| Revision as of 17:50, 17 December 2024 editCzello (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers41,109 edits →Vaginism: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:56, 25 December 2024 edit undoSangdeboeuf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users53,219 edits →top: {{Refideas}} +1 |
| (12 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
__FORCETOC__ |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes|search_term1=feminism|search_term2="gender-critical" OR "trans-exclusionary"}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes|search_term1=feminism|search_term2="gender-critical" OR "trans-exclusionary"}} |
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|gg}} |
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|gg}} |
| Line 19: |
Line 20: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Refideas|state=collapsed| |
|
{{Refideas|state=collapsed| |
|
|
1={{cite journal |last1=Duffy |first1=Sandra |title=Postcolonial Dynamics in Pro- and Anti-Trans Activism in the United Kingdom and Ireland |journal=Feminists@law |date=2023 |volume=12 |issue=2 |doi=10.22024/UniKent/03/fal.1086 |doi-access=free |issn=2046-9551}} |
| ⚫ |
1={{Cite web |date=2022-04-01 |title=How the far-right is turning feminists into fascists {{!}} Xtra Magazine |url=https://xtramagazine.com/power/far-right-feminist-fascist-220810 |language=en-CA}} |
|
|
|
* {{cite journal |last1=Morgan |first1=Rebecca Jane |title=Evangelicals, Feminists, and the 'Unlikely' Discursive Alliance at the Heart of British Transphobia |journal=DiGeSt - Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies |date=2023 |volume=10 |issue=2 |pages=48–64 |doi=10.21825/digest.85310 |doi-access=free |issn=2593-0281}} |
|
|
* {{cite book |last1=Phipps |first1=Alison |author-link=Alison Phipps (sociologist) |title=Me, Not You: The Trouble with Mainstream Feminism |date=2020 |publisher=Manchester University Press |isbn=978-1-5261-4718-9 |pages=133–159 |jstor=j.ctvzgb6n6.10 |edition=1st |chapter=Feminists and the Far Right}} |
|
⚫ |
* {{Cite web |date=2022-04-01 |title=How the far-right is turning feminists into fascists {{!}} Xtra Magazine |url=https://xtramagazine.com/power/far-right-feminist-fascist-220810 |language=en-CA}} |
|
* {{Cite web |last=Lorber |first=Ben |last2=Greenesmith |first2=Heron |date=2021-04-28 |title=Antisemitism Meets Transphobia |url=https://progressive.org/api/content/db4aec86-a82b-11eb-a9f4-1244d5f7c7c6/ |website=Progressive.org |language=en-us}} |
|
* {{Cite web |last=Lorber |first=Ben |last2=Greenesmith |first2=Heron |date=2021-04-28 |title=Antisemitism Meets Transphobia |url=https://progressive.org/api/content/db4aec86-a82b-11eb-a9f4-1244d5f7c7c6/ |website=Progressive.org |language=en-us}} |
|
* {{Cite thesis |last=Braedyn Simon |date=2021 |title="IT ISN'T HATE TO SPEAK THE TRUTH": ANTI-TRANS (GENDER) POLITICS IN THE UK AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GENDER CRITICAL FEMINIST MOVEMENT: a critical look into the colonial remnants of gender discourse |url=http://rgdoi.net/10.13140/RG.2.2.35269.78565 |language=en |doi=10.13140/RG.2.2.35269.78565}} (see ]) |
|
* {{Cite thesis |last=Braedyn Simon |date=2021 |title="IT ISN'T HATE TO SPEAK THE TRUTH": ANTI-TRANS (GENDER) POLITICS IN THE UK AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GENDER CRITICAL FEMINIST MOVEMENT: a critical look into the colonial remnants of gender discourse |url=http://rgdoi.net/10.13140/RG.2.2.35269.78565 |language=en |doi=10.13140/RG.2.2.35269.78565}} (see ]) |
| Line 94: |
Line 98: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Not a euphemism == |
|
== Vaginism == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{yo|DanielRigal}} How is ‘gender-critical’ a euphemism? {{u|Vorpalm}}’s changes look reasonable to me. ] (]) 18:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
One of the ways gender-critical feminism is described as is '''vaginism''', due to its undue obsession of vaginas. Can this fact be included in the article? ] (]) 17:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
:Do you have sources to support the use of this word? — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 17:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:It's literally in the ] section how the "Gender-critical feminim" as a rebranded dog-whistle of its original of "trans-exclusionary radical feminist", so it fits the definition of ]. ] (]) 18:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
⚫ |
:Where have you seen this used? ] (]) 17:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
