Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Feminist support" isn't well-defined

Also see:

• Talk:Radical feminism#"Trans inclusion" isn't well-defined
• Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics#Dworkin's position should be moved somewhere else, don't know where

In line with the concern I raised in the talk page of the Radical feminism article: it's entirely unclear what "support" means here. I think it was a very good change to split the old "Feminist criticism" section into many sections that elaborate on particular topics (socialization differences, SRS, exclusion from definition of "woman", etc.), and the same should be done with "Feminist support". Otherwise, the reader is misled into sort of a black-and-white perspective where someone has to be either in support of everything transgender activists say, or in opposition to it all. The problem with this is seen clearly in e.g. the case of Andrea Dworkin, who transgender activists in my experience often try to claim as a token "pro-trans" radical feminist, and this article arguably does the same right now. In fact, Dworkin never once stated that she sees transwomen as women (she only talked about "transsexuals"), and neither did she voice an opinion on whether they should be allowed entry to female-only spaces. Sex reassignment is the only matter she once wrote on (in her first book only, but nonetheless). This is, by the way, why I insist on keeping the mention of the debacle about whether she "wasn't transphobic"; it serves to give readers more context and perspective. If the mention of Dworkin's passage on SRS were to be moved into the section we have about SRS, then the mention of that debacle would be redundant too IMO. The addition of Margaret Atwood to the section is a little similar. Apparently, in an interview, she verbally distanced herself from some kinds of feminists (the baddies, presumably), which makes her a "pro-trans" feminist (one of the goodies). We don't see any elaboration on her positions, just which camp she puts herself in. The article should not play along this simplistic "pro/anti" grouping, and actually tell us about feminist views on transgender topics. I'm not sure if I would suggest removing her mention, but maybe it should be moved to the "feminist exclusion of trans women" section instead. That leaves us with the paragraph about Judith Butler, and I'm still not sure where that best fits. Taylan (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the "feminist support" title is trite and vaguely absurd, and that further specification is needed. However, what this draws attention to is the fact that we currently have an article that is manifestly UNDUE, in that it overrepresents radical feminist opinions against other currents of feminism while simultaneously emphasizing trans-exclusionary over trans-inclusionary perspectives. In a context where, for the last decade or two, most feminist organizations and most feminist academics take trans-inclusionary positions, the article would lead the casual reader to the opposite conclusion, perhaps due to some especially "dedicated" editorial work. Newimpartial (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Biological Differences Section

Propose section after (or before) Socialisation Differences called Biological Differences. This section will discuss feminist propositions around whether transmen and transwomen change sex in any meaningful scientific sense. For example, radical feminists argue that transwomen are not literally women because they are biologically male.

This article explains feminist viewpoints, and yet this key perspective does not have a subheading. Whether or not editors personally agree with the statement that transwomen are biologically male (and vice versa), it is a central part of what feminists say in this debate. The article is not short: there is already an extensive section discussing a particular slur, so there is room for this.

One pertinent link: Germaine Greer has stated on an interview with the BBC that sex reassignment surgeries do not change transwomen into biological women. [1]Foggymaize — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foggymaize (talk • contribs)

This was added to the article itself, but clearly intended for the talk page, so I have moved it. -sche (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

While a discussion of this topic could certainly be added, if sourced, it seems to be very closely related to the Trans-exclusionary/TERF position already discussed in the article. Also note that #notallradicalfeminists adopt Trans-exclusionary or biological essentialist positions; for example, there has been a strong cultutsl-essentialist current for as long as there has been radical feminism.

Additionally, any new additions to this area need to be appropriately sourced, as they are bound to be controversial. Newimpartial (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

There's a real debate around essentialism vs. constructivism which might be worth discussing further, but I'm not aware of anyone who argues that people can literally alter their chromosomes. That's really a straw man argument, and it would not be neutral to adopt that framework for the article. Nblund ^talk 17:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

That is certainly true, but it is also true that there are significant differences of opinion, inside and outside of feminism, about the relevant salience of chromosomes, anatomy, and hormones in defining "biological" male- and female-ness, in addition to the debates contrasting biology with socialization and with gender identity. Newimpartial (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Contributors, TERF is a slur. It is unconstructive and combatitive to use it without inverted commas in this discussion about feminist viewpoints.

Now, back to work on the proposed added section on the page: Here is an article from the Spectator stating that a feminist group in the UK has gone public with stickers stating that women do not have penises. . The feminist group is clearly invoking biology when they suggest that people with penises are not women. They argue that women are adult human females, not adult human males, i.e. people with penises. They are not invoking socialisation, they are invoking biology.

A more general point. A previous contributor has suggested not including a biology section because it reflects an argument used by "TERFS". This is a page covering feminist views on transgender topics: it profiles feminist attitudes. It is not an article about trans activist views on feminist topics. Perhaps there ought to be one. Whether or not one agrees, a number of feminists argue (invoking biology and science) that people with penises are not women, as in Germaine Greer's interview and as reported in the Spectator above. Foggymaize (talk) 21:36, 14 Septembthesebthinfsbeegenmaize

Foggymaize, let us be careful to cite people as saying what they are actually saying. So the "women don't have penises" argument is an appeal to anatomy (which can be modified by surgery), rather than an appeal to chromosomes or, say, hormones (the latter at times being used to classify gender in sports, for example). We can only conflate these things when our sources actually do the same.

I don't recall anyone suggesting that biology should not be mentioned because it was a "TERF argument". What I said, at least, was that we already have a section dealing with Trans-exclusionary positions, so if there are such positions that explain themselves in terms of aspects of "biology", then that might be the right place to provide a (well-sourced) discussion of these positions. Newimpartial (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Newimpartial Totally agree - just using chromosomes as an example - my point is that I don't see anyone actually asserting that it is possible or desirable for a gender affirming surgery to completely change ones "biological sex".

@Foggymaize it might make sense to say that people like Greer tend to adopt a biologically essentialist viewpoint although I think the article already discusses that fact. However, we should not pretend that Greer's position is fundamentally rooted in her understanding of human biology. Nblund ^talk 17:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Obligatory complaint about misuse of "biological essentialism": the term biological essentialism refers to beliefs about certain personality traits of people being bound to their inborn nature. E.g. the idea that people born into the female sex have a natural inclination towards stereotypical femininity. A semantic argument such as "women by definition do not have penises, since they are of the female sex" is not an example of biological essentialism. The popularization of this misuse of the term is probably a result of psychological projection on behalf of transgender activists, who have long been accused of gender essentialism by feminists. Taylan (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, the definition doesn't actually say that, but since we're being pedantic: you're not at all obligated to offer opinions on trans activists that do nothing to advance the discussion. If anything, it is obligatory that you avoid these kinds of digressions from the topic on article talk pages. Nblund ^talk 13:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not a digression, since you've attributed "biological essentialism" to Germaine Greer and other feminists in relation to their views on transgender topics, and I was explaining why that's wrong. The Oxford definition I linked very much talks about personality being attributed to people's nature, and explicitly mentions gender essentialism as a prime example. The line "women don't have penises" is just a nod to the literal definition of woman (adult human female). It has nothing to do with biological essentialism, which is a completely different concept. Taylan (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

"personality, or some specific quality". In this case Greer is insisting that a specific quality (womanhood or female-ness) is essentially bound to a biological characteristic (external genitalia). This idea has been discussed in relation to trans identity in peer-reviewed literature going back at least a decade, and it's clear you understood what I meant. So, it seems less like you were making a relevant clarification about article content, and more like you were using the talk page to air a personal grievance about a widely-used term. That may be therapeutic, but its disruptive for everyone else. Nblund ^talk 17:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

You can put down the abrasive tone. The full quote is: "or some specific quality (such as intelligence, creativity, homosexuality, masculinity, femininity, or a male propensity to aggression)". All examples relate to personality. To test your hypothesis that the definition is meant to include your definition, let's try plugging "having a penis" into the sentence: "The belief that [having a penis] is an innate and natural ‘essence’ (rather than a product of circumstances, upbringing, and culture)." That makes no sense, as humans don't grow penises as the result of social circumstances. To reiterate: you're abusing the term "biological essentialism" and misattributing it to Greer & co. This is relevant because the article we're talking about is about feminist views on transgender topics; I'd like to deal with this abuse of the term before it makes it into the article. I'd also like to avoid other editors being confused with this abuse of the term, since it will affect how they think about and edit the article. By the way, the link you provided only brings me to a log-in page, but if transgender scholars were abusing the term ten years ago, that just means they've been abusing it for a long time. That's not surprising, given that tensions between feminists and transgender activists date back at least to the 80s. Please let me know if you have a reliable source that explicitly provides a different definition of the term. Taylan (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The language would be: "the belief that [being a woman] is an innate and natural essence rather than a product of social circumstances" - in other words: nature and biology constitute the essence of womanhood. This version may be un-gated for you, but the author is a law professor, not a trans activist, and this framing shows up consistently in peer reviewed academic literature in medicine, psychology, and political science. The term is also used - and probably originates in - biology, where it refers to the notion that "[t]here are a limited number of fixed, unchangeable "ideas" underlying the observed variability [in nature]" - as opposed to the idea that biological taxa are mostly constructed for the benefit of biologists. For whatever it's worth, I don't think we need to use that precise term in the entry, or even mention Greer at all, but there is a word for people who believe that biology is the essence of womanhood. Nblund ^talk 19:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Robert Jensen?

I don't understand why he is listed considering, after reading the citation, he seems completely fringe and his opposition to transgender people is pretty much based on his own imagination. ShimonChai (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

You're doing better than me, I couldn't get through the article. I support removing his paragraph. Spacepine (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this person is not a significant feminist, Foggymaize (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

San Francisco Library exhibit and section on TERF terminology

I think an edit summary got lost in the shuffle, so I wanted to explain why I removed this anecdote about an art exhibit at the San Francisco Public Library. The Feminist Current may be notable enough to warrant citations for opinions (although it seems overdone in this section), but it isn't reliable for claims of fact. The art exhibit was not widely covered elsewhere, but other (also not reliable) sources argue that key context is missing for things like bats and barbed wire. Covering this in full seems WP:UNDUE, and covering it by relying solely on an online magazine with an obvious editorial slant doesn't seem WP:NPOV.

More broadly, the section seems to cite a bunch of random instances where the term was used, and it relies entirely too heavily on columnists who are critical of trans inclusion. I tried not to be too heavy handed here, but I'm not sure why a story about protesters at a Vancouver library is useful for the section. Nblund ^talk 18:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

"Criticism of feminist viewpoints" section

I tentatively renamed this section "Criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints", because it seems to only be about criticism of trans-exclusionary views. (I didn't name it "...trans-exclusionary feminist viewpoints" because per MOS:HEAD "feminist" is already covered by the article title.) However, I'd like to pose a deeper question:
Instead of taking all instances of people making trans-exclusionary statements or arguments and getting pushback, and putting them into one section, would it make more sense to move each instance to sections for the arguments the people were making, and/or sections where the people are already mentioned? Think about if e.g. trans-exclusionary people's criticism of Atwood for her trans-inclusive comments were to get enough traction in reliable sources to be deemed appropriate to include: would it make more sense to put the criticism next to her comments, or in a separate section? Such a restructuring would also highlight cases where people haven't made particular thought-arguments at all but have just made generally disparaging comments about not accepting trans people, and gotten pushback, which the current article structure is not very well-suited to handle even though it seems (from the number of examples of it we cite) to be a recurring 'viewpoint'. -sche (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if you have scanned the above talk, but there was a large discussion on the previous name and at the conclusion of that it was changed to its current name. Previously the article was structured like you suggest with headings for individual feminists. I rearranged it when the name was changed. It was a bit clunky as I didn't want to remove or add information when doing so and it was difficult to fit some information into headings. I was going to do some further editing if the restructuring stuck, but never go around to it. This is what the previous version looked like. I prefer to keep the article based on themes as opposed to individual feminist viewpoints as it is cleaner, makes for a better narrative, discourages the addition of excess bloat and is easier to assign weight to views. It definatley needs some streamlining though. AIRcorn (talk) 06:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it came across as if I was suggesting sections (headers) for individual feminists again; I'm not. I'm suggesting that the pushback against individuals for making particular arguments might be better placed in the sections where we cover those arguments and/or already mention those individuals — understanding that (based on the referenced contents of the section in question) this would require us to acknowledge in the entry's structure that one "feminist viewpoint" is "general dislike/rejection of trans people".

I've read recent threads and scanned the rest. Ctrl+F-ing "criticism of", I don't spot any prior discussion of this section's name. (Are you possibly thinking I was referring to the old "Feminist criticism" section? I'm referring to the former "Criticism of feminist viewpoints" section.) That previous name was inaccurate and misleading, potentially even POV, since by covering only [criticism of] trans-exclusionary viewpoints but calling that [criticism of] feminist viewpoints, it conveyed incorrectly that all feminist viewpoints were pro-exclusion.

-sche (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

One of the 'incidents' I was thinking of when I said that "restructuring would also highlight cases where people haven't made particular thought-arguments at all" (of the sort we have subsections on) but have just faced general pushback for general anti-trans attitude/actions, was this one, which another editor has now removed as part of a different kind of overhaul (thanks!). The incident just doesn't really seem noteworthy... -sche (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree that the article contains far too many anecdotes. Protests and intra-movement conflicts are important, but the article is supposed to be about feminist views - and so feminist philosophers should take center stage here.

The current structure places anti-trans viewpoints front and center, but these don't seem to be representative of contemporary feminism. Even trans-skeptical thinkers like Adichie don't appear to endorse the sorts of arguments that show up in The Transsexual Empire and other works from the 1970s.

For my part: I think something more chronological might be preferable. This article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy seems like a useful model for a chronological approach. It discusses people like Janice Raymond in detail, but it also discusses contemporary trans-inclusive views that are more relevant today. Nblund ^talk 01:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

"Unbalanced section heading"

"Feminist exclusion of trans women" is overly emotive and presents only one side of the debate- the idea that trans women are excluded from spaces they supposedly have a right to enter. This is an argument, and it is contested by radical feminists although not liberal feminists. This heading also does not describe the content. While liberal feminists seem in the main happy with this development in society, radical feminists have raised concerns about male bodied people entering spaces formerly reserved for women on the basis that they feel themselves to be women. Both of these are perspectives, calling the radical perspective exclusion is already making a morally loaded statement not suited to what needs to be a balanced encyclopedia.Foggymaize (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

What do the sources say though? Exclusion seems to be the common term. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Trans activist sources no doubt refer to the exclusion of males who seek to enter women's spaces. I have no doubt about that. Meanwhile feminists (the erstwhile subject of this article) prefer to use other terms such as safeguarding. A catch-all term is that both of these arguments can be described as perspectives. Foggymaize (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Foggymaize, please stop employing a false dichotomy that opposes feminists to trans activists many feminists of unquestionable credentials advocate the inclusion of trans women. Newimpartial (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

New Impartial (sic) you are conflating the views of liberal and radical feminists. Yes liberal feminists support trans activists. Radical feminists do not. This article should explain this via the description of their different perspectives. Now, do you in fact have an argument for using the loaded word exclusion rather than the neutral word perspective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foggymaize (talk • contribs) 05:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Foggymaize, as far as I am aware, there are far more than two flavours of feminism (e.g. all the left feminisms and cultural feminism, for starters); in addition to that, any one of them - including liberal or radical feminism - may be Trans-inclusionary or -exclusionary.

As far as the section heading goes, I agree that "feminist exclusion" is an unfortunate turn of phrase, but your proposed turn of phrase "feminist perspectives" would be worse since it would imply that all feminist perspectives are exclusionary. Prior to a more thorough restructuring of the article, "Exclusionary feminist perspectives towards trans women" would get the point across more precisely, I think. Newimpartial (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

By all means include other feminist perspectives such as left feminism. That is all that should be in this article - an exploration of the main feminist takes on transgender topics. You are totally incorrect in your take on inclusion as a concept. It is incorrct in particular to suggest that radical feminists would ever include biolgoical males - the people you are calling transwomen, in women's spaces. Radical feminism does not consider transwomen to be women. If a person believes this, they are not a radical feminist. Radical feminists such as Linda Bellos support human rights for all people. They also include transmen in women's spaces since they accept them as biological females.Foggymaize (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Please don't overstate your position, Foggymaize, beyond what the evidence supports, and don't use NOTRUESCOTSMAN argumentation. In reality, the interpretation of transwomen as "biological males" is not universal among radical feminists[2] [3] - let's stick to what the sources actually say. Newimpartial (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The onus is on you to prove the controversial point that radical feminists support transactivist ideologies. Supporting individual trans people who are gender critical doesn't count. The preceding comment was left by Foggymaize. I forgot to log out of the family computer (see this for disclosure). Sorry for any confusion. AIRcorn (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

And the two citations I just gave are "ideological" in that sense rather than offering personal "support" - they feature radical feminists who do not subscribe to the anti-trans "gender critical" ideology. Newimpartial (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes to the article

I undid a number of changes that were made to the "TERF" related content of the article, as these were quite clearly from a highly biased position. Here's a rundown of the issues:

• The intro was changed to imply that there is no clear evidence that "TERF" is associated with violent speech or actions against women. There is very clearly documented evidence of this, found in the cited source. Most of the tweets in question are still online. Reference to the term "hate speech" was also removed, even though that's clearly the topic of the cited article.

• The phrase "feminist journalist Sarah Ditum" was changed to "radical feminist journalist..." I left this in because intuitively speaking it seems easy to verify through a quick google search like "Sarah Ditum radical feminist" which reveals her own writings on the topic.

• The physical assault was reframed as an "altercation" even though highly reliable sources like The Guardian have clearly noted that it was physical assault and that the assailants are being sought by the police. If there are opinion pieces from pro-trans sources that claim otherwise, the article should be edited to clearly reflect these different framings and all facts related to the issue. For now I just removed the new references that were added because I don't have time to not only revert destructive edits to content I add but *also* strain myself to merge valuable contributions people make in between as part of those destructive edits. Please add those sources back again in an actually neutral way, if you have the time. E.g. say that this and that source has claimed that it wasn't really violence, or whatever. P.S.: there is a very clear YouTube video in which the whole thing is on camera, and the TransPlanet article seems to quite intentionally cut to a very small part of the video and distract from the larger picture. That's quite literally Fake News(TM). Here's the full video for those interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_d3ozhSE-U I just realized there is no blanket ban on YouTube links (I assumed there probably was) so I'll add this as an additional citation next.

• Maria MacLachlan's name was removed in reference to WP:LEAD or something... even though that part of the article isn't in the lead? Tell me if I'm missing something.

• MacLachlan is referred to as a radical feminist even though it's unknown whether she identifies as such / whether her political views can be clearly categorized as such.

• Reference to Meghan Murphy's position was removed even though she's a highly prominent feminist figure who runs Canada's biggest feminist journalism site and has taken part in government hearings on gender identity legislation. Please people, I know you hate the site with a passion but Feminist Current and Meghan Murphy *are* notable sources / reliable sources on radical feminist positions.

It makes me really weary when people make such destructive edits for ideological reasons, but I'm afraid I'll keep reverting such destructive changes unless they're actually justified. Obviously I have my own political opinion on this topic, but the way I'm going forth is by adding clearly sourced material that represents a notable feminist point of view on the issue, whereas the way the other side goes about it is by constantly claiming that transgender ideology-critical feminist positions are somehow irrelevant, an "extreme fringe", that even the most notable radical feminist news sources are "unreliable", etc. TaylanUB (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I made the changes in question, and they were neither destructive nor "biased" (they were a removal of a clear bias). Here is an explanation and defense of each change, and why they need to be unreverted:

1. As multiple other users have said (you have reverted each edit by all of them), "noted" ought to be changed to "claimed" in the introduction: the characterization of the sole incident (at Speaker's Corner) which you claim shows that "TERF" is "associated with violent speech and actions against women" is very much under dispute. Even if your characterization of the incident as a one-sided "assault" were factual and correct (and I will elaborate later on why this is not the case), a single incident does not in any way establish an "association" nor pattern of usage of the acronym "TERF." Additionally, differing opinions about the term TERF do not need to be in the introduction (and certainly not just a single opinion that it is a "slur") - elaboration on the term is discussed later in the article. Note EvergreenFir's comments about undue weight.
2. Since you did not revert this, I have nothing more to say on it.
3. The incident at Speaker's Corner, from all of the available evidence (videos and screenshots from said videos, and the one neutral article (in New Statesman) cited), was a two-sided altercation, not a one-sided assault. The event in question seems to have unfolded as follows, after the crowd of assembled transphobic radical feminists had been goading the trans-friendly crowd:
   1. MacLachlan begins to film trans-supportive protesters from a few feet away, aiming her camera at their faces.
   2. One protester from the crowd tries and fails to grab Maclachlan's camera.
   3. MacLachlan then advances on the protesters and gets in their personal space, attempting to record whomever tried to grab her camera.
   4. The protesters push her back and one of them successfully grabs and takes her camera (likely to avoid attempted doxxing and harassment over the internet).
   5. MacLachlan puts (and keeps) one of the smallest protesters in a headlock.
   6. Brief scuffle between the opposing parties.
   7. One of the trans-supportive protesters (the one with the initial unsuccessful attempt to grab the camera) punches MacLachlan, while the latter is still forcibly grabbing and restraining the other protester.

While there is much dispute over who can be said to have instigated the altercation, it is clear that the incident was very much reciprocal: this was not a case of say, a transgender person (or trans-supportive cisgender person) yelling "TERF" and randomly punching MacLachlan as she was walking down the street.

Additionally, it is clear bias to remove the sources I cited (TransPlanet, TheQueerness) while retaining the comparable opinion sources from the opposing side (Izaakson, Gillespie). The latter are no more reliable than the former, and removing only the former goes against WP:NPOV. Either retain all four sources in question, or none of the four (the second option seems preferable in the interest of neutral, reliable sourcing) - but to only retain the opinion pieces with which you personally agree is not acceptable. Also, there are two separate videos of the altercation which were shot from different angles. The array of still images on PlanetTransgender are taken from one video - however, PT also included the other video (the one you linked to above).

Also, giving this single incident so much weight within the article (and I noticed a couple users here questioning whether it should be included at all) does not make sense.

4. I did not make the edit re: including her name, and I have no position on it.

5. No, as many other people here have pointed out, Feminist Current is in no way a reliable source - it mainly consists of extremist opinion pieces written and self-published by Meghan Murphy. As RabV previously noted: "In particular, RS states questionable sources are ones that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. FC seems to only publish opinion pieces and is known takes extreme views on trans people". WP:RS also details the issues with citing self-published sources. Also, the way you describe these opinion pieces within the article (Murphy's articles, and the piece by Ditum) makes them out to be factual & neutral reporting, not biased opinion pieces. "Noted" is simply not an appropriate word to use to describe contested claims within an opinion piece. "Asserted," "claimed," "alleged," etc would all be far more neutral and accurate in the cases in question.

I would not have made the edits I made if there were not good reasons for them. Several other users have previously made very similar edits, and it has been only you that has, without fail, reverted all of them. The edits are constructive, not destructive, and work towards making the article more neutral and of better quality. And even with my previous edits, the article disproportionately represents the views transphobic radical feminists, without much mention of the trans-accepting views of most modern-day feminists and feminist theory. I'm unsure how you can accuse me and others of making these edits for "ideological reasons," when you have been pushing your own ideology throughout the article for months, and in light of some of your comments on this talk page (i.e. "Trans Activists are trying to manipulate Wikipedia" and comments below that make broad character judgments on transgender editors and so-called "trans activists" at large). 74.96.155.175 (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like to second calls to have Meghan Murphy's opinions removed, or at least explained. Opinion pieces by hate groups are surely not reliable Wikipedia sources? 23:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsnotfeelings (talk • contribs)

I was reminded of this incident and remember learning of this incident from @TylanUB:. Now that it is a year later it seems like it is less WP:TOOSOON. I think perhaps a dedicated article to this event and the aftermath between Maria Maclachlan and Tara Wolf might be better than including it here. It has much more press coverage than the initial youtube video now, in sources like the Telegraph. But, I wonder if there is a list of similar events that we might include either in the see also section or elsewheres.Fred (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Tara Wolf

Elaborating on this edit: the source doesn't mention Wolf at all and doesn't use the word "punch". MacLachlan and Wolf both fall under WP:BLP, so we should be careful about sourcing - especially because neither of these individuals are notable in their own right.

More importantly: ChiveFungi made this section a lot more neutral, but the more I read it the more I'm convinced that it's irrelevant to the section and probably irrelevant to the article as a whole. The section is supposedly about the use of the term TERF, but it seems like this incident (and several others mentioned in that portion of the article) are simply recounting specific incidents of conflict between activists. I'm not sure they're as important as they appear here.

I these incidents should either be removed or else moved to a separate section dedicated to conflicts between trans activists and a subset of radical feminist activists. I lean toward removal but I realize that might be contentious. Nblund ^talk 00:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Whatever the merit of this section, I think the recent edit to it is unworthy of Wikipedia. McLachlan did not merely allege that Wolf assaulted her. On 13 April 2018 Wolf was found guilty in a UK court of "assault by beating" and given the highest fine possible for a first time offender because of the seriousness of the assault. Wolf is now banned for life from working with vulnerable groups, cannot enter the US and is subject to immediate interview on arrival in many other countries because this is not a misdemeanour but a conviction for violence. And the relevance to TERF lies in the fact that this word was used by the defence barrister to describe the victim of the assault, by several witnesses on the stand to describe their "enemies", and of course formed a central part of the prosecution case regarding intent. If this section remains, it should be amended to accurately present the facts, not personal opinions. Small candles (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, the page has changed. Again.Small candles (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

You'll need reliable sources for those claims. None of those claims about the severity of the assault appear to be supported by the sources cited in that section. The last sentence is the only mention of the term "TERF" in relation to this case as it is currently written. It seems like the primary focus is the fracas itself. Nblund ^talk 23:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Haven't looked at the cited sources. I've got the sentencing guidelines which show what fine Wolf could have received and what fine was issued (highest possible in the circumstances). As for being banned from working with vulnerable groups that's due to how the CRB checks work with convictions for violence. They always show up even when spent, but have just doublechecked the guidelines and Wolf's age and mental health at time of offence may mitigate this effect in the future. As for the word TERF being central to the case, is the court transcript an admissable source? Or the judge's sentencing remarks?

Anyway, is it even worth adding all of this if someone else will just come along and edit it out again? Tbh I simply don't understand why this case is contentious. Are you all saying/thinking that mentioning this trans person assaulting a gendercritical person is somehow a claim that this is representative of trans people's attitude towards gendercritical people in general? That seems a bit far fetched. This was one incident that merely proves tensions do run high in this debate, but it doesn't prove or even suggest all trans people are prone to violence towards all gendercritical people (which to be clear is of course not the case. Trans people are no different from other people in this respect. Neither are gendercritical people). I would appreciate a quick explanation if you have the time. Small candles (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

To give my view on your last paragraph questions, I don't think it is worthwhile for you to add this based on the sources you have, and the reason I'm saying that is because you are suggesting adding WP:PRIMARY sources in a way that amounts to original research. Wikipedia articles are to be based on reliable, secondary sources and must also be DUE; as this article is supposed to be about feminist perspectives on transgender issues, I don't see how street fights at demonstrations are actually relevant to the topic at hand. Newimpartial (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Yah. WP:BLPPRIMARY is pretty clear that things like trial transcripts are not acceptable sources in this case. @Small candles: agree that this is not representative of the attitudes of either trans or gender critical activists. That's precisely the problem: the article needs to offer a bird-eye overview of these topics, and this whole section spends far too much time in the weeds. I understand this incident was symbolically very important to people who are passionate about this issue, but a dispassionate reader is not going to get anything meaningful out of that section. Nblund ^talk 03:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this incident is probably not necessary to understanding the term "TERF". It seems a bit WP:COATRACKy especially since TERFs love to bring up this one instance of a trans woman punching a cis woman as some indictment against trans women as a whole, while ignoring the harm done to trans women by TERFs such as Maclachlan herself who admitted a bad faith motivation for filming that day, and TERF groups such as Fair Play for Women who publish false studies attempting to portray us as more likely to be sex offenders[4] and put ads in newspapers calling for our rights to be restricted.[5] --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and boldly moved this out of the"TERF" section and reduced it to a very brief summary. It might make sense to cover this and other conflicts over the Gender Recognition Act in a paragraph. I think Small Candles's argument - that this proves how high tensions are - is a valid reason to include some mention of this incident, but we don't need to name the people involved or discuss the case in detail in order to communicate that element of the story. Nblund ^talk 15:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Without commenting much on how much detail is appropriate (I think there is an argument for retaining a bit more detail about the filming, trial misgendering, and 'side' of the person convicted), I want to say I agree it didn't belong in the section on the term 'TERF', to which it seems to have been only tenuously connected after the fact by one(?) (notably biased!) writer trying to politicize/frame it in that way; putting it in the 'TERF' section was basically accepting that framing, which was not NPOV. -sche (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

We should avoid the passive-voice "was left bruised", as though she simply walked into a doorknob or had a fall. A person assaulted her and was convicted of doing so, whether or not we name the person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.65.213.200 (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The current wording implies that the victim brought it on herself. That is unacceptable. A person assaulted her and was convicted of doing so. She was not "left bruised" in a "scuffle". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.65.213.200 (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this, I agree that we shouldn't describe it as a scuffle if that's not what happened and if the sources don't describe it as a scuffle. If it was assault, just state that it was assault, and don't include any unnecessary detail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

But the sources do describe it as a scuffle. The cited source says "It is difficult to tell in the clip what exactly happened – there is a scuffle that involves MacLachlan in physical contact with a younger person". This source from the Standard also calls it a scuffle that "Maclachlan admitted grabbing hold of Wolf's girlfriend and kicking her...adding that Wolf's partner, who was never identified, had kicked her first". Sky News calls it a "clash". Wolf was convicted for an assault, but the assault occurred during a scuffle that involved multiple protesters. I don't think this is crucial, but it seems like it is more consistent with the sources. Nblund ^talk 02:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying that I understand not portraying the matter as a fight involving a 60-year-old woman going toe-to-toe with one or more people if, instead, it's the case of one person hitting another or a few (or several people) hitting one person. Self-defense is different than just hitting someone without valid cause. It was Wolf who was convicted of an assault, not the 60-year-old woman. We are under no obligation to use the exact wording of a source. That stated, I don't see an issue with describing the matter as a scuffle since the sources do and it seems that the sources are referring to both Wolf and Maclachlan hitting (and/or others being involved), and since the Wikipedia article does state "pro-trans activists and a group of feminists" and notes "one pro-trans protester was later convicted of assault in relation to the incident." This incident is not something I've read a lot on and text on it in the article is not something I'm heavily concerned with. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Two of those sources are from before the attacker was convicted. Of course it's going to be a "scuffle" before the legal findings of fact come out. But now we know better - Wolf attacked her and was convicted. No one was "left bruised" from a fall down the stairs. Even the Standard, which says "scuffle", admits that the victim did not start it and points out that the attacker's claims of self defence or defending someone else were false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.65.213.200 (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Undue

I've added the {{undue}} tag to this page because, as has been mentioned in a few sections above, this seems to focus very heavily on radical feminism. The criticism section also seems quite inflated compared to the abundance of sources. It also almost exclusively focuses on trans women and not trans men, non-binary folks, etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

