptions from Wikipedia's general policies on the reliability, weight and quality of sources, just because some editors don't like the academic viewpoint on this topic. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

fringes of the academic mainstream

The original point is very much whether what is being called the "academic mainstream" actually is, or is in reality an incredibly niche and opinionated part of academia, and whether that should actually dominate this page (as it presently does), and how we establish what terms even mean or what is balanced and neutral.

And that's very hard when people glibly compare the UK to an authoritarian state like Russia. Hence everything goes in circles.

Without agreement on what the following words at their base actually mean and who they apply to, we get nowhere.

• TERF
• Trans-exclusionary radical feminist/ism
• Gender critical feminist/ism
• Gender critical

And different sources can be assembled to give different renderings of each of these, and if you favour one particular - unabashedly partisan - academic perspective as "the only accepted view in polite society" you end up with a highly POV article that does a poor job of educating the reader what any of this is all about.

When people talk about "the academic mainstream" what they're actually referring to is the subset of academia that considers itself an authority on the relationship between sex and gender and is now axiomatically opposed to the notion that sex in humans is binary, immutable, and sometimes important.

So it becomes circular. Once you decide that the subject of this article is not actually "gender critical feminism" or what "gender critical feminists" say and believe and write and publish and campaign for, but actually what academics who hate them say about them, you can't begin to approach a neutral POV, and I seriously think (again) there's a case for splitting by WP:SUBPOV. This is not an academic subject, but a subject about which some academics have opinions, and those opinions should be given their due weight, and no more, because much of this is in the realm of subjective opinion. Void if removed (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Once you decide that the subject of this article is not actually "gender critical feminism" or what "gender critical feminists" say and believe and write and publish and campaign for, but actually what academics who hate them say about them, you can't begin to approach a neutral POV. If that is your view of this subject, or the sources used in this article, and your solution is to explicitly advocate for a content fork, I must remind you of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. If you can't gain consensus for your point of view, or it seriously differs from other points of view, content forks are not the solution. TucanHolmes (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is the point of view this article prioritises:

• Trans-exclusionary radical feminism is a fringe transphobic belief that trans women aren't women and should be excluded from women's spaces and lesbian sexuality, and is exemplified by lesbian separatists in the 1960s and transphobic works like Janice Raymond's Transsexual Empire in the 70s. Modern attempts to rebrand this as "gender-critical feminism" are mere cover to attempt to make transphobia more palatable. They spread conspiracy theories about "gender ideology", and are biological essentialists who uphold cisnormative, conservative gender roles and think everybody's gender should be determined by sex assigned at birth, and that sex and gender are the same. They are generally called TERFs, which is derogatory but apt, and they spread disinformation and overlap with the far right. Despite being a fringe minority, they are dominant voices in right-wing media.

This relies on academic works by eg. Clare Thurlow, Cristan Williams, Ruth Pearce etc.

Here is the point of view that gender critical feminists advance:

• Second-wave feminists theorised sex and gender as distinct in order to recognise and critique the social construct of gender as an oppressive force on the female sex. With the decline of womens studies and rise of gender studies in academia, especially post-Butler, this straightforward distinction fell out of fashion, especially in the US. By 2008 any feminist that maintained this sex-based analysis was given the newly coined label "TERF", which quickly became a derogatory term applied to anyone - feminist or otherwise - who did not agree that trans women are women, to the point it arguably became a slur. In response, the phrase "gender critical" was used by some feminists to attempt to make clear the analysis was not "trans-exclusionary", but was fundamentally a critique of gender, and covered a range of feminists - radical, socialist, marxist, liberal - who, whatever their analysis, maintained the immutability and importance of sex as a foundation. This has created a number of social, political and legal conflicts over the recognition of self-identified gender identity in place of sex, most notably in the UK.

This relies on academic works by eg. Holly Lawford-Smith, Jane Clare-Jones, Selina Todd etc.

Multiple GCF sources say, it is not about trans, it is about sex, but that just means it conflicts with current political demands for specific forms of recognition of transgender identities. Critical sources say it is about being transphobic, really, and harks back to transphobic feminists who emerged in the 1960/70s.

