Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gender-critical feminism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:41, 22 December 2024 editSangdeboeuf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users53,219 edits →top: {{Refideas}} +1← Previous edit Revision as of 16:43, 22 December 2024 edit undoSangdeboeuf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users53,219 edits →NPOV: WP:TALKHEADPOVNext edit →
Line 123: Line 123:
: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) :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 is a super important rule, and I don't think it is operating too well here == == 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 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.

Revision as of 16:43, 22 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gender-critical feminism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

ConsensusThe topic of this article is the ideology or movement known variously in reliable sources as gender-critical feminism (including abbreviated forms such as "GC", "GC feminism") or trans-exclusionary radical feminism (including abbreviated forms such as "TERF ideology", "TERFism" and similar expressions). The two main titles are equivalent. The article was split off from the article Feminist views on transgender topics where the corresponding section is titled "Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism."
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. Restarting a debate that has already been settled constitutes disruptive editing, tendentious editing, and "asking the other parent", unless consensus changes.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconArticles for creation
WikiProject iconThis article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
Note icon
This article was accepted from this draft on 24 June 2023 by reviewer Alpha3031 (talk · contribs).
WikiProject iconAlternative views Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFeminism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconDiscrimination Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconGender studies Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
On 31 January 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to trans-exclusionary radical feminism. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Reference ideas for Gender-critical feminismThe following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
Section sizes
Section size for Gender-critical feminism (34 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 8,331 8,331
Terminology 19 6,539
Trans-exclusionary radical feminism 5,205 5,205
Gender-critical feminism 1,315 1,315
Views 62 36,300
Sex and gender 7,498 7,498
"Sex-based rights" 2,449 2,449
Socialisation and gender nonconformity 5,901 5,901
Gender transition 3,046 3,046
Intersex conditions 4,475 4,475
Sexual orientation 4,993 4,993
Conversion therapy 7,876 7,876
History 15 9,240
Early history (before 2000) 9,225 9,225
By country 126 34,509
Russia 1,067 1,067
South Korea 3,769 3,769
United Kingdom 15,240 29,174
Sex-based rights 4,678 4,678
Legal cases 9,256 9,256
United States 373 373
Analysis 16 21,827
Scholarly analysis 7,535 7,535
Relationship with the anti-gender movement 3,660 3,660
Political alliances with conservatives and the far right 9,899 9,899
Misinformation and disinformation 717 717
Controversies 21 12,628
Academic freedom 6,011 6,011
Conflicts with other feminist and pro-equality groups 5,840 5,840
Social media 756 756
See also 887 887
References 30 30
Further reading 777 777
External links 521 521
Total 131,589 131,589

Radical feminism

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) Sweet6970 (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

No, we don't need to re-hash this. This is a pretense often used by people to try to justify the anti-trans nature, but is contentious as reported by reliable sources.
The two sidebars that are there are enough. Raladic (talk) 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. DanielRigal (talk) 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. Vorpalm (talk) 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 § Early history section is about the developing schism between (trans-inclusive) radical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism.
Selected quotes (emphases mine):
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.
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. Horst Mahler, a prominent Holocaust denier in Germany, was one of the founding members of the Red Army Faction. But we don't list Holocaust denial under Red Army Faction, because it wouldn't make sense.
Also, Feminist views on transgender topics is already listed in the radical feminism 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. TucanHolmes (talk) 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. Vorpalm (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
It could go under a section, such as #Trans-exclusionary radical feminism, 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. Web-julio (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
The 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. TucanHolmes (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Vaginism

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? Antivaginist (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have sources to support the use of this word? — Czello 17:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Where have you seen this used? Zeno27 (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
This looks like just another term of abuse for feminists. Sweet6970 (talk) 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. DanielRigal (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

NPOV

Thread retitled from "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 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.

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.

There's work to be done. Herostratus (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have specific proposals for alterations to the article? Sweet6970 (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: