Talk:Anti-gender movement/Archive 2

NPOV

Describing diverging opinion as to what gender is or is not as "a form of moral panic" is not in line with Wikipedia good faith article. This looks like an "ad hominem" attack to people who object to particular tendencies within gender studies and sociology, such as that the difference between male and female is socially constructed and that, beyond their social construction as different, male and female are the same. There is nothing wrong with opposing such views which are in fact widely discussed within the academic community.

To remove the NPOV, add context and content and try to strike a balance between "conspiracy theory" accusations and the discussion of the "criticisms" levelled by concerned people at the different gender theories.--86.6.148.125 (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not your opinion. (t · c) buidhe 20:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Budhe. you know that is complete nonsense, as many "reliable sources" are mere opinions. -69.121.9.199 (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, but what counts as "reliable" by Wikipedia tends toward the most socially progressive end of the political spectrum. This is somewhat inevitable on a site where almost twice as many identify as atheist as identify as Catholic or Eastern Christian, (2,759 vs roughly 1,430 or by my count) but still it is a systemic issue. One that I don't think can be fixed, but doesn't need to be quite as one-sided as in this article.--Tibby57721 (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

We have many different articles about different ideas about gender. This article is about one of them that is quite extreme and is indeed a classic "moral panic". We are not required to bulk up the article with irrelevant stuff about other gender theories any more than we bulk up articles about one religion with irrelevant stuff about other religions. Each topic has its own article and we link them when appropriate.

One thing we can do here is make it easier to find articles about other gender related topics from this one. To this end I have added the Gender studies template at the foot of the page. As I think this is sufficient to address the only semi-plausible part of the complaint I am also removing the NPOV tag. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

That is not an argument, Daniel. -69.121.9.199 (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Paternotte and Kuhar's 2018 book on anti-gender ideology movements in Europe state that movements, and the wider ideology, relies heavily on moral panics. 143.239.9.1 (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

This entry is has a number of curious similarities to this article. Status Quo Marilyn (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

It really doesn't. I have run a copyright detector on the URL you suggested and the result result was: 11.5%, "Violation Unlikely"(Full result here). The "similarities" are that they share a few short phrases due to them covering the same subject and use a few of the same reference documents. This adds up to absolutely nothing "curious". --DanielRigal (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Its entire thesis is the same (that gender ideology does not exist but an anti-gender movement driven largely by catholics does), it cites the same people, and it uses some identical uncommon phrases. The linked article is not from a NPOV but rather from a progressive POV, and that is OK, but when it presents the same argument as this wikipedia entry using similar language, questions are raised. Status Quo Marilyn (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: NPOV in lede

Opening a discussion here with Buidhe about recent edits. Can you please explain what you find objectionable about the most recent edits? Ergo Sum 14:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

You move scholarly explanation about the meaning (or lack thereof) of the term "gender ideology", from the part where definition is discussed to a different part of the lead where it doesn't belong, and characterize it as comments by "opponents".

I also believe that the language of "some scholars" minimizes the support for the characterization of a moral panic and/or conspiracy theory, which is very prevalent in the literature, see for example [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Most or all scholarly works on the subject discuss it either as a moral panic, conspiracy theory, or both. (t · c) buidhe 15:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's pretty darn clear that the Graff source cited at the end of the sentence in question "opposes" the anti-gender movement about which the article is about. The author all but explicitly says so, and at the very least acknowledges they are writing from a POV: Engaging in debate with liberals was never part of the plan of the orthodox camp. The plan is to delegitimize our work and our way of thinking, to give us a nasty name that will stick and exclude us from public debate. The fact that the name happens to be borrowed from our own lexicon does not make matters any better." (emphasis added).

One cannot simply say "scholars" because "scholars" implies unanimity, which obviously is not true because if there was unanimous agreement that it were just a conspiracy theory, there would be no such thing as an anti-gender movement. One can say "many" or "most", but that would require a source to support such a statement. Absent that, one can either name specific authors or just say "some scholars." Ergo Sum 00:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you can discredit someone's scholarship based on their personal viewpoint, since in order to be published in a journal such as Religion and Gender (published by Brill) it is necessary to pass the usual method of peer-review. It's different if this was an editorial, but it's not, so it's a work of scholarship, not advocacy. However, I'm not attached to this particular quote, and would consider replacing it with another one that reflects independent, reliable sources in noting that "gender ideology" is a flexible term with no clear definition that is applied to many things its originators don't like.

Anti-gender movement is not a scholarly movement, it is a religious or political movement. Something being a moral panic or conspiracy theory certainly does not prevent people from believing in it (which some do, by definition) or starting a movement to oppose it. For example, QAnon is a political movement followed by many people despite unanimous agreement in all reliable sources that what it purports to oppose is a conspiracy theory invented by QAnon adherents. Since the characterization as a moral panic and/or conspiracy theory is so strongly based in the literature, I don't think it needs attribution at all. (t · c) buidhe 01:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not discrediting it. I'm just pointing out that it quite obviously writes from a POV. Peer-reviewed social science journals take explicit and implicit POV positions all the time; scholarship and advocacy are not mutually exclusive. Just because one author or one journal makes a scholarly assertion does not mean other scholars agree, and much less that it is true. I have no problem finding another quote to that effect, but that can't be written in the voice of WP because it's clearly a POV. The proponents/scholars of the anti-gender movement certainly don't accept that claim. Other articles handle this routinely by simply saying "critiques of X say Y...". So here, we can say "critiques of the anti-gender movement say Y" or "scholars who critique the anti-gender movement say Y". I'm perfectly fine with that. Ergo Sum 02:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

As far as attribution goes, that's not really up to us. WP requires that everything be attributed. But importantly, that's not correct that the anti-gender movement is non-scholarly. As this article explains, it arises out of Catholic theology. There is a voluminous scholarly literature to be found. E.g. [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. One can find this in certain Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Evangelical, etc. academies/journals. In the same way that e.g. "gender ideology" scholarship relates to left-wing politics on gender, so does the "anti-gender ideology" scholarship relate to conservative anti-gender ideology politics. While much of the anti-anti-gender ideology scholarship describes itself as the only scholarship on the subject, this is certainly not true. When there is disagreement in the scholarship, WP has to mention it; we cannot just ignore it. Ergo Sum 02:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It is certainly not true that WP requires that everything be attributed. Facts and characterizations about which the recognized experts in a field agree should generally not be attributed, and it can also be WP:FALSEBALANCE to do so. And not all fields of scholarship are equally relevant: theologians, in particular, are neither historians nor social scientists (nor, for that matter, are they evolutionary biologists or physicists). To cite the opinions of theologians to give the anti-gender movement a scholarly veneer, as if they deserved equal weight with mainstream scholarship, would be a violation of WP policy concerning WP:FRINGE perspectives, just as it would in the case of evolutionary biology or the physics of the solar system. Newimpartial (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I urge you to refresh your memory of WP:Verifiability: Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. Yes, everything--especially anything contentious--must be cited to reliable sources. As to your second point, that is simply a non-starter. Theology is an academic discipline. WP:FRINGE is totally inapplicable. WP does not endorse beliefs, it only presents them. Therefore, it presents scholarly theological arguments as such. Ergo Sum 02:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial didn't say "not cited", they said "not attributed" in the text, i.e. stated in wikivoice. (t · c) buidhe 02:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Ergo Sum: then why don't you go add theologians' support for the geocentric universe and opposition to evolutionary theory to provide WP:FALSEBALANCE on those more urgent topics, and leave this one for now? I mean, since you don't acknowledge the WP:FRINGE principle and believe that WP presents the beliefs of theologians on all topics equally with those of scholars in those actual fields... Newimpartial (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

You have misunderstood my comments. Ergo Sum 03:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The first source you link is from the Congregation for Catholic Education which is a reliable source for what the Catholic Church teaches, but not anything else.

As for most of the others, the term "gender ideology" has an original meaning, where it used to be used occasionally in analysis of gender roles, and a completely different meaning according to the anti-gender movement. These are hardly related topics similar to Marxist cultural analysis vs. Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory claims that occasional references to "cultural Marxism" in Marxist philosophy imply that what it calls "Cultural Marxism" actually exists, but reliable sources disagree.

Per WP:OR this article should be restricted to sources that actually discuss the anti-gender movement, which none of the sources you link do. (t · c) buidhe 02:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

My point is simply that there are proponents of the anti-gender movements and opponents of it. We cannot in the voice of WP write as if one of them is true. As to facts, yes. As to opinions, no. This movement isn't making any claims of fact but asserting its opinions about the world. So some scholars can say those opinions are bogus. Power to them. They're still opinions that WP has to present as such. Ergo Sum 02:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not some editor's belief in what is balanced or not. Bring reliable sources that discuss the anti-gender movement and there would be a basis for discussion. I should add that based on a Google Scholar search for anti-gender movement, virtually all results are either cited already or use similar analysis as presented in this article.[13] (t · c) buidhe 02:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to do a deep dive researching the matter because it's not my field of expertise. That being said, no research needs to be done to identify an opinion as an opinion. The whole anti-gender movement/critique of AGM is a debate of opinion. Is it not? I genuinely fail to see how one would classify it as anything else? If I am missing something, please enlighten me. Ergo Sum 03:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not "gender ideology" exists is not a matter of opinion, any more than evolution is a matter of opinion. The reliable sources on the topic agree that "gender ideology" does not actually exist. Other, much less reliable sources, disagree. Newimpartial (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Editors who confuse Verifiability with in-text attribution, and their own opinions about balance with the WP:BALANCE of reliable sources, should not be editing controversial articles or attempting to judge NPOV therein. Such efforts are doomed to fail. Newimpartial (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, please do not tell editors what articles they should edit. Buidhe are having a mature discussion in which you are welcome to join with constructive contributions. Ergo Sum 03:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Competence is, however, required. Your opinion that opinions of all scholars are of equal WEIGHT regardless of their field of specialization is not supported by any WP policy. Competent editors know this just as they know that attribution is not always required and is, in fact, often a WP:NPOV violation. Newimpartial (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in going down this tangent. Attribution is always required. That is policy; it is black and white. I, in good faith, will interpret your suggestion that I lack competence as another misunderstanding of policy on your part rather. I reiterate that your constructive contributions are welcome. Ergo Sum 03:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you understand what is meant by "attribution" on WP, as opposed to verification? Have you read the discussion of WP:FALSEBALANCE and the policy that presenting an interpretation on which all relevant experts agree as though it were one opinion among many is a violation of WP:NPOV? If you don't understand these things, which are in fact black and white principles, then I don't really see how your contribution here can be constructive. Newimpartial (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry that this discussion is rapidly veering off course from the original debate. I don't believe I am able to make civil and constructive headway by further discussion of the matter with you, so I feel it necessary to invoke dispute resolution. Ergo Sum 03:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the approach you're taking here would be the one to use for an article such as Catholic teaching on sex and gender that has a theological focus, but for this article, it's primarily about the political aspects of the movement. There are empirical claims and widespread interpretations in the scholarly literature on the subject, and one has to represent the sources that exist on it, per WP:WEIGHT. I wouldn't expect there to be Catholic theological works about the anti-gender movement, since theology isn't really about studying the history and evolution of political movements (even those with a religious origin). By the way, I think it would be great to have a solid article on Catholic teaching on sex and gender, I just think that topic has only limited overlap with this one. (t · c) buidhe 03:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Late to this discussion, but earlier Ergo Sum said,

One cannot simply say "scholars" because "scholars" implies unanimity, which obviously is not true because if there was unanimous agreement that it were just a conspiracy theory, there would be no such thing as an anti-gender movement.

Buidhe pretty much already answered this. Your statement above is clearly mistaken and one need only look at QAnon, or 9/11 conspiracy theories, or Homeopathy or any other widely believed conspiracy theory or pseudoscience which is universally debunked as being baseless. Universal agreement among academic scholars that QAnon is a baseless conspiracy theory, doesn't mean there's no such thing as a huge QAnon movement with millions of believers.

The mistake in your statement above, is equating scholars in academia, with scholars in the Church as somehow equivalent about this topic, but they are not. When one uses the word scholars here that means scholars in the field, as opposed to people who (perhaps) call themselves scholars (or their partisan fans do) in order to make it seem like "some scholars say A, while other scholars say B". Only, it ain't so. In one sense you're right: theologians, for example, are indeed scholars, and they can be highly respected, knowledgeable, and towering intellects in their field. But when astronomical scholars said that the earth revolved about the sun, and legitimate, highly learned, multi-published, brilliant, multilingual, doctorate-holding theologians said (unanimously), "No it doesn't" we simply discount all of the theologians in that discussion. They are not scholars in the field of astronomy, and they have nothing factual to bring to the discussion; their only contribution is opinion, and that opinion is based on faith; when the theologians are Catholic, it is also based on dogma. Their views hold no weight in academic discourse on gender-related topics (or in astronomy, or in any scientific pursuit) because their faith (based on the Bible) or their dogma already prescribes their beliefs, devoid of any actual academic study of the field in question. Academic study simply is not necessary and not part of the equation for theologians to come up with the theologically, and dogmatically correct answer. So, one cannot compare theologians and other faith-based scholarship with academic scholarship in this article. To the extent that what the theologians say is based on faith or dogma, it's devoid of scientific content and cannot be brought to bear in a fact-based discussion based on reliable sources. In a few cases, when such dogmatic pronouncements are couched in language with pretensions to being science, they are also pseudoscience, but mostly they are simply the faith-based beliefs of an interest group and from the point of view of fact-based encyclopedia can be ignored.

That is not to say that the views of theologians and other faith-based authors cannot be included in the article; of course they can, in the same way that the Flat Earth article or the QAnon article is full of the beliefs of supporters, and always with in-text attribution. It may even occupy the majority of the article, if that's what the preponderance of reliable sources on the topic report on. But as far as what may be reported in Wikipedia's voice, that can only be based on the majority view of serious, academic views in the field. The lead is fine as it is, there is no POV issue. Mathglot (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, although the stark presentation may have ruffled your feathers, User:Newimpartial had it exactly right. The fact is, you (Ergo Sum) have a very basic misunderstanding of Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy. You said, "WP requires that everything be attributed." (@02:05) and "Attribution is always required. That is policy." (@03:11). That is absolutely incorrect. Everything must be verifiable, but not everything must be attributed. Read the verifiability policy again. Mathglot (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I should make clear that I am speaking in the context of this article. WP:ATTRIBUTION requires that anything "challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed." On any contentious article (i.e. any article that intersects with politics), such as this one, everything is likely to be challenged. Hence, the practice of high-conflict articles is always to attribute everything. I am aware of the policy distinction between verifiability and attribution as abstract matters.

Your opinion of theologians is your prerogative but not accepted on WP. I should first distinguish what I am actually arguing from what you have said I am arguing. I do not propose to have theologians' opinions on matters of fact treated as factual. That is a straw man argument. There are no facts to be had on the gender question of this article, only opinions. Can the proponent scholars discover the veracity of their claims with a microscope or an oscilloscope or a mathematical equation? No, because they are not expounding on questions of fact. They are asserting their opinions. Scholarly opinions they may be! They are still opinions. When an economic theorist asserts as fact his theory of choice and supports it with all kinds of arguments and equations, does this transform it from a scholarly opinion into a fact? Of course not and WP would never write of it as a fact. The same is true here. Ergo Sum 20:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

There are no facts to be had on the gender question of this article, only opinions. I don't know what you mean by "gender question", but I do believe that this article subject (unlike some parts of theology, perhaps) entails facts and not just opinions. If you're referring to the definition of gender ideology, it's empirically verifiable that different critics of it have different quite varying notions of what that term means (hence some research uses the term "anti-gender movements" in plural, to avoid the implication that it's a cohesive entity) and that it is used in an elastic and pejorative way, i.e. it has no firm definition. I don't see how that's an opinion. (t · c) buidhe 20:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I hope that this entire thread isn't due to a misunderstanding of the article subject. Anti-gender does not refer to the average person with conservative views on LGBT issues or feminism, it is the people who believe that there's a sinister conspiracy to impose "gender ideology" on their society or country, especially if they believe that "gender ideology" poses a serious or existential threat to that society or country. (t · c) buidhe 03:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

For now, I will just point out that WP:ATTRIBUTION is, in essence, a failed policy proposal from almost 15 years ago: it has no policy effect and, unlike VERIFIABILITY and NPOV, it is also of no effect in this discussion: unlike the findings of social science and historical scholarship, ATTRIBUTION is "just an opinion". Also, Ergo Sum, your assertion that facts (and Wikivoice statements) can only be supported with a microscope or an oscilloscope or a mathematical equation runs entirely counter to any WP policy I know (as well as to any reasonably cogent epistemology. I don't see you having made any policy-compliant argument that could legitimately influence this article, except that "some Catholic theologians disagree with social scientists and support the Anti-gender movement". I agree that this is true, but the policy-compliant approach is not to create FALSEBALANCE between on-topic scholarship and theology; rather it is to document within the article that, yes indeed, some Catholic theologians support the Anti-gender movement. That doesn't make "gender ideology" a real thing any more than the beliefs of certain Jungian psychologists make "Cultural Marxism" a real thing. Newimpartial (talk) 02:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Mention was made of DRN, so:  Courtesy link: WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard § Anti-gender movement Mathglot (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Fizzled out. Mathglot (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Objections to Theologians

Reviving a this discussion to say a few things. One the reduction of all Catholics thinkers who believe in "gender ideology" as theologians is not accurate since it includes people like philosopher & scholar John Finnis. Also Pope John Paul II and especially Pope Benedict XVI were/ are considered respected intellectuals. Also regarding the claim of it being a conspiracy theory I am not convinced. While there is not a shadowy cabal plotting to impose "gender ideology" on the world it also not a secret that some Western Governments, NGOs, and others do work to advance feminist and LGBT issues across the world, so when opponents raise this point is it really a conspiracy theory? To me it seems that it only becomes a conspiracy when it is claimed that it is a shadowy group being behind it all as opposed to just pointing out the obvious. Finally I do think there are some big NPOV issues with the article.3Kingdoms (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

3Kingdoms edits

3Kingdoms, if you want to reistanstate these edits [14] please discuss here first. I'm afraid that some of the rationale seems mistaken: the source definitely isn't referring to Italian politicians who happen to be Catholics but rather those who are connected to Catholic activism. You also added a sentence "Some scholars view this argument as having helped to convince Colombians to rejected the peace agreement.", but neither of the cited sources supports that statement. I worry that you're changing the meaning of the text without consulting the cited sources which is not a great idea if the goal is to maintain text-source integrity. (t · c) buidhe 03:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Buide. For Italy it reads "In the 2018 Italian general election, Lega Nord placed Catholic representatives on its electoral lists, sealing an anti-gender alliance." I agree that it meant " those who are connected to Catholic activism", but that was my issue since the wording seemed to imply that all Catholics agree with the movement which is not correct. It should instead read maybe like socially conservative Catholics were recruited. For Colombia my issue was that it makes it sound like this was the only reason voters rejected the agreement, I should have read the articles more since I though that it what they were arguing so I thought having some would help since I imagine there are other scholars who do not think it is what pushed the issue over the edge. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

(ec)I don't have a well-informed opinion on most of the recent edits and I can't access many of the sources. That said, I would love to see 3Kingdoms justify their edits here instead of edit warring.