We have two contradictory, subjective POVs on the same subject and the same history. That is fine, I have no problem trying to balance that - but that means actually striving for balance, whereas what keeps happening is the POV advanced by gender critical feminists is claimed not merely to be an unpopular minority, but actually WP:FRINGE to the point it should not be permitted to speak for itself, but instead given less priority than the opinions of critics when it comes to defining even what the beliefs are in the first place - which renders this page largely useless when you want to link to it from other contexts, eg. any article mentioning the protection of gender-critical beliefs in UK law .

I think we need to revisit some of the sources used on this page. For example, the very first citation on this page is Claire Thurlow's "From TERF to Gender Critical", and that sits at the heart of the claim that TERF/TERF ideology/trans-exclusionary radical feminism/gender critical feminism are all the same.

But it is not so straightforward, since Thurlow actually draws some distinctions between the various terms:

First a word on terminology. I use ‘TERF’ as a representation of what might be called the original trans-exclusionary feminist view, which I outline in the following section, and ‘gender critical’ to represent more contemporary presentations of feminist trans- exclusion. I use ‘trans-exclusionary feminism’ as an umbrella term encompassing both. As will be discussed, the application of these terms is complex and political. They represent positions that are interconnected and often interchangeable, indistinguishable and/or contradictory. Acknowledging these enmeshments as I advance, there is enough of a separable figurative TERF position from that of a figurative gender critical one, at least in how they are presented, to be usefully employed.

Thurlow gives an account of what "anti-trans feminism" looks like, via a reading of Janice Raymond from the 70s:

Raymond’s conclusions can be distilled as (a) trans is a manifestation of patriarchy and is caused, at least in part, by sex-role rigidity, (b) trans people are either delusional or deceiving and to think otherwise is to ‘collude with the falsification of reality’ (1994: xxiii) (c) trans women are violators and penetrators, of space, of bodies, of true womanhood.

Thurlow specifically talks about the attitudes of Janice Raymond and Sheila Jeffreys in the context of the word "TERF". None of this, yet, is about "gender critical feminism":

It was individuals with the type of trans-exclusionary opinions outlined in this section that would retrospectively be termed TERFs (short for trans-exclusionary radical feminist), and it is these types of sentiments I intend to capture in my use of ‘TERF’.

Thurlow talks of the shift in the late 80s to poststructural and queer theory becoming dominant in academia. Again, nothing yet about "gender critical feminism":

the late 1980s onwards saw increased focus on differences within womanhood, including the work of power dynamics in privileging and marginalising voices and experiences. There was an increasing focus on a critique of categories such as woman, man, straight, gay and the policing they accrue. This came not least from poststructural scholarship and, particularly in this context, queer theory. This combination of events led to growing understanding and inclusion of trans people within feminism

This is absolutely in line with the narrative set out in eg. Sex and Gender: A Contemporary Reader. The assertion there though is that with this shift in the academy towards a model dominated by trans inclusion, especially in the US, absolutely every feminist that did not follow this shift became "trans-exclusionary" by default, regardless of theoretical/practical lineage. Thurlow accepts TERF has become widely applied as an insult:

While it remained accurate to a subsect of trans-exclusionary feminists (some radical feminists), TERF came to signify trans-exclusionary views more generally. [...] Moreover, once the term was popularized, being trans-exclusionary and therefore liable to being labelled a TERF did not necessitate being a feminist at all, with the term also being used to describe trans- exclusionary positions from right-wing or religious perspectives. This diffusion of the application of ‘TERF’ coupled with the overt transphobia of earlier feminist writings on trans-exclusion, promoted the terms pejorative use by some. It has been argued that TERF now meets the definition of a slur

Thurlow describes the coinage of gender critical by feminists as a response to being denigrated as TERFs (which multiple sources concur with), but suggests it is a rebranding. This latter is Thurlow's opinion, but this is absolutely the key of the dispute at the heart of this page’s scope:

Amidst the melee of controversy and connotations attached to ‘TERF’, the term ‘gender critical feminism/ feminist’ began to be used by proponents of trans-exclusionary feminism. While this constitutes a late 2010s renaming of TERF, it would be more accurately described as a rebranding.

Are "gender critical feminists" really the "fringe transphobic feminists" allegedly referred to as "TERFs"? Or was TERF applied to everyone who maintained sex is binary and immutable, including a wide range of feminists, who coined "gender critical" to refocus discourse on what feminism is supposed to be about? Thurlow even agrees "gender critical feminism" is a tautology:

Leaving aside that the term ‘gender critical feminism’ is tautology

Something that gender critical feminists have also said (ie, to them, all feminism is gender critical, and they are simply feminists, see Holly Lawford-Smith "Gender Critical Feminism"), and also why some radical feminists (especially those at the Sheila Jeffreys end of things) never accepted or used the term, regarding it as completely redundant. This again fits with the narrative that it was the poststructuralist/queer theory shift inside academia towards prioritising transgender identities which ended up creating conflict with a wide range of second-wave continuity feminists for whom sex remained a material, immutable binary and gender was still something to be critiqued/dismantled.

So while Thurlow frames everyone not on board with this shift in academia as being because they must be part of a purported "TERF" lineage, the alternative is very much that many feminists of different schools of thought entirely independent of Raymond and Jeffreys were branded TERFs - a widely used insult - because they continued to maintain the sex/gender distinction of the second wave in some form or another, and that was sufficient to be regarded as "transphobic".

Thurlow then describes the language shift as one that cannot possibly be good faith:

its adoption represented the beginnings of a pivot by trans-exclusionary feminists towards language which obscures their trans- exclusionary focus. Alongside a shift from TERF to gender critical, ‘anti-trans’ became ‘pro-women’ and ‘trans-exclusion’ became the protection of ‘sex-based rights’ (‘We defend sex-based rights’ (Fair Play for Women, 2021: para.6)). These rather innocuous- sounding terms have been transformed into the language of division; exemplifying dog- whistle politics whereby the phrases act as a coded message of anti-transness to those initiated, while appearing ‘reasonable’

No evidence is given for any of this - it is entirely Thurlow's opinion.

Frankly, the piece as a whole is somewhat confused, simultaneously conceding TERF and gender critical feminism are not the same, but sometimes saying they are, and accusing the latter of recycling the "tropes" of the former. Regardless, we should be including this as a critique but to call it definitively true in wikivoice is a result of the privileging of this sort of academic text from a specific section of academia above all others - and that is what is questionable, and at the basis of this section's discussion. I think a reasonable rundown is:

1. TERF was coined around 2008, to (allegedly) describe a specific strain of radical feminism, with most common named figures being Janice Raymond and Sheila Jeffreys

2. TERF became widely used as an insult and applied to everyone deemed transphobic, feminist or not

3. In the mid 2010s, some feminists coined "gender critical feminism" as a tautological response to being branded TERFs that feminism’s priority is a critique of gender, and it became used by a wide variety of feminist thought, whose only real commonality was some level of continuity with the second wave sex/gender distinction

4. Gender critical feminists insist that gender critical feminism is not about "trans" it is about "sex", which simply brings it into conflict with current "trans-inclusive" approaches in academia that are largely predicated on gender identity

5. Critics insist gender-critical feminism is just a rebranding of TERF to whitewash longstanding anti-trans antipathy

I think you can absolutely tell this narrative neutrally with both hostile and non-hostile sources in balance. Points 1 and 2 aren’t really debatable, they are very well supported. 3 is murkier, and we can give a good balanced opposing account of both 4 and 5.

Once you get into things like the protection of "gender critical beliefs" in UK law you absolutely need that neutral rendition of what those beliefs actually are as a starting point - but none of that is possible if you start from the POV that opinions like Thurlow's are fact which override the reliable sources stating the actual beliefs of GCFs by claiming WP:FRINGE.

A neutral rendition of this page starts from: what do they say, what do critics say.

Not the current situation which is: what they say is so awful and fringe, we should prioritise the critics explanations of it. Void if removed (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a very good explanation. I also agree that UK law (despite all the rants about Council of Europe and UK being no better than Russia) has not just suddenly decided transphobia is just fine. Being transphobic towards one's colleagues will still get you fired and legally fired. So what's the distinction that UK law has decided is a protected belief? Readers of this article should be able to find out. -- Colin°^Talk 11:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

An excellent analysis by Void. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The original point is very much whether what is being called the "academic mainstream" actually is, or is in reality an incredibly niche and opinionated part of academia, and whether that should actually dominate this page (as it presently does), and how we establish what terms even mean or what is balanced and neutral. Well, then get reliable sources to back up that assertion.

And that's very hard when people glibly compare the UK to an authoritarian state like Russia. Hence everything goes in circles. It's not Wikipedians' fault that the European Human Rights Council named the UK in one breath with Russia et al.; this all goes to underscore that the views prevalent in some parts of the Anglosphere are minority views. The fact that people have to resort to random polls and surveys to argue their case of what is fringe and not fringe is at least one indicator that the academic consensus – not just in social studies – seems to go against gender-critical feminism. TucanHolmes (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

No such exemption is requested. Exactly the opposite in fact. I started the discussion in response to multiple comments elsewhere on the talk page which seemed founded in the misguided and simplistic notion that academic sources are always weightier or higher quality than other types of sources and are the only factor in evaluating due weight and fringeness. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Which sources? Again, without concrete sources to discuss and weigh against each other, this discussion will go nowhere, endlessly revolving in circles around abstract notions of weight and balance, which are already answered by the numerous policies and essays about those policies, by Wikipedia and Wikipedians. If the issue is with those policies, or interpretations of those policies, this talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss those, and the issue should be raised elsewhere. TucanHolmes (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Tucan, I don't agree with really anything you wrote. People here are misusing the word "academic" and what aspects of academic sources Wikipedia values. Honestly this debate is as facepalmingly embarrassing to watch as if a bunch of atheists had all got together and decided Christianity is a fringe viewpoint (because no real scientists believes in God) and any article on Anglicanism, say, must be written by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hichens and other haters of religion.

It is mildly interesting to note that in academic feminist literature, GCF views are in a tiny minority. One sentence in the article thank you very much. That fact also has a bearing on whether GCF views get a mention in our articles on feminism. But in the actual article on Gender critical feminism, I want to know what GCFs think. I really really do not want to know what people who hate GCFs think they think, which is what people seem to be pushing for here, and has ended up with this mess where it seems virtually no editor on this page actually knows what GCFs think other than that they are Really Really Bad People. And anyone playing the Council of Europe card, comparing UK with Putin's Russia, is IMO making a Godwin's law mistake and lacking self awareness of whatever their own countries populations actually think. -- Colin°^Talk 07:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not how Wikipedia works. You have misunderstood the point of an encyclopedia. If you advertise your obvious point of view (that academic sources – which? – hate GCF) and can't get consensus for that (or provide citations for your opinion that we should discard those sources because they hate GCFs), then that is not a problem with this article. Wikipedia doesn't automatically give exposé space to ideologies; all ideologies are evaluated (critically), especially if they are deemed to be WP:FRINGE. You can't have it both ways: Either gender-critical feminism is a feminist / feminist-adjacent movement (in which case it gets a Wikipedia article but is evaluated accordingly), or it is part of a broader gender-critical movement, as your comments here seem to suggest. But in that case, this article will need to be folded into the bigger topic.

Wikipedia doesn't care what countries populations think when evaluating sources. This is only relevant when the actual point of contention is what those populations think (nevermind that I highly doubt that you could provide enough reliable sources to back up your assertions). TucanHolmes (talk) 09:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It matters what countries populations think when evaluating if a social concept is fringe. People are throwing around the WP:FRINGE guideline as though it can be used to insist only TERF-hating sources can be used. It can't any more than religion-hating sources can be insistent upon to write about the Free Church of Scotland.

A source written by a feminist who rejects/hates GCF is a fine source for what that feminist thinks, and I don't reject the idea this article should remind readers that most academic feminists think that way. I'm not quite sure how we've got ourselves into the mess of thinking it is an appropriate source for what a GCF thinks.

GCF is a set of beliefs. I think we should be able to write about those beliefs just as we write about the beliefs of the Free Church of Scotland or Mormons or what the Green Party of England and Wales thinks. Why on earth should it matter if most academic sources in the USA spare no time thinking about the Green Party of England and Wales? What's that got to do with the fact that it exists and has beliefs? It matters if one is writing an overview article on environmental issues or consumerism or whatever, and whether to mention the GPoEW viewpoint, but not when you are actually writing an article on that topic itself. The point of an encyclopaedia is to tell me about the subject of the article. If I only want to know about the views people who hate the subject of the article, I could go on Twitter. -- Colin°^Talk Colin°^Talk 10:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The issue is the rush to say this is not merely a minority but actually WP:FRINGE, a far stronger claim which relies on a) the prevalence of views hostile to gender critical feminism within a certain section of academia and b) ignoring all the reliable sources - including academic publications - that say it is not, but closer to a quite unremarkable continuity of second-wave feminism. The basis of claiming WP:FRINGE is that it:departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.