You make good points; it seems to me the biggest reason these previously-highlighted issues haven't been fixed is that no-one, including me, has had time to fix them (and especially to add trans-feminist and other non-radical-feminist views). Hopefully the tag moves things along. It might be helpful to make the section on trans feminism longer; that could relatively easily be done by summarizing more of the trans feminism article; it says a tiny bit about feminist views of trans men already. -sche (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah—I generally hate slapping a tag on there and hoping someone else will come along to fix it, but the issues seem pretty glaring. I will try to work on it a bit, but unfortunately I don't have as much access to scholarly sources as I used to. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Eh? From what I've studied on the topic, most of the critical debate -- from a historical aspect to modern aspect (but especially years past) -- concerns radical feminists' views and views on trans women. This is why the lead currently states, "The increased number and public profile of individuals transitioning coincided with second-wave feminism, and so most of the first statements and books were written in the 1970s." I wasn't around in the 1970s, but I know that those views carried on decades later. When one looks at the academic literature on feminists views on transgender topics, they mostly cover what this article currently covers. So I can't call the article undue. Perhaps if GorillaWarfare were to point to scholarly sources showing the unbalance she speaks of, such as where there is just as much talk about trans men as there is about trans women, I would agree with the "unbalanced" tag. Although there are men who are feminists, feminists (or those identified as feminists) are mostly women (the Feminism article goes into the identification issues). It's similar with regard to feminist commentary on trans women vs. trans men; there simply is not as much feminist commentary on trans men. Furthermore, although the term transgender is broad, the literature on transgender issues is usually about trans women and trans men, not non-binary people (although some people identity as both transgender and non-binary). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hm, I thought I'd added a sentence to clarify that I haven't seen as much discussion about trans men and nonbinary people, so that might be okay. Must have clipped it off by accident or never finished my thought. But right now I think that someone new to the subject would read the article and come away thinking that the majority of feminists do not support trans women—the article should either be clarified to explain that it's discussing radical feminist viewpoints specifically, or broadened to include other groups of feminists. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. I personally have seen more negative than positive views, but I'll look around for more positive views. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Whereas I have seen more positive than negative views, although admittedly I live in a fairly liberal state and run in pretty progressive political/feminist circles. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding seeing more negative than positive views, I mean in the literature. As for my personal beliefs, I am liberal. I usually don't discuss my personal views on Wikipedia, though, because not only would I rather that people not know much about me on this site, mainly because of the controversial topics I edit and the trolls/stalkers that I get as a result, but also because I try to stay as impartial as possible. Rivertorch (who's been away from Wikipedia since September and argued in the big trans woman debates seen here and here) is the only Wikipedian I've talked with a great deal off Wikipedia. We know some things about each other, but he still doesn't know me as well as my immediate circles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Would there be any mileage gained from dividing the article up into Liberal Feminist, Radical Feminist and Trans Feminist sections. AIRcorn (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

While anti-transgender feminist views are usually attributed to radical feminists, we should consider that there are a few radical feminists who support transgender people in one way or another or don't hold all of the views that other radical feminists hold. The New Yorker source I just linked to, when quoting Robin Morgan's anti-trans woman view, states, "Such views are shared by few feminists now, but they still have a foothold among some self-described radical feminists, who have found themselves in an acrimonious battle with trans people and their allies." The source speaks of Heath Atom Russell, a lesbian woman who once identified as a trans man and "hooked up with a middle-aged trans woman," and appears in Sheila Jeffreys's "Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism" book. Russell states that she knew that she was supposed to think of herself as a man with a woman, but said, "It didn't feel right, and I was scared." She proclaimed herself a woman again, and a radical feminist, though it meant being ostracized by many of her friends. There are also liberal feminists who have been critical of some transgender ideology, and people who are liberal who have been called transphobic (termed "liberal transphobia"). That The Daily Beast source cites Nigerian author and feminist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie (who is mentioned in this Wikipedia article), stating that "she conspicuously avoided saying that transgender women are women during a Channel 4 News interview—and in not one, but two Facebook clarifications thereafter—citing tired, decades-old arguments about privilege and socialization." and that "Adichie's was just the latest in a long series of examples of the left turning on transgender people precisely when they are at their most vulnerable." Additionally, there are some transgender conservatives, such as Blaire White or this author from The Spectator, who have been critical of some transgender ideology. And I've mentioned Blaire White here and elsewhere because there are transgender people who share her views, and transgender people with views such as hers keep being excluded (in part because of fears of increased bigotry) as though there is only one type of transgender voice or as though all transgender people think the same. They don't...since there is also disagreement in the transgender community. A lot of transgender people oppose and still oppose some of Caitlyn Jenner's views or Caitlyn Jenner speaking on transgender topics in a representative way; they (as well as a number of LGB people) couldn't understand why she was against same-sex marriage, for example. She supports it now, but that wasn't always the case. Some have felt that she's had a lot of male privilege and that this is why she has some of the views she has or has had. The trans author in that The Independent source I just linked to, on the topic of Jenner speaking for diversity on the behalf of trans people, states, "I can't help but ask: of the hundreds of thousands of trans people they could have chosen from, why Caitlyn Jenner? Far from a champion of diversity, Jenner is a republican and has for a long time been a vocal Trump supporter. She voted for him in the US election, and famously said she believed he 'would be very good for women's rights', even after the string of sexual abuse allegations that were made against him. Despite criticising Trump for his trans rights record, she was seen a month later wearing a 'Make America Great Again' hat – signalling not only that she still supports the US president, but that she also stands by all the nationalistic baggage that hat represents."

So I'm for including the diverse views of non-trans people and trans people in this article, as long as we don't give WP:Undue weight to certain views. Dividing the material in the way you suggested can be challenging, because, like I stated, there are liberal-identified people who are feminists and who have been critical of some transgender ideology, and liberal or conservative trans people. I think it's clearer to have a section about feminist exclusion and feminist support, so that all of the exclusion material is in one section and all of the support material is one section, and we avoid redundancy. Plus, people will wonder why we don't have a "Conservative feminist" section. Well, unless, you are suggesting we have one of those as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Catharine Mackinnon and Andrew Dworkin both seem to object to that view, so I think it's tough to sell that as a widely held view even among radical feminists. Mackinnon's statement on the subject is a particularly explicit repudiation of the "trans women aren't women" argument. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on this subject seems like a good model for the discussion here. Based on reading that and other sources, I think it's reasonable to conclude that the views of people like Janice Raymond were once somewhat mainstream, but are not well-regarded among notable feminist philosophers today. That doesn't mean that they aren't worth mentioning, but I do think they should be treated as "the views of a significant minority" here. Nblund ^talk 02:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you wrt your thoughts on the topic ("undue"). One thing I couldn't let slide without comment, even though it's at best a sideshow, but still: Janice Raymond's views were never mainstream; at least, not since her first book was published. We agree on all the main themes here. Mathglot (talk) 09:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Nblund, what part of my post are you responding to? I didn't specifically mention the "trans women aren't women" argument. So are you responding to what the New Yorker source states? I don't see that what the New Yorker states is outdated with regard to feminist views. It is just from a few years ago (2014). If you are stating that most radical feminists do not hold the "trans women aren't women" view, what WP:Reliable sources are there stating this? We can't assume this to be the case and go by assumptions when so many sources like The New Yorker attribute that view to radical feminists and don't make it out to be a minority view among radical feminists. The Wikipedia article is currently the way it is because of the prevalence of anti-trans woman views among radical feminists. Like this 2018 The Economist source states, "What is a woman? Who can be a feminist? These questions have been central to feminist theory and activism since the 1970s, proving to be particularly controversial in the relationship between feminist and transgender activism. In recent years, these questions have returned to haunt feminism. [...]. By the 1990s multi-faceted gender identities and experiences were embraced by feminist scholars who wrote against a biologically-determined feminist theory that excluded trans women. Similarly, the development of several queer movements positively acknowledged difference and argued against the understanding of identity categories as fixed. I am deeply saddened that in recent years there has been renewed antagonism from a section of feminism towards trans people, and especially towards trans women." The source does state that there is a "small number of feminists loudly opposing changes to the Gender Recognition Act" and that "anti-trans viewpoints are a minority position within feminism," but the source doesn't state that these views are minority views within radical feminism. It also states that these views "are championed by several high-profile writers, many of whom reinforce the extremely offensive trope of the trans woman as a man in drag who is a danger to women" and "while anti-transgender feminists are a minority, they have a high level of social, cultural and economic capital." Like I stated above, the literature on "feminist views on transgender topics" mainly concerns radical feminists' views and views on trans women. I don't see that anyone has yet to show that the literature on "feminist views on transgender topics" is not mainly about that. I'm looking in the literature (not just at media sources), and I'm not seeing as much about liberal feminists views on transgender topics, discussion of trans men or non-binary people. Even the term TERF has "radical" in it. And the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy source you cited notes: "Moreover, there has generally been an over-emphasis on MTFs in particular." Its "Conclusion" section also doesn't outright state that the feminist literature on transgender topics is mostly positive, but rather that the literature began as hostile and "As time has passed, it seems the possibility of productive interplay between feminist and trans theory and politics as well as solidarity between trans and non-trans feminist is being realized. This suggests a promising future for trans feminist philosophical investigations." I am currently looking at "Where Did We Go Wrong? Feminism and Trans Theory— Two Teams on the Same Side?" by Stephen Whittle, edited by Whittle and Susan Stryker. And, yes, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie stated that "trans women are trans women," which was obviously taken by critics to mean that she was stating that "trans women aren't women," but she didn't state "trans women aren't women." I noted the Adichie aspect because Adichie has been categorized as a liberal and is considered by critics as having engaged in transphobia with that comment, and she is mentioned in this Wikipedia article as having been criticized for that comment. As for outlines, I usually don't go by outlines of any source. I go by what should be covered and what weight to give it. WP:Preserve is a good policy to stick with. It states, in part, "As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia."

We could and probably should state that anti-trans viewpoints are a minority position within feminism, but there is no getting around what seems to be the literature mostly focusing on radical feminists' views and views on trans women (and that includes the authors criticizing those views), which, again, is why the article is currently the way that it is. Wording like "such feminists have a high level of social, cultural and economic capital" can help explain why the article focuses so heavily on anti-trans woman views and/or views that criticize transgender ideology. But the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy source has some material we should include in this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot: fair point, I agree

@Flyer22: I wasn't specifically responding to you, I was just making a general statement about what I think we should be aiming for when considering how to make the article WP:DUE. I figure it's worth trying to establish some explicit consensus here since some editors have argued that "feminists", "radical feminists", and "anti-trans feminists" are more or less synonymous when that's not really the case. I agree that we still need to mention people like Raymond, but I'm not convinced we need to transcribe every grievance and then mention trans-inclusive viewpoints in a small section at the bottom of the page if we all agree that the more trans-inclusive views are more representative of contemporary feminism. Nblund ^talk 23:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Nblund, you stated, "Catharine Mackinnon and Andrew Dworkin both seem to object to that view, so I think it's tough to sell that as a widely held view even among radical feminists." So I was wondering what you were responding to. I assume it was something I stated. We definitely don't need to mention every feminist with exclusionary or inclusive views. Instead, we should stick to including views from the most notable/most influential feminists (when it makes sense to do so). And I agree that we don't need to include every incident of exclusion (such as an organization doing the excluding), even when the matter gets some attention in the media. We should be more focused on the views themselves. I don't see that anyone here has stated that "feminists," "radical feminists" and "anti-trans feminists" mean the same thing. We've discussed to what degree/extent anti-trans feminists views exist and which feminists more often hold those views. The literature points to the anti-trans feminists views usually coming from radical feminists. But I did note above that even feminists who are not radical feminists can be seen as having one or more anti-trans feminists views. There are also different perspectives from the feminists themselves on whether or not their views are anti, transphobic, or hate speech. In Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's case, for example, she doesn't view her "trans women are trans women" comment as anti-trans/transphobic. As for "more trans-inclusive views are more representative of contemporary feminism," stating it is one thing, but covering it is another. Again, I'm not seeing as much about liberal feminists views on transgender topics. Most of what I'm seeing, view-wise, is about the clash between radical feminists and trans women. Again, even the source you cited above states, "Moreover, there has generally been an over-emphasis on MTFs in particular." That's what I'm seeing.

I would consider having a section titled "Radical feminism," "Contemporary feminism," etc., but I feel that redundancy would result in that case because different types of feminists will be in agreement on some things or in disagreement on the same things. Titles such as "Radical feminism" and "Contemporary feminism" could cover a lot of material. So I think it's better to specifically address issues, such as "Socialization differences," like we currently do and include the views from different types of feminists in those sections. Title-wise, I'm not sure what to do about the "Feminist exclusion of trans women" and "Feminist support" sections. Exclusion of trans women is a big deal, as made clear in the literature, and it's a specific issue. Really, the "Criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints" and "Feminist support" sections could be merged into one section, and broken away from the "Feminist exclusion of trans women" section. The anti commentary in it could be cut or moved to the main exclusion section, except for the material that needs context...or the rebuttals like Sheila Jeffreys specifically responding to being criticized for her views. What to title the merged section, I'm not sure. Maybe "Feminist support and criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints"? That's a bit long. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

People haven't made that exact argument in this talk page section, but browse through the previous discussions and you'll find editors arguing that radical feminism is definitionally anti-trans, and re-wording the article to imply that "feminists" in general reject trans people - so I do think it's worth laying out explicitly that this view is not supported by reliable sources and the article should not give the impression that it is true. Nblund ^talk 01:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the long and detailed response Flyer22Reborn. Sorry I didn't reply earlier, I am very busy. I read the New Yorker article and it was very interesting. It is good to see some sources mentioned that look at the topic as a whole rather than just presenting a persons view. That is always the best way to decide on what is due. I am happy to support and help out if possible in taking the article in any direction you deem necessary as I am familiar with your competence in areas of human sexuality.

I understand that the division I mentioned would be tricky. Even ignoring the redundancy of views themselves there would still be issues with classifying certain feminists and how to deal with the responses. I still like the idea of having a radical feminist focused section though as it is a main aspect in many of the tensions (as mentioned in the New Yorker article) and it could help with other issues presented above. So far the only real link to radical feminism comes under exclusion so straight away it is going for the radical equals exclusion vibe. It could maybe be a separate section to the socialization, exclusion and other ones and focus more on the conflicts (Wolf, protests, speaking engagements, TERF etc). Something like this was mentioned above. It maybe needs an overview section too before it goes straight into the meat of the views. This could be used to describe the situation without being pigeon-holed into one set of arguments, would help keep everything due and provide a nice intro into the topic. As to merging the "Criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints" and "Feminist support" could we not just leave it titled "Feminist support" as criticising trans-exclusionary viewpoints is support. It could then be added as a sub header if you feel it needs its own section. AIRcorn (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Aircorn. I thought about just keeping the section titled "Feminist support" for the reason you mentioned, but I wondered about the rebuttal material in the section. Some might view rebuttal material as not belonging in a "Feminist support" section. With this, this and this edit, you can see that even including rebuttal material in the "Criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints" section was questioned. But, yes, I could live with just going with the "Feminist support" heading after merging. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

No problem. We can't really write this article without having rebuttal material and it makes sense to include it all together. I think most editors here understand that, so I wouldn't let one revert stop you. It can be a bit of a slog to get changes happening, but I know you are familiar with the difficulties of editing in these areas. I don't think it is that bad, because despite our POV's I believe most contributors here just want to see a decent article on the topic. AIRcorn (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

A perspective from someone who just read this article for the first time: It seems that this article does not take sides but rather represents both sides of the controversies involved. Perhaps an area to discuss would be adjustments to more clearly indicate the relative prominence of the opposing views. It seems that mainstream feminism in 2018 accepts transwomen and not accepting transwomen is considered a radical feminist view. Either way, having an NPOV tag on an article indefinitely is not a good thing so it's important that it be resolved one way or the other. Some feedback on that would be greatly appreciated as I am hesitant to WP:BOLD in this case. Also, I think an article title change may help. After all, it's currently extremely (and I would argue overly) broad. Since it seems to be focused on controversies within feminism surrounding the inclusion of transwomen - and not transmen or non-binary people - why not just title the article that way? Something like "Feminist Views on the Inclusion of Transwomen". HudsonValley (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no need for a title change. Like I stated above, the literature on this topic mostly focuses on trans women. Not as much on trans men and non-binary people. This doesn't mean that the article's title needs to be specific to trans women. All we need to do is follow the literature with WP:Due weight, which means that, although we should add material on trans men and non-binary people from reliable sources on the topic, we should not try to artificially balance the article with information on trans men and non-binary people. For a different example, the topic of sexism is mostly about women, and we occasionally get complaints (from men) at Talk:Sexism about that article focusing so much on girls and women and not as much on boys and men, but it doesn't mean that we should retitle that article to "Sexism against women" and have a so-called general Sexism article, giving false balance to boys and men. It means that we should follow the literature with WP:Due weight. The Sexism article is mostly about girls and women because the literature is mostly about girls and women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Too much Newspeak here

An appeal to the editors of this article: please have mercy on the regular uninvolved reader.

The terms used here: "disinvite", "exclusionary", "deplatform" look as if taken straight the party lexicon of Oceania. I had to look up some in the Urban Dictionary (the first hit in Google). -》 Please use standard words, to call a spade a spade. E.g. our sister Wiktionary project suggests:

Synonyms
   censor
   expurgate
   suppress

Incidentally, these "dis*"/ "ex*"/ "de*" prefixed terms (2000s British NUS?) look spookily similar to the partisan euphemisms used in the Protestant and Mormon Churches sociolect, with their "disfellowships" (=expulsion), etc. Zezen (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

"Expurgate" is really a term you're recommending? If possible the terms should be wikilinked to a descriptor; I don't know which of those three terms you've listed "synonyms" for, but it'd be changing the meaning to replace any of them with those. GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Ping GorillaWarfare

Ta. I do not recommend expurgate. Wiktionary does: I used it by way of a quick source of synonyms. As a non-native and uninvolved (no edits here nor in this topic) reader, I suggest Anglosaxon, common, unpretentious, and non doctrinarian words: ban, bar, deny... See Orwell's plain language vs politics essays why so.

Off for a run so no further edits here today.

Not to be dismissive, but there is an entire Wikimedia site devoted to Simple English, [[simple:]]. On this project, I think that "disinvite" (for example) is a fine verb for describing the action of rescinding someone's invitation, unless we want to adopt that descriptive phrase—but disinvite is in fact more common! -sche (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The use of "exclusionary" is what the sources use. I see no issue with using "exclusionary," or how anyone would be confused by that term. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

de Beauvoir Quote

Flyer22 Reborn removed the paragraph below (diff) from the "Socialization differences" section claiming in the edit note: "Doesn't belong here. We cover it in the Femininity article, for example, but it does not belong in this one." I disagree but would like to invite Flyer22 Reborn to elaborate on the reason(s) for removing the paragraph.

While not speaking directly to the topic of transgender identity, pioneering French feminist Simone de Beauvoir wrote in The Second Sex (1949) that "one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman", underlining what has come to be known as the sex-gender distinction between biological sex and the social construction of gender.

--Mox La Push (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the de Beauvoir quote belongs in this article, in part, because it shows that discussion of cultural/social vs. biological/genetic views of gender have antecedents that while relevant to "Feminist views on transgender topics" pre-date that debate by decades and arose independently of current assertions that gender is/is not an immutable biologic characteristic. In other words, I think de Beauvoir's work provides important, relevant background material for understanding the subject matter of this article that readers would likely not learn about if it remains excluded from this article. --Mox La Push (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Mox La Push. I don't see what I need to elaborate on. My reasons are clear. The text does not belong because it is not about the topic, which is why you had to preface it with "While not speaking directly to the topic of transgender identity." I am not for WP:Synthesis or anything similar to WP:Synthesis. I am always like this way, no matter the topic. For an RfC that showcases this, see Talk:Slut-shaming/Archive 1#RfC: Is it WP:Synthesis to use sources that do not identify the topic as slut-shaming to make claims about slut-shaming?. On a side note: Since this article is on my watchlist, there is no need to ping me to it. I understand why you pinged me above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the article, because there is no reliable source that claims de Beauvoir was saying anything about trans women. By putting that spin on it yourself, or inviting the reader to do so, you are engaging in original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. That's why it doesn't belong here. That said, the quote would be entirely appropriate, in other contexts, like the de Beauvoir article, Feminism article, and so on. Mathglot (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn and Mathglot, thanks for your comments. I found them very helpful. I am a rather sporadic editor and don't claim to know all the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia policy. As an aside, Flyer22 Reborn, how can I tell if an editor is watching this (or any other) page? --Mox La Push (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Mox La Push, to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that you should know that this article is on my watchlist. It's why I stated above that "I understand why you pinged me." Sometimes people might know I'm watching an article and will ping me to get my attention, a response right then, or so that others can click on my account and know who is being talked about. As for being able to tell that an editor is watching the article, a look at the edit history often indicates who is watching it. By this, I mean that if you see that an editor regularly edits the article, then it's likely that the editor is watching the article. You can also use the "Find edits by user" and "Page statistics" options in the edit history. But to be on the safe side, pinging the editor that first time is a good choice, although a few have the ping option turned off. I just prefer not to be pinged to pages I'm watching if someone knows I watch that article; this is because I'm busy with so many other things and a ping more often than not indicates that I've been reverted and that I might therefore have to debate a matter. That red notification is often a downer for me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Update: After this and this, the de Beauvoir aspect is now included. Seems suspicious that an IP came along to add de Beauvoir material after what was stated above, but oh well. It's at least now in the context of a transgender source interviewing a feminist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

___

References

Adichie stands behind her views

Can anyone tell me what this sentence in the "Differences" section means? She said that she sees trans women as women despite her views, but stood behind her position. As written, it seems vaguely like a self-contradiction or double flip-flop: first, there are her views; second, there is how she sees trans women despite her views, and third, she stands by her "views" again. I'm not ascribing my confusion to Adichie, but to the way this summary of it was worded. Would anything be lost from the paragraph by simply removing the sentence? Mathglot (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I think nothing is lost by removing it (as evidenced by the fact that I did remove it a few hours before your post, before I moved the remainder of the paragraph about her to the Differences section). The first part is quite confusingly worded, and the fact that she repeatedly reiterated her position, while demonstrable, does not seem to add anything. (Even the bit about "the left is creating its own decline" does not seem to add all that much of importance/relevance here.) -sche (talk) 10:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the removal while thinking about the situation and composing the message. It reads better and fits better now; thanks. Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hidden text vs template

In this edit I removed some hidden text placed there with the intent to protect the word "Some" in the expression, "Some feminists argue..." from constantly having a {{Who?}} template slapped onto it by well-meaning editors, and replaced the hidden text with a template. While I believe that hidden text (i.e., <!-- Html comments like this one -->) has its place in articles, I switched it to using the {{As written}} template in this case. After seeing Flyer22 Reborn's edit comment about this issue, I expanded the template with a reason param making it explicit.

While Visual Editor does display hidden text in edit mode, unfortunately, VE doesn't seem to display the reason param although it does display the 'As written' as a Tooltip when you mouse over. This seems like a bug in the VE handling of the template, but if hidden text is the only way to get a message through to VE users, then I have no strong objection to removing the templates and going back to the hidden text again, although I wish they'd fix VE. For one thing, does this mean that every use of {{As written}} or {{Not a typo}} throughout the encyclopedia needs to also have a hidden <!-- Not a typo --> adjacent to it, because VE users will never see it? Kind of annoying. Mathglot (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

This is fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Robert Jensen

"Robert Jensen has outlined feminist[12] and ecological concerns[13] about what he called "transgender ideology", and connected that to a larger cultural fear of the feminist critique of patriarchy.[14]"

From the essay: So, one trans response to what is called “gender dysphoria,” “gender variance,” or “gender nonconformity” (various terms are used depending on one’s approach to the issue) employs medical technology in an attempt to resolve a condition about which we have not gained extensive understanding. This is an example of “technological fundamentalism,” the belief that high-energy/high-technology solutions are always appropriate, even when we know little about the underlying problem and cannot predict long-term consequences. This approach to alleviating people’s sense of discomfort, distress, and social dislocation assumes that the ability to chemically and surgically change a body means we should use that ability, ignoring the ecological reality of limits."