I am glad attention has been called to the mention of "neo-Bolshevism" which was previously wikilinked to neo-Bolshevism, a redirect to Nineteen Eighty-Four; buidhe, I think RfD was the right call. 3Kingdoms, I see how neo-Marxist is a reasonable alternate link, but that page is very unlikely to provide context to readers of this one. From Duda's quote in the cited source, I find it clear that he's criticizing the idealogical indoctrination of children that was common in Soviet-era Poland, and criticizing "gender ideology" for allegedly doing the same. We may want to paraphrase "neo-Bolshevism" and link to something like Polish People's Republic (I'm sure there's something more on-topic). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Firefangfeathers. I agree that Neo-Marxism might not be the best, but I thought it or Western Marxism was the best at describing what Duda was saying. What I believe he meant was the increasing change Western Marxist and in general left-wings over the last couple of decades in shifting from the class struggle to instead cultural issues. I do not agree with linking to the Polish People's Republic since that was not exactly a place where there would be much support for the gender movement, see Operation Hyacinth or for that matter Communism and LGBT rights. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to quote Duda's comments to avoid copyvio, but here's what I find to be a fair summary:

• I experienced Bolshevism in Soviet-era Poland, and they indoctrinated our young people
• Gender ideologues are similarly doing the same thing today
• I call them neo-Bolshevists

. My reading of his comments involves some analysis, but there's no way to drop "neo-Bolshevist" into this article without explaining it (meaning we analyze), linking it somewhere (meaning we analyze), or not linking or explaining it (meaning the reader is left to wonder what he means by "neo-Bolshevist"). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I hear you. The Problem is that Duda seems to be using "Neo-Bolshevism" as a slang term for the New Left, Western Marxism, Maoism–Third Worldism, Social Progressivism, Marxist feminism, or for that matter most modern feminism, the ideas of Shulamith Firestone and Herbert Marcuse, and Anarcho-communism. Now of course he might not be thinking this specifically or even have heard of some of these things and people and if he did we would have no way of knowing. I admit what I posted would be considered original research, but that at least is what I think Duda claims to be "neo-bolshevism". 3Kingdoms (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• For the idea that "Marxism" has shifted from class to culture issues, the Wikipedia article that discusses this belief is Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. (t · c) buidhe 05:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

It was, as the Wikipedia article above notes, very common for communist/Marxist parties to have anti-LGBT views. Since around 1960s in Western circles Marxist and leftist have shifted in this view (Most Marxist outside of the west have not). There is also the influence of Maoism–Third Worldism, which also has shifted Marxist focus in the west away from the working class. There is no conspiracy theory about noting this development, however if someone starts ranting that there is a grand scheme of shadow "Cultural Marxists" trying to actively undermine the West (and of course claim that the Jews are behind it) Then yes that is a conspiracy theory. I hope that you were not implying I am some conspiracy theorists for posting this information. 3Kingdoms (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what you personally believe, all I am saying is that consensus decided not to have an article titled "Cultural Marxism", instead covering the topic at Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. The vast majority of people who support legalized abortion, LGBT rights, or liberal positions on other social issues are not and were never Marxist at all, so I'm struggling to understand the relevance to this article. (t · c) buidhe 06:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I never claimed that all people who support "support legalized abortion, LGBT rights, or liberal positions on other social issues." were/are Marxist, I simply noted that since the 1960s Western Marxist have increasingly shifted their views from neutral to outright against these issue to now supporting them. Look no further than Poland and compare the poistion of the Polish United Workers' Party to the The Left (Poland) for this change. Please do not make assumptions about my thoughts. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Colombia

As written, the paragraph on Colombia was deficient in just presenting "antigenderists said X" + "the outcome was Y" in a way that implied but didn't explain a connection, which made it look like WP:SYNTH or off-topic. I revised the text and added a reference which makes the connection explicitly and at length. -sche (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree completely with the change. I thought my edit was an improvement to the previous one, which gave the impression that this was the deciding issue and I think your change made it better. Thanks for giving another source for this section! 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead

In the lead it says "These concepts do not have a coherent definition and cover a variety of issues; "gender ideology" has been described as an "empty signifier"[2] or catch-all term "for all that conservative Catholics despise". In the first sentence of Issues it says "The concept of "gender ideology" does not have a coherent definition and covers a variety of issues; for this reason, it has been described as an "empty signifier" or catch-all term "for all that conservative Catholics despise"." This is virtually a word for word repeat. I decided to remove it from the lead. Some have objected so lets talk it out here. 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Word-for-word repetition is just not a major concern. If you would like to have a go at paraphrase I have no objections. I do not support wholesale removal, as the whole point of the lead is to give an overview of the body; there will necessarily be substantive duplication. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much the same as Fff; the lead covers the most important points of the article, and the fact that there really is no coherent definition is central to the whole meaning of the topic, and therefore definitely does belong in the lead in some form. I'm likewise not too concerned about duplication about this central point, but another approach would be to go into more detail in the body about why this is so (with either additional summarization from the existing sources, or adding more content from new sources with additional citations in the body) and then leave the sentence in the lead more or less alone, or tweaking it slightly as necessary to summarize the newly expanded body section, which might be called "#Terminology" or "#Definitions" or something. ("Terminology" is pretty common in articles about similar topics.)

To some extent, expanding the body is perhaps being inhibited by the current body section naming and organization: the section header "#Issues" is rather a vague catch-all of a section title, and a strange place for the explanation of the term. I'll try adding a #Terminology section, and tweaking the "Issues" section either by renaming it, or adding subsections or something. Feel free to add or change that as needed. Mathglot (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Would working like "Critics of the movement have described the issue as incoherent due to the various issues which the movement opposes. Others have called the term a catch-all term for issues opposed by religious and social conservatives" work? 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Just agreeing with Firefangledfeathers and Mathglot that repetition between the body and lead is not a problem; it's usually preferable for the body text to be longer and the lead text shorter, but for information that's being expressed in a single sentence this is not always possible. FWIW it's also not uncommon in controversial articles for one wording to be used in both the lead and the body, once a wording can be agreed on, rather than having to hash out two wordings. -sche (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

3Kingdoms, I'm surprised to see that you've removed the content about lacking a coherent definition from the lead for the third time, on this occasion while discussion is on-going here, and you've also removed it from body as well. All while we're here on the talk page discussing this very point, and with three editors apparently in disagreement with you. Care to explain your unilateral triple-down on this point? Also, if you haven't yet followed the links in the reminder I left you earlier, you should; you may be rapidly approaching ArbCom sanction territory, if you haven't already crossed the line. Mathglot (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I removed it for, a part of it, for a different reason, which I thought would be considered a separate item if not then my mistake. I do however feel think that, that line should be changed or reworded for reason given. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I would also like for the record that I reverted only once the initial edit I made. After that I saw after it was removed again, showing that others wished to talk about this and were against my edit. As I said above I removed part because rereading it I noticed a different problem with that part, if that is still considered as part of the initial edit, than I am sorry, but I also do not think that is a fair concept since it was for different reasons and was not being used as an excuse to get rid of the whole item, but do what I consider to be an improvement. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Section naming and organization

This is kind of a spin-off of the conversation above. After noting that a #Terminology section was perhaps needed, and looking further into the body, it seems to me there needs to be additional reorganization and possible renaming of the section titles to make the article hang together better, and so readers have some idea what the sections are about. "#Overlaps" is a bit of a strange name, and might be better as "#Related concepts".

While "#Proactive or reactive" may not be inaccurate in the sense of explaining the main thrust of a couple of the main arguments of where it came from, what the section is really about is the origin(s) of it; there could be some third, or fourth theory of origin that might come up or already be out there, and "Origins" would cover that, but "#Proactive or reactive" wouldn't. In my opinion, the main title should be "Origins", and we could possibly keep the former title as subsection names. I'll try that. Mathglot (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I've done a bit of that. Nothing has been added or removed, except for the addition of one brief into sentence in a renamed section. One paragraph has been moved from one section to another. Going forward: the name of the section #Geography seems awkward to me; maybe this should be "#Scope" or "#By region" or something. Part of the second paragraph of #Central figures and issues seems like it's in the wrong place, and would fit better in section #Terminology, or maybe in #Analyses and responses. More re-org could help even more, imho, but I thought I'd better stop and see how everyone likes it (or doesn't). Mathglot (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Good job on the re-organization and introduction of subsection headers. I agree "Geography" is not a great header; "By region" would work if we can't think of something better. -sche (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Origin theories

3Kingdoms, in this edit to section #Origin theories, you added the name of a 1969 book by Chas. Rice, but I don't see its relevance to the section or even to the article as a whole. I'd be inclined to remove this, unless you can explain its relevance here. Mathglot (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I saw that and wondered what the relevance was, too; seeing this thread, I've gone ahead and removed it (pending further discussion). -sche (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The section on origins noted different possible points of origin. Given that a large part of anti-gender movement views all three of items quoted as being connected, I thought that Rice's book could also be considered a point of origin. I also thought about the concerns raised above before posting, but thought I could at least start a discussion. If you feel that this is not enough, I accept it being taken down. I hope this cleared it up. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@3Kingdoms:, that's fine. There's an important underlying point regarding the principle of original research that it's important for you to know about, and I left you this message in an attempt to explain it. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 04:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey no problem, thanks. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Based on responses at your Talk page; sounds like we may be in agreement now, if I understand you correctly.

