| Revision as of 21:22, 16 November 2024 edit2a00:23c4:b3ae:1201:c983:edc3:1d0d:741 (talk) →An article with a similar scope?: ReplyTags: Reverted Reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:56, 25 December 2024 edit undoSangdeboeuf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users53,231 edits →top: {{Refideas}} +1 |
| (38 intermediate revisions by 19 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 11: |
Line 12: |
|
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Old move| |
|
{{Old move| |
|
| date = 31 January 2024 |
|
| date = 31 January 2024 |
| 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 67: |
Line 71: |
|
* {{Cite journal |last=Lee |first=Hyun-Jae |date=December 2020 |title=A Critical Study of Identity Politics Based on the Category ‘Biological Woman’ in the Digital Era: How Young Korean Women Became Transgender Exclusive Radical Feminists |journal=Journal of Asian Sociology |volume=49 |issue=4 |pages=425–448 |doi=10.21588/dns.2020.49.4.003}} |
|
* {{Cite journal |last=Lee |first=Hyun-Jae |date=December 2020 |title=A Critical Study of Identity Politics Based on the Category ‘Biological Woman’ in the Digital Era: How Young Korean Women Became Transgender Exclusive Radical Feminists |journal=Journal of Asian Sociology |volume=49 |issue=4 |pages=425–448 |doi=10.21588/dns.2020.49.4.003}} |
|
* {{Cite thesis |last=Kim |first=Gaeun |date=2023 |title=Epistemic violence: the counterhistory of the experiences and prevalence of anti-trans violence in South Korea |url=https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/71505 |doi=10.7282/T3-183Q-F776}} |
|
* {{Cite thesis |last=Kim |first=Gaeun |date=2023 |title=Epistemic violence: the counterhistory of the experiences and prevalence of anti-trans violence in South Korea |url=https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/71505 |doi=10.7282/T3-183Q-F776}} |
|
|
* {{Cite journal |last=Kim |first=Jieun |date=2024-07-02 |title=A critical analysis of TERF politics in South Korea: The contradictory constructions of “Western feminism” and its legitimizing effects |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/12259276.2024.2379053 |journal=Asian Journal of Women's Studies |language=en |volume=30 |issue=3 |pages=196–226 |doi=10.1080/12259276.2024.2379053 |issn=1225-9276}} |
|
* {{Cite journal |issn=00101958 |eissn=19452268 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/27211377 |last=McNamarah |first=Chan Tov |journal=Columbia Law Review |number=3 |pages=845-928 |publisher=Columbia Law Review Association, Inc. |title=Cis-Woman-Protective Arguments |volume=123 |year=2023}} |
|
* {{Cite journal |issn=00101958 |eissn=19452268 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/27211377 |last=McNamarah |first=Chan Tov |journal=Columbia Law Review |number=3 |pages=845-928 |publisher=Columbia Law Review Association, Inc. |title=Cis-Woman-Protective Arguments |volume=123 |year=2023}} |
|
* {{Cite journal |last=Yamada |first=Hidenobu |date=2022-08-01 |title=GID as an Acceptable Minority; or, The Alliance between Moral Conservatives and “Gender Critical” Feminists in Japan |url=https://doi.org/10.1215/23289252-9836162 |journal=TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly |volume=9 |issue=3 |pages=501–506 |doi=10.1215/23289252-9836162 |issn=2328-9252}} |
|
* {{Cite journal |last=Yamada |first=Hidenobu |date=2022-08-01 |title=GID as an Acceptable Minority; or, The Alliance between Moral Conservatives and “Gender Critical” Feminists in Japan |url=https://doi.org/10.1215/23289252-9836162 |journal=TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly |volume=9 |issue=3 |pages=501–506 |doi=10.1215/23289252-9836162 |issn=2328-9252}} |
| Line 80: |
Line 85: |
|
* {{Cite journal |last=Kirey-Sitnikova |first=Yana |date=2024-07-10 |title=“You should care by prohibiting all this obscenity”: a public policy analysis of the Russian law banning medical and legal transition for transgender people |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1060586X.2024.2377933 |journal=Post-Soviet Affairs |language=en |pages=1–20 |doi=10.1080/1060586X.2024.2377933 |doi-access=free |issn=1060-586X}} |
|
* {{Cite journal |last=Kirey-Sitnikova |first=Yana |date=2024-07-10 |title=“You should care by prohibiting all this obscenity”: a public policy analysis of the Russian law banning medical and legal transition for transgender people |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1060586X.2024.2377933 |journal=Post-Soviet Affairs |language=en |pages=1–20 |doi=10.1080/1060586X.2024.2377933 |doi-access=free |issn=1060-586X}} |
|
* {{Cite journal |last=Hotine |first=Emily |date=2021-08-12 |year=2021 |title=Biology, Society and Sex: Deconstructing anti-trans rhetoric and trans-exclusionary radical feminism |url=https://journal.nds.ox.ac.uk/index.php/JNDS/article/download/176/79/1051 |format=PDF |department=Equality, Diversity, Inclusion |journal=Journal of the Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences |volume=2 |issue=3 |doi=10.37707/jnds.v2i3}} |
|
* {{Cite journal |last=Hotine |first=Emily |date=2021-08-12 |year=2021 |title=Biology, Society and Sex: Deconstructing anti-trans rhetoric and trans-exclusionary radical feminism |url=https://journal.nds.ox.ac.uk/index.php/JNDS/article/download/176/79/1051 |format=PDF |department=Equality, Diversity, Inclusion |journal=Journal of the Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences |volume=2 |issue=3 |doi=10.37707/jnds.v2i3}} |
|
|
* {{Cite journal |last=Ploch |first=N. |date=2024-11-19 |title=A systematic review of TERF behaviour online in relation to sociopsychological group dynamics |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09589236.2024.2431569 |journal=Journal of Gender Studies |language=en |pages=1–14 |doi=10.1080/09589236.2024.2431569 |issn=0958-9236}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Section sizes}} |
|
{{Section sizes}} |
| Line 92: |
Line 98: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Vaginism == |
|
== An article with a similar scope? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
⚫ |
:Where have you seen this used? ] (]) 17:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:This looks like just another term of abuse for feminists. ] (]) 17:53, 17 December 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
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 ], 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 ], 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. |
|
] appears to be attempting to cover the same ground as this article, presenting gender-critical feminism as an anti-trans movement. ] (]) 00:44, 31 October 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. |
|
:No, this article here is about TERFism in general, worldwide. Whereas that new article is about the rise of the anti-trans movement in the UK and is more similar to the article of ] which documents the rise of the anti-LGBTQ movement in the US. |
|
|
:Of course there is some overlap, but also a clear distinction in the focus. Pinging @] as the author of the new article. ] (]) 01:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Hi! My goal isn’y to cover gender critical feminism specifically, it’s to cover anti-trans sentiments in the UK - GCF is just the most common strain of anti-trans beliefs in the UK. Likewise, unlike this article, the new one focuses specifically on the United Kingdom and not worldwide. As Raladic mentioned, my goal was to make a UK counterpart to the very well written ] article ] (]) 01:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have to agree with @] and @]. This article is about GC feminism in general, that article is about the anti-trans movement in the UK, of which GC feminism is a large part but not the only part. I fail to see any reason why this should be concerning or presented as "rivalry" — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> <small>(he/him; ])</small></span> 11:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Looks like a straightforward attack page or POV fork based on a lot of OR to me. ] (]) 12:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::It seems well referenced to me. If you have ''specific'' concerns about POV or OR, perhaps you should enumerate them on the Talk: page once the article is more stable. — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> <small>(he/him; ])</small></span> 21:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Without anything to support those claims, that just sounds like a rather rude ]. |
|
|
::Your first 2 remarks may be subjective, but the accusation of OR seems completely unfounded. ] (]) 01:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think it differs in two significant ways |
|
|
:1. It's in specific |
|
|
:2. It describes the entirety of the anti-trans movement and not simply the subset that consider themselves gender critical. |
|
|
:I think it's a useful article and see no reason to merge them. ] (]) 21:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
| ⚫ |
::Specific to the UK* ] (]) 21:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::What does the term anti-trans mean, is it considered anti-trans to oppose trans-women in female sports. ] (]) 16:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Is it considered anti-trans if you support single sex spaces, like in prison cells, or sexual abuse centres in any circumstance, ] (]) 21:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's work to be done. ] (]) 10:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Euphemism? == |
|
|
{{cot |title=Collapsing per ] }} |
|
|
This sounds more like a euphemism than a real thing. In the U.S. we just call them TERFs and of course really people we might call TERFs are usually only feminist as much as necessary to justify the transphobia. But the real reason it sounds like a euphemism is that the phrase is incoherent. Who came up with the idea of gender being non-grammatical and distinct from sex? Feminists, mostly. So the phrase is sort of illogical. I've yet to hear a feminist criticism of the idea of gender. It's just trans people these kinds of people don't like. If this phrase is a real thing, someone needs to explain where these people got the idea that they are arguing a feminist criticism of the idea of gender because that's not in any way clear... ] (]) 06:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Do you have specific proposals for alterations to the article? ] (]) 15:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:"Gender critical feminists" is the term used by some people, especially here in the UK, and is reliably sourced as such from several references, as can be seen in the article. |
|
|
|
: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) |
|
:Discussing whether or not the term is a euphemism is not useful here on the Talk: page (per ]). If you have specific references to point to including such a discussion in the article, then feel free to start that conversation, ''with those references''. — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> <small>(he/him; ])</small></span> 10:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{cob}} |
|
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}