::It is attributed there, because this is simply the opinion of a critical academics. Escalating attributed opinion from the body to wikivoice in the lede is inappropriate. The change was reasonable enough, though I would have said "gender-critical feminism". Refusing to use common terminology because it is an alleged "dog-whistle" is a bit ]. ] (]) 15:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:This looks like just another term of abuse for feminists. ] (]) 17:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::] is not an appropriate guideline in this situation, since "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" is literally the prior name coined to describe this movement, with the usage of "gender-critical feminism" being a later development (as mentioned in the article). Righting great wrongs is about the existence of sources and statements, not terminology, and not about their relative weight. ] (]) 14:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:I've never heard of this weird phrase. If there is a contingency of notable GCs who are organising under that term then maybe it could be mentioned but if it is just one or two non-notable people, or its only been going for a few days, or if it is just somebody trolling, then let's not waste our time on it. GC terminology changes on a pretty regular basis anyway and we don't need to keep track of track the more transient/peripheral details, just the main claims and slogans. ] (]) 19:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Radical feminism == |
|
== NPOV == |
|
|
{{old heading|NPOV is a super important rule, and I don't think it is operating too well here}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even if TERFs are assholes -- sure sounds like it -- that should have absolutely zero influence when we write. We want readers to walk away from any article with no clue about what Misplaced Pages itself thinks about the subject. I did not walk away with that impression. There's too much material on criticism. It's quite clear to me, reading the article, that the Misplaced Pages doesn't much like these people. It ''should not'' be at all clear. |
|
Even the derogatory term for g-c feminism says that this is a radical form of feminism. Therefore the sidebar for radical feminism is appropriate and I am reinstating it. 18:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 18:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People coming to any article want to know about the entity. People coming to an article about entity X want to know "What is entity X? Is it a political/cultural movement, or just people writing books and articles? What's it history? When did it start? Is it defunct? Were there precursors? Who are some of the main thinkers and leaders in it? Do they have a political party, and if so do they run candidates, and if so how do they fare? How many adherents? Is it a fringe thing?" Lots of other things like that. ''Of course'' criticism should be included, but it should be a distinctly secondary subject. |
|
:No, we don't need to re-hash this. This is a pretense often used by people to try to justify the ] nature, but is contentious as reported by reliable sources. |
|
| ⚫ |
:The two sidebars that are there are enough. ] (]) 18:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Indeed. Nobody disputes that there are links to Radical Feminism but the GC movement has a, shall we say, fluid relationship to feminism, never mind Radical Feminism. If we look at the sidebar it includes some individuals and groups associated with the GC movement, who came to it via Radical Feminism, but not other individuals or groups who came to it via other paths. It doesn't include GC itself, under any name, which perhaps provides the strongest case for removing it. ] (]) 19:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Gender critical feminism has a strong and notable tie to radical feminism. the 1979 book The Transsexual Empire was written by a radical feminist. I really can't believe anyone would try to make gender criticism somehow not related to radical feminism. ] (]) 19:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::This is not strong enough to establish a link which would warrant inclusion in that list. This is just one author, and the entire ] section is about the developing schism between (trans-inclusive) radical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism. |
|
|
::::Selected quotes (emphases mine): |
|
|
::::{{tq|Although trans people were active in feminist movements in the 1960s and earlier, ''the 1970s saw conflict among some early radical feminists over the inclusion of trans women in feminism.''}} |
|
|
::::{{tq|The same year, Elliott was scheduled to perform at the West Coast Lesbian Conference, which she had helped organize; a group of trans-exclusionary radical feminist activists calling themselves the Gutter Dykes leafletted the conference protesting her inclusion and updated her speech to . ''An impromptu vote was held with the majority supporting her inclusion in the conference;'' }} |
|
|
::::The Transsexual Empire is the work of one radical feminist, and predates the modern movement described in this article. Just because something was written by an adherent of X, or has roots in X, doesn't mean it has to be automatically included in Misplaced Pages as part of X. If we were to follow this logic in other areas, categorization would break down, because the natural occurrence of ideological shifts in people's thinking would mean that we had to include everything under everything. ], a prominent Holocaust denier in Germany, was one of the founding members of the ]. But we don't list Holocaust denial under Red Army Faction, because it wouldn't make sense. |
|
|