Given your follow-up comments there, I wonder if the Ratzinger/1980s material should be removed as well? Mathglot (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I am inclined to. Also one issue I also have is that most of these groups from what I see don't call themselves "anti-gender" and that it really is more of a diverse set of groups that agree on some items and then protest said things. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot, In this case the Case source is arguing that the Ratzinger/1980s is the origin of the movement. That is stated very explicitly in the source, and therefore is not original research. (t · c) buidhe 01:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

buidhe, thanks. In that case, do you think the way the #Origin theories section is organized looks okay to you, wrt subsection titles, content, and per due-weight with the amount of material in each? Or are there other good sources you came across during your research that could be used to beef up this section? Mathglot (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe chronological order? I wrote this article pretty quickly and there is definitely more to say about the topic. (t · c) buidhe 03:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Analyses and responses

The article section of the same name has grown, due to bits and pieces from other sections being moved there because they didn't fit where they were before. But, that makes this section a bit of a hodge-podge. It could benefit from some consolidation, pruning, or subsectioning; possibly even exporting bits out to other sections, now that the overall organization makes a bit more sense. (Although I think the overall structure could still stand some improvement.) I need to step away; anyone want to take a look at this? Adding @-sche and Firefangledfeathers:. Mathglot (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, maybe I'm old school, but it has a dot-1 subsection but not a dot-2, which grates; we should either have a dot-2 (preferably, I think) or drop the dot-1. Mathglot (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Paternotte rejects that the anti-gender movement is a backlash,

The source for "Paternotte rejects that the anti-gender movement is a backlash", doesn't mention the a-gm anywhere. It does however speak of “a resistance to progressive social change", specifically in relation to women's and LGBT matters. The trouble then is that is this article about a 'movement', definable, tracable, identifiable, even if fairly loosely defined, or is it about ALL "resistance to progressive social change" relating to gender matters?

On a related matter, the article expends a lot of time and energy arguing that gender ideology doesn't exist. Which in one sense is self-evident, there are many terms, especially relating to social matters, which only or largely exist as pejoratives/terms of abuse. Does gender ideology exist as a coherent philosophical position, which one can take a book out of the library about? Obviously not, but do those using the term mean something by it? Probably yes. But this article doesn't tell me what that something is, apart from finding every angle of attack as to how reactionary/right-wing/generally nasty etc etc the users of the term are. This is a bit akin with political correctness, which is largely a pejorative term used to characterise the mindset behind certain sets of liberal-ish beliefs and policies, but that article is solely about the term, it does not pretend to be about the phenomenon of PC and only incidentally about any individuals or movements supposedly espousing or attacking 'PC culture'.

I'd never heard of any anti-gender movement before today, though obviously I've heard about opposition to various 'gender-related' topics, from abortion to LGBT right issues, so my comments are little more than reactions, BUT the definition/description/history of 'the movement' is so vague that I'm left with the impression that just as the 'movement' is supposedly fighting 'empty signifiers', the opponents of the 'movement' aren't too clear about who/what it is they are opposing. What do those in the movement believe and argue for and against (apart from conspiracy theories and general nastiness). How can such a small number of individuals really have such impact?

I'm sorry, the impression at present, especially in the lead, is of shadows jousting with ghosts. Pincrete (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure that the article could be improved by adding more clarification and information on beliefs. However, according to the cited sources there is such a thing as anti-gender movement(s), along with conferences and other transnational organizing. I suggest that if you want to improve the article, you could start by reading the sources and see what there is to add and/or clarify. (t · c) buidhe 08:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my initial point, that the article is using a source that doesn't mention a-gm anywhere, thus implying that any opposition to "progressive social change" in gender matters is part of this specific "movement". To be honest I'm not very interested in the topic and don't anyway have access to the sources used. I was recording an impression merely. PC and gender/sexuality related topics are full of terms which one side or both say the core element doesn't exist or is invalid. The best that WP can hope to do is identify what the quarrel is about. Pincrete (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Activist article

I am not a wikipedia regular, so please pardon any lapse in protocol. I just came to this article because I heard the title phrase in the media. I just want to comment that this article is not written in a neutral and informative way. It is obviously an attempt to attach a label to a vague set of enemies or critics of some progressive viewpoint, in order to create some kind of guilt by association. Status Quo Marilyn (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but on Wikipedia we rely on what reliable sources say, not one person's opinion. (t · c) buidhe 20:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Then please update the article with reliable sources and a neutral point of view. The article states that “gender ideology” is a moral panic and conspiracy theory— which are value-laden judgements. But then it creates its own conspiracy theory about an “anti-gender movement” complete with origin stories and main bad guys, and hardly anyone has ever heard of such a “movement.” Status Quo Marilyn (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

There are three seemingly good references on that content. So far you have offered nothing by way of sources to counter it. If you have anything then we will consider it but you can't just come here with a personal disagreement of opinion and expect us to change the content based purely on that. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Stop playing games; you know this article is an *argument* and an attempt to lump a bunch of things into “the enemy”. If you want to make these arguments, submit a paper to a critical theory journal or make a pamphlet to distribute on the street. You catalogue various conservative political events in various countries having something to do with LGBT or women’s rights, but there is no evidence presented that they are *connected* in any kind of organized *movement*. The only sources cited alleging such a connection are ideologically-motivated anthologies like the book of the funny title, “Populism on the loose,” not hard news sources. Furthermore, it is quite clear that this wikipedia entry cites *no opposing viewpoints*. Status Quo Marilyn (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this unproductive chatting got unrolled but, as always, we are willing to consider any additional reliable sources, if anybody has any to suggest. None were suggested above so there is absolutely nothing actionable here. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

consider renaming

Misleading title. This ideology isnt "anti-gender.' It maintains there are only 2 genders. it should be called "Transgender Skepticism." Jaygo113 (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Luckily Wikipedia uses reliable sources not some editor's opinion. (t · c) buidhe 18:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

the ideology isn't only about anti-transness. Tazuco (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

but I agree it should be renamed, it only covers conservative gender antagonism, not every antagonism. some transmedicalists are gender skeptical (more specifically nb-skeptic). radical feminists/TERFs are usually against "gender theocracy", but then again both have their own articles. gender nihilism remains as WP:FRINGE. Tazuco (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

consider deleting

not one statement in this article is viewpoint neutral. Jaygo113 (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

“I don’t like it and you won’t change it therefore it must be destroyed”— is that your logic? Dronebogus (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

"Identity politics is neoliberalism", OR: there is no such thing as leftwing criticism of gender ideology, DUH

This "encyclopedic article" completely leaves out leftwing criticism of gender ideology, e.g. the contributions of leftwing scholars like Adolph Reed and many others. From the contribution history, it looks like there are a few rather well-connected gatekeepers active on this page, as per usual on contentious topics. However, the current entry is an unsalvageable mess of neoliberal ideology. Even the title with its negation is really weird. As though there isn't anything like gender ideology advanced by purely self-interested individuals and groups. --2001:4DD1:DD37:0:7D53:C76A:AD90:1EB5 (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide verifiable RS that support your argument? (t · c) buidhe 16:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I already mentioned Adolph Reed. He wrote e.g. this essay which can serve as a valid and sufficient primary source for a simple assertion along the lines of "Adolph Reed is one example of a left wing scholar who has opposed identity politics with a specific focus on gender ideology." I'm sure that any editor acting in good faith can easily take it from there. --2001:4DD6:854C:0:79CF:811D:CC9D:44DB (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The linked essay is just an opinion piece, while this article attempts to cite high quality RS such as peer reviewed journal articles. Furthermore, I don't see how it's verifiably related to the topic of this article (the movement in opposition to perceived "gender ideology"). Thus citing it would be original research. (t · c) buidhe 17:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

consider explaining more about what gender ideology is + restructure

As others have pointed out, this reads like an activist article. We seem more concerned with emphasizing the supposed incoherence, and vagueness of the movement, instead of explaining what views of the movement are. Why doesn't the article start by summarizing the movement's views? Maybe a bit more explanation of what "gender ideology" and "genderism" is in the intro. These terms may be vague, but that doesn't mean we should simply focus on how vague they are. The critical scholarly opinions should obviously be included, but the decision to lead with this information before even a basic summary of its views makes it seem like a polemic. Not to be rude, but having the "empty signifier" critique at the top makes the article look really petty.

I am not too familiar with the wikipedia standard procedure, but this seems like it could be WP:Cherrypicking, or WP:Relevance issue (I am not super sure of this though). But regardless of the legalism, this betrays the spirit of NPOV and the defense that the sources are peer-reviewed, unfortunately, doesn't change this. Aspen cross (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

RS say that there is no such thing as "gender ideology". Nor is there a consistent set of beliefs shared by the anti gender movement (again as established by RS). What you've asked would require going against what RS say, which we aren't allowed to do (t · c) buidhe 14:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I think the current title and structure are OK. (Which is not to discourage people from improving the article further.) What the OP suggests would push us more towards recasting the article as Gender Ideology conspiracy theory or Genderism conspiracy theory in the style of Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. I don't think that is necessary and the mere fact that nobody quite agrees on what the alleged conspiracy is actually called makes it pretty much impossible to do correctly anyway. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Btw, I just checked where searches for "Gender Ideology" and "Genderism" go. Gender ideology redirects to this article and Genderism is a disambiguation page which offers 4 options including this one. This is good. It means that anybody searching for these terms will easily find their way to the correct articles explaining them. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe I am not asking you to go against RS, I never took issue with any source. I am asking you to use RS in ways that don't make it look like an activist POV. From Kuhar, Roman; Paternotte, David (2017) 256. (an RS used in the extensively in the article): "In the foregoing chapters, authors have identified five clusters of rights and issues attacked by anti-gender activists: LGBT rights, reproductive rights, sex and gender education, gender studies and democracy." This was from a section in the book called "OVERVIEW OF THE ANTI-GENDER MOVEMENT IN EUROPE." Why is this overview information not included in the intro but a specific section about the movement in Austria and "empty signifiers" is what gets put first in this article? It just seems like cherry-picking of sources to present specific information as if it was general, and not present general information at all. I propose that we use this quotation to define the anti-gender movement in opposition to "LGBT rights, reproductive rights, sex and gender education, gender studies and democracy", instead of using specific information to play an epistemic game of what is incoherent/meaningless.

@DanielRigal I think a recast in the style of Cultural Marxism is necessary because, as I allege, this article suffers from serious NPOV problems.

I think the problem is that we are getting too hung up on what "gender ideology" is and whether or not it is meaningless, when we should be focused on coming up this a summary of what the movement believes (which is possible without directly using the term "gender ideology"). I am not going to edit the article because I don't want to cause a counterproductive edit war if we disagree which it seems we do. Aspen cross (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we can say that, at least not unequivocally and in wiki voice. The article already says, "According to Kováts, not all the movements fitting under the "anti-gender" label (by opposing "gender" or "gender ideology") are overtly anti-feminist or anti-LGBT,[13] and the anti-gender movement is a novel phenomenon distinct from previous anti-feminism and homophobia". Although it seems to me that anti-gender activist are more consistently anti-trans than anti-gay I have no source to back it up (t · c) buidhe 20:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Bad article

Extended content

I humbly opine that this a bad article from the very reason that it doesn't describe what the so calld criticized "Gender Ideology" is exactly. 2001:44C8:4081:6E27:8C0D:C9FF:FE98:3A58 (talk) 07:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC) You should probably re-read the article's first two paragraphs. It directly addresses your objection. The issue that 'it doesn't describe what.."Gender Ideology" is exactly"' is a problem created by those who promote the idea of the existence of "gender ideology" - not the article describing the promoters of their not well-defined idea and how they use it. The advocates of the idea use it incoherently, and without a clear definition of their own, and so it remains incoherent and badly defined regardless how good or bad an article about it is. You can't wordsmith a not clearly defined idea into a clearly defined description of the idea. You CAN describe the background and usage of the term in practice. Which is what the article does. "Gender Ideology" is just flung at anything the (generally, but not exclusively, socially conservative) proponents of the term disagree with in the general areas of sex, gender, and LGBTQIA+ people especially. It more a snarl word than an actually well defined idea or philosophical position. Various sub-groups of people who promote the term are variously against (1) Equal societal, political, and legal rights for women and men, (2) Reproductive rights, (4) Abortion, (5) Sexual relationships outside of traditional male-female (only) Christian marriages, (6) Divorce, (7) The existence and acceptance of LGBTQIA+ people across the board, (8) SPECIFICALLY the existence and acceptance of transgender/non-binary/gender-variant people. As well as other random 'sex and/or gender' connected issues such as housing, employment and pay equity, education, child-care, or other things where 'traditional' Christian positions have actively disadvantaged various subgroups of people of various genders, sexes, and/or sexualities historically. Specific users of the term may use it to attack one, some, or all of the above things in their particular usage. There is not a unified definition or usage of it by the proponents of the term. 'The anti-gender movement is an international movement which opposes what it refers to as gender ideology, gender theory, or genderism. These concepts cover a variety of issues and do not have one coherent definition. Members of the anti-gender movement include right-wingers, right-wing populists, conservatives, and Christian fundamentalists. Members of the anti-gender movement oppose some LGBT rights and some reproductive rights. The term gender ideology has been described by academics Stefanie Mayer and Birgit Sauer as an "empty signifier", and by Agnieszka Graff as a "catch-all term for all that conservative Catholics despise". The idea of gender ideology has been described by scholars as a moral panic or conspiracy theory, as it alleges that there is a secret cabal out to undermine society. A report by the European Parliament linked the rise of the anti-gender movement in Europe to disinformation campaigns sponsored in large part by Russia.' Jerilyn Franz (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC) I opine that without a clear definition of what's being criticized it's better off without this article at all. 2001:44C8:4104:487A:349A:C5FF:FE67:EF26 (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC) I am intensely skeptical of the possibility that anyone cares about your opinion. It certainly has no impact on the viability of this article. Newimpartial (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Positive claim of lack of coherent definition

A person stating that their scholarship has not produced a coherent definition or that there are conflicting ones is not the same as stating there is definitely no coherent definition. I have actually read the book being cited and it doesn’t make the claim that is being alleged, so reverting it citing MOS:CLAIM violation is inaccurate.

Further the “by whom” tags are important to explain who is arguing what. Later on in the article those “by whom” claims are actually fulfilled so we should just include the names the first time their claim is made. Socksage (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

On the second point, I have no problem with including the names (which is certainly more appropriate than tagging). But on the first point, do any sources claim to have identitied a coherent definition? If not, the statement based on p. 23 of the cited source should be allowed to stand. Newimpartial (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Newimpartial here on both points. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended content

Probably, I was not clear. The entire article is adversarial, is meant to target a group. This is not scholarship, this is activism. It must be rewritten entirely to be balanced. There is no definition of antigender, why create an article on it? Do all anti-something fall into one category? Don't you realise that the article falls on all levels of scholarship and accountability? I want to read about what people believe, and then make up my mind about that, without you suggesting the way I should go about it by labelling people who think differently (culturally, religiously, politically) as one movement. Please, these issues are serious, do not remove NPOV until they are solved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:A:A0B:4100:B856:6D90:C045:7F9A (talk) 09:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC) @2003:A:A0B:4100:B856:6D90:C045:7F9A Most of your complaints are vague. NPOV is reliable-source non-interference, not centrism. LightNightLights (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC) @LightNightLights the death of neutrality right here. 42.125.117.185 (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Added more groups to the lead but they were deleted.

per above

I used the same source as the other groups that are mentioned. Why delete just the groups that are left of center? https://www.gwi-boell.de/en/2022/02/03/the-transnational-anti-gender-movement-europe "However, there are also members of the European Parliament representing these views within the European People’s Party (EPP) and the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) groups ([16]: Zacharenko 2019)." The alliance of socialists are socialists, as the name suggests. Why can we not include socialists? If I were a betting man Id be assuming its because some people want to push this article in one direction and that person or persons do not have any interest in neutrality, they just want to be activists. RobStrong80 (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC) You haven’t reached a consensus above, and now you’re assuming bad faith. If I were a betting man I’d say you’re impatient and trying to right WP:GREATWRONGS instead of actually listening to other people’s opinions. Dronebogus (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Hang on a second. I was told if I get a source that mentions other groups then it can be changed. I used the exact same source that has already been used. Its pretty clear that there are more just right wing groups pushing back against this. I would love to hear from Newimpartial why they removed socialists and leftists from the article. A conversation would be great. RobStrong80 (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Just because a MP is part of a particular parliamentary group does not mean they are personally a "socialist or leftist". You need a source that says the anti-gender movement includes "socialists or leftists". See also WP:OR. That said there may be some sources that discuss collaboration between anti-gender proponents and the so called "gender critical" movement, which may be worth mentioning. (t · c) buidhe 08:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC) You have it backwards. If you are in a socialist party you will suppport socialist policies. Demanding trans women be allowed use the same saunas as women isnt a general socialist policy. Do you think unquestionable support for trans comes before support for universal healthcare? RobStrong80 (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC) I’m still struggling to see how “some socialist party members support ‘anti-gender’ politics” is relevant to the point that it’s mostly right wingers. Or is this “if trans rights are not a traditional socialist policy then you must acquit”? Dronebogus (talk) 13:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Biased article