But what is "the field"? Feminism is not a wholly - or even majority - academic subject, and it is a subject marked by splits and subdivisions. So per fringe: However, there are at least two caveats: not every identified subject matter has its own academic specialization, and the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field should not be given undue weight.

Academic feminism is a minority subset of feminism, and gender studies academics whose field is predicated on a particular interpretation of sex and gender do not have the final word on other feminist interpretations. These are different philosophical perspectives. This article has been approached by picking works in a field that foundationally understands sex and gender in one specific way, and saying "this is the entirety of the field, with the correct interpretation of sex and gender as its basis, all others are WP:FRINGE and transphobic bigots".

Yet we have multiple, reliable, respectable academic sources saying exactly what gender critical feminism is and it is a far cry from WP:FRINGE. We are not cobbling together incoherent ramblings from dubious sources as you would expect with a claim of WP:FRINGE, we have multiple, high quality academic textbooks and papers to draw from. This is not a hard science subject where theories that violate physical laws are being expounded, but a difference of philosophical opinion. WP:FRINGE does not mean a simple minority, nor is it revealed by strength of feeling of academic opponents.

Yet the speculation and opinion of some academics who take a contradictory view pervades the very premise of this article. Rather than what GCFs say being presented neutrally and offset with what other academics say about them, we start from the position that GCFs are WP:FRINGE to sideline what they say about themselves and give free rein to hyperbolic criticism at the outset.

There is an overreliance on overblown claims of WP:FRINGE to downplay or dismiss use of reliable, non-hostile sources as an accurate basis of what this belief even is, in order to write from the perspective of specific, hostile academic opinions. Void if removed (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE says:Fringe theories in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear.

Therefore, this article should be the ‘more extensive treatment' i.e. we need to explain in detail what g-c feminist views actually are, and the other viewpoints should only be mentioned to add context. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see where the article doesn't follow this guideline. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Clarification: I am not saying that g-c views are fringe, but that anyone who seeks to rely on WP:FRINGE to say that g-c views should not be the main content of this article would not be following the guideline. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I think Void and Sweet6970 make good points here. Nobody here is campaigning for GCF to be given serious weight in our articles on feminism. Time to put the WP:FRINGE hammer down and walk away from that one. Just think of this like a minority religious denomination and you'll have a far better idea of how Wikipedia should deal with it. -- Colin°^Talk 08:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

That is not how WP:FRINGE works. If we start from the premise that GC feminism is a fringe theory in feminism, then how Wikipedia should cover it doesn't magically change just because it has its own article (that would be a POV fork). TucanHolmes (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I have stated what WP:FRINGE says. It seems you disagree with the guideline. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, what? Just think of this like a minority religious denomination and you'll have a far better idea of how Wikipedia should deal with it. (?) That's not how that works. That's not how any of this works. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is an extreme example (from the article about Arianism, first sentence):

Arianism (Koine Greek: Ἀρειανισμός, Areianismós) is a Christological doctrine considered heretical by all mainstream branches of Christianity.