::::Also, ] is already listed in the ] sidebar, with a whole section devoted to gender-critical feminism / trans-exclusionary radical feminism. This is more appropriate, since it highlights the diversity of views on this topic within (radical) feminism. ] (]) 15:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::With a topic that is so connected to radical feminism, it would make sense to have the sidebar for radical feminism. ] (]) 19:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:It could go under a section, such as ], which explicitly mentions the term radical feminism in the subsection title, however even there it's specifically about terminology and that term is also used to refer to people who are not always feminist or radfem too. ] (]) 06:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::The {{Section link|Gender-critical feminism|History}} section would be more appropriate, since the roots in radical feminism are the only link between the two which we can establish reliably and without dispute. Later developments indicate a clear schism. ] (]) 09:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I get that a lot of editors don't like TERFs, and with good reason I guess, but editors who feel strongly about a fraught subject and can't or don't want to be ice-cold even-handed about it should work on other subjects, not to be harsh but it is what it is. If you ''can'' be ice-cold even-handed, that's different. (For instance, I detest ], but I took out a bunch of over-emphasis of attacks on him, because ''of course'' how I feel about any entity has nothing to do with my work here. Be like me.) |
|
== Vaginism == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We don't want to see, let's say, an Israeli chauvinists writing about the Gaza war unless they can put aside any bias. Right? Look at ], which is hated by many millions of people. There's plenty to criticize, and it helps put the entity in perspective, and it's important to include, but it's under 10% of the article. "Under 10%" seems like a good goal for any article, granted that might not apply here. |
|
One of the ways gender-critical feminism is described as is '''vaginism''', due to its undue obsession of vaginas. Can this fact be included in the article? ] (]) 17:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generally, criticism is not intertwined a ''whole'' lot into our exposition on the subject, but rather put in a separate section towards the end called "Criticism" or something. That's not happening here. |
| ⚫ |
:Do you have sources to support the use of this word? — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 17:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's work to be done. ] (]) 10:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Do you have specific proposals for alterations to the article? ] (]) 15:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:I haven't looked at the article too closely, but just because someone thinks there's {{tqq|too much material on criticism}} does not mean the article itself is biased. ] means reflecting as fairly as possible the predominant views of published, reliable sources. If coverage in reliable sources happens to be unfavorable to the subject, then the article reflects that. Without pointing to specific sources and how they are used, this complaint seems to be nothing more than ]. —] (]) 16:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
Even if TERFs are assholes -- sure sounds like it -- that should have absolutely zero influence when we write. We want readers to walk away from any article with no clue about what Misplaced Pages itself thinks about the subject. I did not walk away with that impression. There's too much material on criticism. It's quite clear to me, reading the article, that the Misplaced Pages doesn't much like these people. It should not be at all clear.
People coming to any article want to know about the entity. People coming to an article about entity X want to know "What is entity X? Is it a political/cultural movement, or just people writing books and articles? What's it history? When did it start? Is it defunct? Were there precursors? Who are some of the main thinkers and leaders in it? Do they have a political party, and if so do they run candidates, and if so how do they fare? How many adherents? Is it a fringe thing?" Lots of other things like that. Of course criticism should be included, but it should be a distinctly secondary subject.
I get that a lot of editors don't like TERFs, and with good reason I guess, but editors who feel strongly about a fraught subject and can't or don't want to be ice-cold even-handed about it should work on other subjects, not to be harsh but it is what it is. If you can be ice-cold even-handed, that's different. (For instance, I detest Jim Jordan, but I took out a bunch of over-emphasis of attacks on him, because of course how I feel about any entity has nothing to do with my work here. Be like me.)
We don't want to see, let's say, an Israeli chauvinists writing about the Gaza war unless they can put aside any bias. Right? Look at Bolshevism, which is hated by many millions of people. There's plenty to criticize, and it helps put the entity in perspective, and it's important to include, but it's under 10% of the article. "Under 10%" seems like a good goal for any article, granted that might not apply here.
.svg){kind=small}