Off-topic

At the start the article just mentions right wing groups and tries very hard to make it sound like only extremists are pushing back against this. If I find liberals, feminists and left wing polticians that also have similar issues can we add the to the opening too? 42.125.117.185 (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC) only if it's published in a reliable source, and only in accordance with WP:DUE. Equivamp - talk 14:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC) Sure. I'll use the same link that's already been used in the article. https://www.gwi-boell.de/en/2022/02/03/the-transnational-anti-gender-movement-europe "However, there are also members of the European Parliament representing these views within the European People’s Party (EPP) and the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) groups ([16]: Zacharenko 2019)." Can we include "socialists and Centre left" in the opening alongside far right etc? RobStrong80 (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC) This could be WP:UNDUE if it’s still mostly right-to-far-rightists pushing this. Dronebogus (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Whats "mostly"? How would you quantify that? Would it not make more sense to say "some socialists"? RobStrong80 (talk) 08:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC) By calling out what appears to be a small minority in the lead it would suggest that there are more of them than there actually are. Most groups have memberships that draw from the entire political spectrum to some degree. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Seemingly off-topic sidebar not motivated by WP:RS. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 09:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC) @331dot but by excluding them it makes it seem like only a few fringe far right groups have an issue with the gender movement. That isn't the case. The vast majority of the world support trans sports bans. The vast majority women don't want to share a sauna with a woman with a penis. Pretending it's only the far right makes this page extremely biased. 2001:268:9A75:C57E:0:48:FB01:1201 (talk) 08:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC) I hope you have citations to support the statement "the vast majority of the world support trans sport bans". The "vast majority of the world" at one point supported slavery, segregation, and keeping the poor and women from voting(and some people still do support these things), but I digress. The issue here is what to call out in the lead and how without providing undue weight. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Echoing the sentiment of other editors: inclusion here might give the impression of greater prevalence than actually exists. Following the footnote to Zacharenko 2019, "some socialists" here is specifically SMER–SD and Romania's PSD, the "enfants terribles" [15]. These groups together comprise 11 of the S&D's 144 sitting members of European parliament. Although "some socialists" (as in, more than one) is demonstrably true, the majority (92% in this case) don't tend to invoke the spectre of "gender ideology". I would need another authoritative source putting this much or more emphasis to be convinced that inclusion is WP:DUE in the lead. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 09:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC) @RoxySaunders the way you have worded thst makes it sound that the other 92% have no issue with trans men in women's sports. Thats not going to be the case. And if we need a simple majority can I see that majority of any of the major left wing parties in Western politics supporting trans women entering men's sports? All I need to do is find quotes from reasonable socialists not supporting that position. There are gonna be a few. But as the goalposts keep getting moved can you explain what exactly is required to get "left wing polticians" on the lead? 2001:268:9A75:C57E:0:48:FB01:1201 (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Where did you get the idea that wanting to avoid either "trans men in women's sports" or "trans women entering men's sports" (which one) is synonymous with the topic of this article? What do reliable sources say about that? (t · c) buidhe 09:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC) @Buidhe what belief one would have to have to be part of "the anti gender movement"? Denying trans women acces to women's events wouldn't count? 2001:268:9A75:C57E:0:48:FB01:1201 (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC) What would be persuasive would be the existence of secondary or tertiary sources that feel comfortable lumping socialists together with the far right, right-wing populists, conservatives, and Christian fundamentalists when discussing "anti-gender" and "gender ideology". Currently the two political parties listed seem like outliers; I would be fine listing them by name in the body, citing Zacharenko. Your repeated invocation of transgender athletes is an unnecessary dogwhistle, and mostly off-topic given that this is only a scant fragment of that which is encompassed by "gender ideology" and "anti-gender". I invite you to test your hypothesis about the prevalence of transphobic beliefs among left-wingers, but conflating one as evidence of the other would be improper synthesis. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 09:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC) That is the point being made. Many people would be included, its not just a group made up of conservatives. Many people have issues, whoever put this article together is trying to hide that fact. And the use of transgender athletes isnt a dogwhistle, its a great big megaphone and its not me whos using it. If it wasnt for trans rights activists demanding trans women be allowed to compete alongside actual women then the vast majority of the world wouldnt have any problems with genders and trans. https://www.npr.org/2022/06/29/1107484965/transgender-athletes-trans-rights-gender-transition-poll Can we make the case in the lead that the majority of people are somewhat sceptical of the gender movement? RobStrong80 (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC) No, you’re using an unrelated topic (trans women in sports) as a way to Trojan in some kind of POV that the “anti-gender movement” is non-partisan and mainstream. Dronebogus (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC) @Dronebogus so you agree that most people are not 100% on board with the trans movement? So I think there must be a way to add that to the article. Make it known that it isn't anyway close to being only a far right position. 42.125.117.185 (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC) First there would have to be a gender movement, and I haven't seen any reliable sourcing that such a thing exists. Also, you seem to be using "anti-gender movement" to mean "opposition to at least one demand for the inclusion of trans people", but that isn't the scope of this article, nor is it what reliable sources on the topic use the term to mean. Newimpartial (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Use of confusing language

The lede used some difficult to understand language that actually had ambiguous and conflicting meanings. Another editor didn't like the edit and reverted it on the basis that an ambiguous quote is allowed, and warning against false balance. The reverting editor is incorrect. If the wording was a quote, that would make some sense, though the burden is on the editor to give context and make sure the quote (or at least its ambiguity) is understadnable to a reader. But this was not a quioute. Further, undue "balance" in this case would seem to imply we shouldn't ocnsider any other possible approach, when clearly the subject of the article expresses that "no need to provide that balance" position. See the history of teh last three edits:

• curprev 16:36, 3 April 2023‎ Dovid talk contribs‎  53,943 bytes +38‎  Undid revision 1146897295 by Maddy from Celeste (talk) Previous revert by Maddy gives irrelevant explanation, see talk page undo Tag: Undo

27 March 2023

• curprev 16:28, 27 March 2023‎ Maddy from Celeste talk contribs‎  53,905 bytes −38‎  It's not a problem to quote an ambiguous term that is used ambiguously (and the prev. revision actually introduced it in wikivoice). WRT "no clear definition", are you sure the source represents "opponents"? Beware WP:FALSEBALANCE. undothank Tags: Undo Reverted
• curprev 14:47, 27 March 2023‎ Dovid talk contribs‎  53,943 bytes +38‎  "Genderism" has conflicting meanings, let's avoid it (1:gender assignment separate form sex; 2:synchrony of gender to sex). Also, avering the lack of coherent definition is ambigious here (article subject undefined or gender theory it opposes is undefined), further confused by use of a less-available source. Further, it is an infamling statement, and esp. in lede should attempt to find balance. undo Tags: Reverted Visual edit

I'm not against the language, I just don't believe it belongs in the lede in a way that makes it impossible for the reader to undertsand what is being presented, and what the position of this movement is - it only states the position of those who deny the legitimacy of the movement. There shouldn't be revesion without discussion unless the edit is clearly problematic, and I don't think "Maddy" has made their case. Dovid (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

It's fine to explain that members of the "anti-gender movement" oppose what they call "genderism", even though that term is ambiguous. It would not be reasonable to limit the article to only perfectly defined terms, as the vagueness of the movement is a key characteristic. It's not neutral, and not supported by the sources, to say that only "opponents of the anti-gender movement" note the vagueness of its claimed focus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

This exactly; if the majority of our sources are those that "deny the legitimacy of the movement", then our article needs to reflect that. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's certainly true that the vast majority of reliable sources are not "favorable" to the subject (just check references or further reading). We shouldn't make a false balance for any issue, whether it's this or global warming. (t · c) buidhe 18:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Mud slinging

This article presents extremely blatant anti-Catholic bias, and makes sweeping claims about a branch of “right wing populist hate” coming from Catholicism despite no references backing these claims up. Furthermore, all of the examples of protests are relatively small and unimportant, which makes me question why this article needs to exist. This sort of dreck does not belong in an encyclopedia. 2603:7080:E935:FBA2:24EB:85E0:EEB5:80A5 (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It's perfectly well sourced and its Catholic roots are well attested. Maybe the article could do more to cover the way that it has spread into Protestant and Orthodox organisations, particularly given the Russian funding connection, as well as explaining its seeming secularisation by psuedo-feminist groups and others. As it stands anybody reading the article could get as far as the "later developments" section and go "Wait! What?" How did we get from there to here?" The solution is to explain it better not to pretend that it doesn't exist. DanielRigal (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The Catholic church doesn't hide its belief that assigned sex & gender identity are intrinsically connected such that they cannot be discordant, god-given and immutable. If you don't like it your issue is with the church not Wikipedia which only relates what the church teaches. (t · c) buidhe 17:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree and support your criticism, even being an atheist. Wikipedia unfortunately has become an extreme left wing platform. Paolo E F Maurício (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Extreme left ideology

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The author already starts by trying himself to disqualify the term "Gen. Ideo." and the groups that use it (performing an attack on people and not on the idea), when, according to Wikipedia's own guidelines, it should impartially expose the concepts and discussions around the term, however being able to describe the criticisms of both sides with base on sources, not criticisms formulated by him/herself (unless he/she considers him/herself to be a great source of information on the topic). Paolo E F Maurício (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC) Where in Wikipedia guidelines and policies does it say that? Also, the opening paragraphs have cited sources, which – according to an actual guideline – are not always necessary. LightNightLights (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC) The lack of guidelines in favor of impartiality does not prevent the author from observing ethics and intellectual honesty in a platform that is supposed to be an encyclopedia. And the existence of fonts is not enough, because it is not honest to select fonts of your biased preference. Paolo E F Maurício (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC) When the published reliable sources on a topic are consistently unflattering, the Wikipedia article could not be flattering without distorting the sources. (t · c) buidhe 18:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Blatant NPOV violation

Trying again. I dont know why this was removed earlier.

The whole article especially the lead is a shameless NPOV violation. Only far-left sources are referenced.