I don't want to draw any comparison to Gender-critical feminism, this has nothing to do with the content of this article, I just want to point out that Wikipedia covers minority religious denominations in quite stark/drastic terms if the disagreement is serious. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I get that this article is overly critical and negative, but that's because the sources themselves are overly critical and negative. The only country where gender-critical feminism has some degree of mainstream acceptance (but is still very controversial) is the UK; in most other countries, it is virtually unknown, or only known negatively. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Re: "Once you decide that the subject of this article is not actually "gender critical feminism" or what "gender critical feminists" say and believe and write and publish and campaign for, but actually what academics who hate them say about them, you can't begin to approach a neutral POV": The article on antisemitism is not an article that presents what antisemites "say and believe and write and publish and campaign for." Instead, it's based on scholarship on antisemitism. Hence, the article defines antisemitism as "hostility to, prejudice towards, or discrimination against Jews [and] a form of racism." TERF ideology similarly is hostility to, prejudice towards, or discrimination against transgender people and a form of transphobia; this reflects the consensus in scholarship on the phenomenon. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Amanda, have have an article on transphobia. Please take your transphobia==GCF elsewhere. I don't think that's a basis from which an encyclopaedic article on GCF can be written in NPOV. I hear your frequent claims that GCF's are so horrible that we must treat them like antisemits or white supremacists or child abusers. I think you really need to go to the VP and start an RFC if you want that view to reflect the sources we can use. It is really odd, when I can pick ANY mainstream newspaper or magazine in the US or UK and find opinion columns by staff writers who are GCFs. What's going on there, Amanda. Which viewpoint is reality? -- Colin°^Talk 08:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The scholarly consensus is that TERF ideology is a form of transphobia, but one specific form of it. Not all transphobia is trans-exclusionary radical feminism. Also, both transphobia and homophobia, and in fact antisemitism, are "common" in many parts of the world. Even governments promote both antisemitism and homophobia in some countries, even newspapers in countries like Iran or various Arab countries publish antisemitic columns. In Russia columnists write the say things about gay people. So the situation is really quite similar. It's a form of prejudice and hatred, and this is how scholars describe it. This applies to antisemitism, homophobia, and transphobia (including TERF ideology). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that is so at all. Whatever writers you are reading on that are confusing things to make their activist/political point or are just plain confused. It is as wrongheaded as to say conservative evangelicals are a form of transphobia or Islam is a form of transphobia or rightwing politics is a form of transphobia. It is a failure to understand the root beliefs of a set of people, which is typical of people writing about "others" they hate. Those root beliefs might tend or might even inevitably result in transphobia (at least from the POV of those who disagree with them) but to claim the root beliefs are instead a form of transphobia, and all these other things like sex is binary and immutable are merely fancy words and smoke and mirrors hiding one's underlying transphobia is exactly the sort of "You can't actually look inside people's heads" wrong thinking that results from reading too much written by "others" about "others".

The point of having this article is to educate our readers about what GCF is. Several on this page, myself included, would like to know that. I think you've got yourself unstuck by banging on about "TERF ideology" as though that is actually a thing that can be well defined. Instead, it is whatever haters want it to be and thus can be rejected by those who say, well, actually, I believe this instead. It is a clumsy concept that isn't helping.

Part of the problem with this culture war is those on the extremes of either side are utterly misunderstanding the other side. They so hate each other (I blame Twitter for a lot) that they have no wish to understand the other side. They end up writing stuff like we see on this page, comparing the other side to the most extreme hated kinds of humanity, which results in everyone outside of the war rolling their eyes. An encyclopaedia, rooted in NPOV, has a role to play in helping explain the positions accurately and fairly. Can you imagine, for a moment, if the articles on transgender we all being written using sources from the kinds of dunderheads that write in the Daily Mail? You'd be wondering how on earth such a hateful and wrongheaded person could possibly accurately write about transgender issues. We have the same behaviour here, were some people are insisting an article be written from a activist-hater POV. I really don't think that's Wikipedia's job. I have no problem at all in ensuring our articles make quite clear what academic opinion and societal opinion is about this group, or that our articles on feminism demonstrate how minority this belief is. But I think the same about the wee free church of Scotland. -- Colin°^Talk 08:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that is so at all. And here we have the problem with this discussion: Assertions, mere opinions without citations to back them.

The point of having this article is to educate our readers about what GCF is. And the whole problem is that there is disagreement about what that education entails. You have your version/vision, but you can't get consensus for it.

Part of the problem with this culture war is those on the extremes of either side are utterly misunderstanding the other side. They so hate each other (I blame Twitter for a lot) that they have no wish to understand the other side. Wikipedia isn't for writing great wrongs; if reliable sources are, in your opinion, biased, the solution isn't to discard or disregard those sources.

• Whatever writers you are reading on that are confusing things to make their activist/political point or are just plain confused.
• which results in everyone outside of the war rolling their eyes.
• We have the same behaviour here, were some people are insisting an article be written from a activist-hater POV.

These are just opinions – original research – and you shouldn't present them as facts; neither should we accept them as grounds to remove or disregard reliable sources. I also dislike that you claim to know what other editors are reading and/or thinking. You're not inside their heads. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)