This erroneously creates the impression that this so-called movement is fringe. In reality, more than 60% of Americans and Britons believe that there are only 2 genders and sex is determined at birth, which is the basis of this "movement". This must be mentioned in the first few sentences. 2001:569:7E69:DF00:7CEC:4090:DE5B:618E (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I have restored the above comment, which was deleted by an IP user in blatant violation of WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS. Discussion about the treatment of the subject in the article is on-topic. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Your diff is nonsense. Public opinion about gender is obviously relevant to the article "Anti-gender movement". 50.221.225.231 (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done There is nothing actionable here. There is no actual meaningful complaint beyond the vague and unsupported claim that "Only far-left sources are referenced". The rest of the complaint is off-topic. This is not an article about attitudes or opinion polls about trans people. This is an article about the Anti-gender Movement and none of this kvetching is relevant to that. This thread has been removed by by multiple people as WP:NOTFORUM and yet here it is again, in all its pointless, moribund glory. If anybody else wants to roll it up (or remove it) then please do. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: You clearly have very strong feelings on the subject, but you cannot delete other users' comments (as you did here and here) simply because you're angered by them. The comment expresses WP:POV concerns about the treatment of the subject in the article, with reference (from reliable sources) to public opinion on gender, which is obviously relevant to this article. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

If this is getting personal, maybe you would like to explain why you dug up another anonymous user's off-topic ranting, which was correctly removed from this page per WP:NOTFORUM (not initially by myself) and repeatedly tried to reinstate it despite it obviously being mere unactionable kvetching? You clearly have very strong feelings on the subject, it seems. Anyway, this isn't going anywhere. The reason why the opinion polls are completely irrelevant here has been explained. This thread is purely disruptive and, again, I invite somebody to roll it up or remove it. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: Again, public opinion on gender is obviously relevant to the article. Your continued obfuscation fools no one. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it very obviously is not relevant. This is not an article about "public opinion on gender". This is an article about the Anti-gender Movement. The opinion polls did not ask anybody about the Anti-gender Movement. You are advocating for an improper synthesis in order to try to turn the article into a coatrack for your personal opinions about trans people and derail it from its actual topic, which is the Anti-gender Movement and not those opinion polls about other stuff. This is not going to happen. You need to stop pretending not to understand this. Please drop the stick before somebody decides to take it away from you. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I will also note that the original OP of this pointless thread has not been seen for nine days and seems to have completely lost interest in it. That makes these spurious attempts to keep it going even more egregious. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: No, it very obviously is not relevant. We all know that's nonsense. Again, your continued obfuscation fools no one. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I have explained the reasons and linked the policies. Please stop pretending not to understand. Also, you don't have to ping me every time you reply. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I have explained the reasons and linked the policies. No, you haven't. Public opinion of gender is obviously relevant to "anti-gender movement". No obfuscation on your part will change that. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH, WP:COATRACK, WP:NOTFORUM and WP:STICK are all linked above. I am not obfuscating anything. You are just pretending not to understand. Stop sealioning. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not even public opinion about gender though—just public opinion about trans people... regardless, it is irrelevant because there is no verifiable connection to the topic of this article. (t · c) buidhe 00:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

"have no coherent definition" in Intro

This part in the introduction leads to confusion among the reader. "Coherence" refers to how much something makes sense. A change should be made to reflect not if the definition makes sense, but how a consensus has not been reached in terms of a singular, concrete definition. Different people have different ideas for what gender ideology is, but this doesn't mean all of these ideas are "incoherent" on their face.

And just a side note (probably been mentioned before), but the title of this article doesn't make any sense. Nobody is against the concept of gender (I could explain this further but I'll leave it be for now), so this is also misleading imo. 142.117.132.77 (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources? (t · c) buidhe 02:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Repeated efforts at adding both sides to the lead

There has been a recent push by User:Zilch-nada to emphasize that this movement is also left-wing or is broadly feminist in some vague way. While some anti-gender movement participants do identify as left and feminist, sources do not take this at face value in the same way they do when talking about the anti-feminist and right/far-right aspects of this movement. Implying that these should be treated equivalent is false equivalence and would damage the neutrality of the article.

To put it another way, it's trivially easy to find examples of outliers, but presenting these outliers as part of the mainstream of this movement would be WP:FRINGE. Our goal isn't to catalog isolated facts, it's to provide context. Dumping these loaded, editor-selected examples into the lead without context isn't going to help readers understand this topic.

Grayfell (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll repeat what you just said above:

"some anti-gender movement participants do identify as left and feminist": You say this, yet there is not one mention of this in the article (you reverted my sourced edits). Accusations of editorializing are endless; I could counter you with the accusation of doing the same in you reverting my sourced, contextual edits.

I never said - nor intended to say - nor implied - nor intended to imply, that this movement is "broadly feminist" or "left-wing" in any way. This source reads that "Some individuals generally classified on the Left have endorsed [the movement]". I have also added this source, which @RobStrong80 wrote of in a previous discussion, describing groups of the European Parliament that supported it. I did not provide original research with that source, not describing the small portion of S&D members as "socialist" nor "left-wing". That analysis of the European Parliament is purely descriptive, and I described it almost word-for-word. The usage of "some" in Paternotte's writing does not imply that the movement is left-wing, simply that some on the Left (or generally considered thereof) endorse particular views. This does not cause false equivalence; the main culprits are obviously the Right, while other sources speak of a minority in feminist or left-wing movements.

While I of course agree with previous editors that the movement is not broadly linked with the left, nor feminism in general, it is important to note - as it is noted in the current article's wording - the overlap and link with trans-exclusionary radical feminism; TERF for short.

Your accusations of my own editorializing are not helpful. I am indeed providing context with the aforementioned sources; I am adding a small sentence of the minority in the Left, and noting the slight link with the TERF movement. This are not isolated facts, but sourced material citing the Anti-gender movement. Zilch-nada (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

If you did not intend to imply that, than you did not succeed. Your edits are not providing context, they are providing examples chosen by you to highlight a specific perspective. If it is important to note something, summarize reliable, independent sources which explain why it is important. The Paternotte source doesn't say what you appear to think it does.

For that quote, you have elided most of the sentence, which was from the middle of a paragraph, towards the bottom of the article, which was itself a blog post by an associate professor. That's underwhelming, to put it mildly. Paternotte's position seems to be that he dislikes the conceptual framework of calling the anti-gender movement a 'backlash' because it is too simplistic and can lead to other forms of reactionary politics (homonationalism is an example he cites). By his own admission, 'backlash' is the mainstream view of the topic. This is a subtle point that potentially belongs in the body, but abusing this source to highlight this one sentence for inclusion in the lead is cherry-picking.

As for the Heinrich Böll Foundation source, your addition appears to be a copy/paste from that source, which is a WP:COPYVIO or WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. You must use your own words, or if necessary, directly attribute brief quotes with attribution. By adding a single sentence without its surrounding context, this is again cherry-picking to emphasize a detail based on your own editorial opinion. That source also says, for example, that The strengthening and growing representation of right-wing populist parties in the European Parliament, but also in the European Council or the Council of the European Union, is leading to their increased influence in gender equality policy debates, for instance when it comes to blocking the term or concept of “gender” in official documents.[16] I don't know why you sought-out the one quote which mentioned non-right wing parties, but it wasn't appropriate.

Grayfell (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The point is; you know, and sources say - or at least mention - left-wing supporters. The fact that - aside from the sources I added - this article consists of zero mention thereof, is what I am concerned about. It is, in a sense, editorializing to remove said mentions. Those two sources I mentioned above both clearly mention the left; either in allusion to ideology or nominal political party. Zilch-nada (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The reason why I am focused on mentioning links with feminism and the left is because I believe it is strangely eschewed; eschewed by editors whom in bad faith I would call editorializing. But let's stop with that. Zilch-nada (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

See WP:DUE. If you search for sources which mention anti-gender and also "feminism" or left-wing parties, you'll probably find some, but this is the start, not the end. That's why I say this looks like cherry-picking. Look at entire sources and try to summarize what they are saying. Just because a source is reliable doesn't mean it is reliable in in every context, nor does it mean that every detail from any particular source must be included in the article. Grayfell (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be great to have an article about the cooperation between self-professed feminists and right-wing anti-gender activists, and if such an article existed it would be easier to summarize its contents here and tell what would be WP:DUE to say about it in this article. (t · c) buidhe 19:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I fear that we are still waiting on the scholarship and journalism that would solidly support such an article. We all know that it is a real phenomenon. There are people doing dangerous and unpleasant work uncovering the details but they are not Reliable Sources themselves and it isn't really sinking in at the academic and mainstream media levels yet, which is what we need to give us the Reliable Sources to support a whole article on this. I have absolutely no doubt that, in twenty years time, this article will exist but I fear that it will take some time yet for the Reliable Sources to wake up and cover it. Of course, if there is a whole heap of reliable scholarship that I am not aware of then I would be beyond delighted to be wrong about all this. DanielRigal (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• The first of those two sources is a blog post; even if it's a blog post from an expert, weighing a single-sentence aside from it equally to peer-reviewed sources is obviously inappropriate. And the second one doesn't even mention the left, nor does it describe any part of the movement or its supporters as feminist - your interpretation of it clearly is WP:OR / WP:SYNTH, in that you're trying to combine it with your personal interpretation or other sources regarding the people and organizations it mentions in order to imply a conclusion that it doesn't state. --Aquillion (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  Please note what I just mentioned above, with regard to that second source:

  " I did not provide original research with that source, not describing the small portion of S&D members as "socialist" nor "left-wing"."

  That is a valid source describing the views of the European Parliament, by party. I - as I said above - never brought original research into the article. Zilch-nada (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Misleading hatnote

This article is about the broader anti-gender movement, but it is misleading to characterize it as only "conservative or religious". Anti-gender politics is indeed often associated with right wing populism, the far right and ultra religious groups, but researchers have also recognised how people who identify as left-wing/far-left can take up anti-gender positions, for example in the TERF movement that has embraced anti-gender rhetoric and views for a number of years, and that is described as an anti-gender movement (within the broader anti-gender movement(s)) by several scholars (as also discussed in the article). Anti-gender politics is often studied by scholars through the lens of populism, and in studies of populism (in general), the traditional left–right divide has lost some of its importance in recent years (see also horseshoe theory).

The global rise of right-wing politics and disinformation campaigns has aided the growth of the anti-gender movement. There are significant overlaps in the discourse used by the anti-gender movement and right-wing actors: their resistance to globalisation and scepticism of international norms, nationalism, and racial anxieties, scapegoating, and the construction of conspiracy theories. At the same time, it is important to note that while there are considerable overlaps and interactions between the anti-gender movement and the far-right, they are not the same – left-wing actors can take up anti-gender positions, and right-wing actors can take up feminist rhetoric as part of xenophobic and racist argumentation.[17]

Given the fact that the article already discusses the anti-gender movement in a broad sense, including how anti-gender positions have been taken up by some on the left, it is most appropriate to describe it in the hatnote in a succinct, broad and neutral fashion as the broader anti-gender movement, without any specific statements on whether it is right-wing or left-wing. This can instead be addressed in more detail in the lead and article (i.e. how it is often associated with right-wing/far-right/religious politics, but also more recent developments). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Sources which link the anti-gender movement to the right and far right are common and almost overwhelming, including the one you have cited. That source is an editorial from the Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe, and may or may not be reliable and would only be usable with attribution as an opinion. However, that source, as with so many proposed on this talk page, specifically mentions that In some cases, “gender ideology” is also presented as a new leftist ideology based on communism, or as a neo-colonialist Western project. Even sources which mention left-wing participants recognize that this movement exists due to to vague right-wing bugbears and conspiracy theories about leftists. It is, as already discussed on this talk page and in the article itself, right-wing disinformation. "Gender ideology" is poorly-defined, so it is not surprising nor automatically noteworthy that this causes confusion, since it was designed for precisely that purpose. It's no use trying to soften the article with both sideism.

Horseshoe theory is a term from popular discourse that is not as widely used in academic writing. The left-right spectrum has always been an intentional simplification. It has not lost its importance per say, it is still shorthand for complicated issues. Readers will understand this. They understand that not everybody who aligns themselves with a broad political position will share all of the same positions in lockstep. We don't need to insult the reader's intelligence by mentioning that not everybody who supports a poorly defined pseudo-conspiracy theory votes for the same political parties.

So if you have a reliable source linking "horseshoe theory" or any other term to the anti-gender movement, propose it. Grayfell (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Um, who's trying to "soften the article with both sideism"? The only reason I can think of for why someone would deny that the TERF movement is part of the wider anti-gender movement is that they would shield the TERF movement from association with the wider anti-gender movement—in fact, defending the TERF movement seems to be the main interest of the editor who reinstated the old and misleading hatnote—in spite of the fact that scholars who study the anti-gender movement now increasingly discuss the TERF movement in light of anti-gender politics more broadly, and have long recognised how these anti-gender movements are intimately connected. Also, speaking of "softening", the description "conservative" instead of far-right can hardly be considered anything else than a euphemism. This is already an article on the broader anti-gender movement (with its significant far-right component, but also its far-left component), and it's appropriate that the hatnote accurately reflects the topic of the article. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand what you're saying, then. What, exactly, is the wording you are proposing?

It's easy enough to find reliable sources which describe the TERF movement as reactionary, which can be succinctly summarized as conservative. Using TERFs as an example of how the the anti-gender movement isn't exclusively religious or conservative only makes sense based on the contentious assumption that they are instead not reactionary. Why make that assumption, and why do it in a hat-note?

Since an overwhelming number of sources connect the anti-gender movement with right wing and the far-right, it makes sense to me to use this in the hat-note, as well. Above, and in the article's recent history, we have editors trying to downplay the anti-gender movement's connection to right wing and far-right politics. Reliable sources emphasize that the anti-gender movement is extremely poorly defined and based on intentional misinformation and contradictory assumptions. Using the existence of TERFs to imply a more specific definition of the anti-gender movement is WP:OR, and is disputed by the body of the article itself. Grayfell (talk) 06:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

It does seem to move in the direction of alliance between TERs gradually losing the F and the conventional anti-gender far right (at least in English speaking countries), but Wikipedia is conservative and far from all sources have made this jump. (for example the 2023 special issue on anti-gender in EE, which has minimal discussion of feminism and where it's mentioned anti-gender is opposing feminism).

Furthermore, terfs are mainly an anglophone phenomenon, and one must strive to avoid anglophone bias. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The above comment was in response to this edit[18] by an editor known for defending the TERF position in other articles, and I made my proposal clear both in the edit he reverted and in my comment above, that the hatnote should be "the broader anti-gender movement" instead of "the conservative or religious anti-gender movement" in light of the existing content in the article, and developments in the new article on the TERF movement which I and several scholars consider a part of the wider anti-gender movement, as sourced and discussed in several articles here. In other words, it's a matter of changing the hatnote from a more specific and somewhat problematic ("conservative" rather than far-right or right-wing populist) description of the movement, to a less specific description precisely because the anti-gender movement is poorly defined, and because it's better to address this in a more nuanced manner in the article. Talking about anti-gender as exclusively a right-wing phenomenon was very common when the anti-gender movement initially came to public attention about a decade ago, but less so today. The hatnote "the broader anti-gender movement" doesn't include any new information, it's just a summary of what's already there, in this article and the new TERF article, and merely conveys that this is the main article on the anti-gender movement. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

anglophone phenomenon

How do you know this? How many countries have you quizzed on this subject? Nothappycamping (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The TERF movement has a presence in many countries, even though it's particularly strong in the UK. But it doesn't really matter here. The issue here is the simple description "the broader anti-gender movement" in the hatnote, based on the content that is already in the article. The hatnote is supposed to be succinct and merely serves to distiguish this article from other articles, in this context specifically the article on the TERF movement which is in fact linked to or considered part of the anti-gender movement by many scholars, as discussed in the TERF article. Therefore it's unfortunate to have a bombastic claim in the hatnote here that the anti-gender movement is exclusively a "conservative" phenomenon (a euphemism anyway, since it's primarily a right-wing populist to far-right phenomenon, rather than a mainstream conservative phenomenon as most Europeans would understand it). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Amanda A. Brant is it a movement though? This article is based on a false assumption, that there's some some sort of world wide organisation against trans people.

Christians in the US and TERFs in the. UK both have some agreement on trans issues. But that's it. There is nothing in the article about what these issues are and what ties them together.

And as I said before, none of these groups even use the phrase "anti gender movement". The only crowd that do are the, for the want of a better phrase, the pro trans rights groups. Nothappycamping (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

As the article states, trans rights is only one of the issues engaged by the anti-gender movement. The article is based on what RS say not on your belief that there is no connection between the phenomena described in the article. (t · c) buidhe 16:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

For the purposes of the hat-note, describing this movement as "conservative or religious" differentiates it from postgenderism, which is obviously very, very different from what this article is talking about. Rephrasing this to be about the "broader anti-gender movement" would defeat the purpose of the hat note by introducing confusion over the scope of this article as it relates to postgenderism. The hat note isn't saying that it is exclusively conservative. Grayfell (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Would anyone really confuse this movement with postgenderism, a very different movement with no connection to the anti-gender movement? Unlike postgenderism, there are close links between the gender-critical movement and the anti-gender movement, and it's important to reflect the relationship between those two movements accurately. The anti-gender movement is commonly studied as a form of populism, so we could say "this is article is about the broader populist anti-gender movement". --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

"Anti-gender" is potentially very confusing as a name. Intuitively it would make more sense if applied to something like postgenderism which is (simplistically speaking) opposed to gender itself. The hat note is so readers know whether or not this is the correct article, and the only way for that to work is to provide this minimum amount of context. Calling this "populist" is itself pretty difficult to define, so I don't think this is clear enough for a hat note. Grayfell (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe it's called anti-gender because its proponents want to abolish the concept of gender. That's what they share with postgender/ gender abolitionists, but instead of replacing it with free choice in identity, expression, body modifications, etc. they instead want to abolish free choice in this department (eg drag bans, transgender healthcare bans) and replace with sex essentialism where everyone is socially and/or legally required to act in a manner "consistent" with their assigned sex. (t · c) buidhe 05:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe who's "they"?

This whole wiki page sounds conspiratorial. Nothappycamping (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Proponents of the anti-gender movement, although likely they have different means of achieving their goals and not all support Putinist methods. (t · c) buidhe 06:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe you think that a person who has issues with trans people share the exact same issues as TERFs in the UK?

This is what's wrong with the page. It lumps all these groups together and makes them all out to be puritans. Nothappycamping (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• you think that a religious American who has.....

Nothappycamping (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

?? Plenty of UK based TER"F"s and religious-right Americans actually support the same means to the same ends when it comes to trans people, for example bathroom bills and conversion therapy. But we're moving into WP:NOTFORUM here and the article needs to follow what the reliable sources say about the topic. (t · c) buidhe 06:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

When I first heard the term, I did assume it referred to something like postgenderism. Not to get too bogged down in this, but the anti-gender movement's push to abolish gender doesn't make sense when applied to "gender" as used by people who work with the term. It only makes sense when applied to an idiosyncratic definition of "gender" that, among other things, intentionally ignores the sex–gender distinction. Grayfell (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this thread, as a whole, is going anywhere but this bit definitely isn't going anywhere on-topic.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have read the entire article and it definitely caricatural. Not up to the encyclopedia standards. Beginning to the topic. "Anti-gender" is a bias terms should be replaced with "opposition to the gender theory" All the scientific point of view are from social science. I don't see any views by biologists. The tag unbalanced must be applied. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia not a space to do the promote or defame any idea. Neutral tone is mandatory even in the talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.113.225 (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC) This isn't an article about biology. It is an article about a social/political movement. You have clearly not understood the article at all. To ask for opinions from biologists here makes as much sense as to ask for opinions from astrophysicists in an article about music. There is no actionable suggestion for improvement here and you have given no reason to apply tags. DanielRigal (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC) @DanielRigal there is no article titled "opposition to transgender laws" but there's one called "trans genocide" and its longer than 90% of wiki articles. It's quite obvious what kind of people are running the show these days. Nothappycamping (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)