This seems like a pretty clear cut case of WP:FRINGE to me, he is referring to Gender Dysphoria (a medical condition) as technological fundamentalism..ShimonChai (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeeeaaah, his views are pretty far out there. -sche (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

So would it be fair to remove him as one of the two people cited from the "Feminist and trans issues" section? ShimonChai (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

In my view, yes. As a separate problem, it also doesn't fit with the nominal section topic well. The other two sentences in the section are also weird: so Steinem thinks it's bad that some unnamed third parties in the press blamed feminism for one particular trans woman, and/or that those third party commentators said that one trans woman made feminism unnecessary? Is that... important, for this article? And if so, would it fit better somewhere else? The article already includes several other quotations of Steinem which are more on-topic. -sche (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Morning Star (British newspaper)

ShimonChai, regarding this, I don't know much about the Morning Star newspaper, but I wanted to note that (as has been discussed times before at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:BLP noticeboard), tabloid (newspaper format) is not the same thing as tabloid journalism. A newspaper may be published in tabloid format and not engage in tabloid journalism. As for political, that the newspaper is political doesn't negate its reliability. WP:Context matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't tabloid journalism per se, but it is a niche paper that has some close ties to the subjects of the protest here - which raises some issues with WP:DUE weight and neutrality if we're mentioning it based on this amount of coverage. The article section is really about the definition and usage of the term "TERF". It might make sense to say that the term has been used at protests against opponents of the GRA, or to mention (in a separate section) that there is some dissension over the GRA among the left, but I don't think we can justify a paragraph mentioning every protest in which the term "TERF" was reportedly chanted. Nblund ^talk 03:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Hello, the reason that it's political leanings matter is because it influences what the Newspaper reports on. If there is a newspaper sympathetic to Radical Feminism, the newspaper would give undue weight to an event that was sympathetic to the political beliefs of a political ideology that is closely affiliated with Radical Feminism. My point here is that from the context of this newspaper reporting on the situation, to my understanding they were the only ones to do so, and in context. It seems like they were doing so to push an agenda, however, I maybe incorrect in my assumptions. ShimonChai (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The Trans advocate is also cited multiple times. If it is attributed there are no issues with using political sources (arguably all sources are political) for verifiability. AIRcorn (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is the citation is about an event that occurred. I was more so challenging the notability because I couldn't find any noteworthy publication also reporting on the event, and because it arguably was just mentioning the event itself, with no other use in the article, it should at the very least be notable. It wasn't an event that had any effect on "Feminist views on transgender topics" and serves no purpose in showing or explaining the views of Feminist views on transgender topics, or even views that are critical of a position on the topic, because "Criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints" is already an entire section. ShimonChai (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Separate from questions of the citability of the paper, I don't think the incident has been shown to be notable or "due": there are many instances of people saying "TERF", are we cataloguing them all? No. And for the second part, the Morning Star's editorial claim that the term was "commonly used as an insult towards women who question proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act": is this a notable opinion other sources are commenting on or sharing? Otherwise, it seems to have little relationship to what the other cited sources understand the term to refer to, and WP:DUE again comes up. If the paper is citable, the only content it's offering that seems relevant to this article/section is the claim the term is an insult, which could be moved to the line that currently reads "...and a slur" by expanding it to "...and an insult or slur" and adding the MS citation there. As an aside, the sentence that begins "Cristan Williams from The Transadvocate" also seems to be only weakly connected to the rest of the paragraph; perhaps we should also start a section here to discuss improving or removing it. -sche (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

ShimonChai, no need to ping me to this talk page since this talk page is on my watchlist. My point, like I stated, is that your "political tabloid" reason for removing the material was/is invalid. Your "notability" reason makes sense, though. In any case, I ask that you are careful in the future not to remove supposed tabloid sources simply because the paper is published in tabloid format. Wikipedia has had issues with editors doing that. It's why I've tweaked a few newspaper articles to specify "published in tabloid format" or removed "tabloid" from the lead of newspaper articles completely. A number of newspapers, including quality ones, are political in nature. I could name a number of big ones here, but I will not. It's unnecessary. Wikipedia uses them per WP:Reliable sources. Wikipedia also addresses biased sources with its WP:BIASEDSOURCES guideline. Even biased sources are allowed. And "The Trans Advocate" is indeed a biased source. Once again, context matters. New Statesman is a political magazine, but it is included in the "The term 'TERF'" section. We include the views of radical feminists in this article, and that means that some sources will be directly from or tied to radical feminists. We include the views of transgender people in this article, and that means that some sources will be directly from or tied to transgender people in this article. I don't see that the Morning Star newspaper is a radical feminist newspaper, however. As for your statement that "It wasn't an event that had any effect on 'Feminist views on transgender topics," well the section is about the term TERF and the piece was partly focused on the term TERF. It was relevant. One could simply cut away the protesters aspect of it and focus on the newspaper stating that the term is "commonly used as an insult towards women who question proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act." The Gender Recognition Act matter in the United Kingdom is a big aspect of the transgender debate (in general and among feminists), and is currently mentioned in the "General" subsection of the "Feminist exclusion of trans women" section when covering "a scuffle."

Nblund, I don't know what you meant by it having "some close ties to the subjects of the protest here." I agree that we don't need to mention every protest in which the term TERF was chanted. Obviously. But, yes, if the term has been used while protesting or carrying out physical violence, which it has, that should be mentioned in the article. And we should not mention that in a different section. It belongs right there in the section about "TERF." Yes, that section is about the term. And using the term in a way that is accompanied by protesters at times is relevant to that section. After all, we have some term articles that mention that people have used the term while carrying out whatever. If enough sources cover that some trans people have used the term while protesting, we should mention that. But, yes, single cases are a WP:Due matter. And the section currently mentions "violent rhetoric that often accompanies [the term]" (although violent rhetoric and physical violence are two different things). And to repeat: One could simply cut away the protesters aspect of the piece and focus on the newspaper's description of the term. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The constant shifting of the goal posts is annoying. I feel some editors are not understanding the scope of the article. It is not "Feminist views on transgender topics that I agree with". It is fine to challenge ones (using reliable sources), but they shouldn't just be removed. Edit summaries like this kind of miss the point. Sure if it is not used then it should be removed, although it probably was used at some point. But the whole article is about a POV and if it presents that persons opinion in their voice by being attributed it is reliable. AIRcorn (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The radical feminist perspective is already well covered (a large portion of the article), even as a radical position, and no one has called for removing the position completely. The article is about a wide range of POVs, an individuals opinion isn't inherently notable on a subject, and the revision you linked to was a revert of a citation of a self-published blog. Because the article isn't "Radical Feminist views on transgender topics" it should represent Feminist views proportionally so as to not misrepresent Feminist views on the topic via undue weight on radical positions. ShimonChai (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Aircorn, I echo your statement that the topic is not "Feminist views on transgender topics that I agree with." I was thinking the same. That type of editing has been one of the issues with this article.

ShimonChai, see the #Undue discussion above. The vast majority of the literature that concerns feminist views on transgender topics is about the views of radical feminists and views on trans women. Even if one tries to look beyond the radical feminists aspect, there is much more feminist discussion about trans women than any other type of trans person. I've looked. Times over. Not that I needed to look to know that. As noted in the "Undue" discussion, even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy source states that "Moreover, there has generally been an over-emphasis on MTFs in particular." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I seriously doubt anyone here is editing under the impression that we can exclude views we disagree with. The edit in question removed a source that wasn't actually used in the article, so I don't think we need to go quite so broad with the discussion. Sarah Ditum is cited twice. For comparison: Catharine Mackinnon is also cited just once - so Ditum's take on radical feminism seems reasonably well-represented by comparison. Nblund ^talk 02:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The edit that removed a source that wasn't actually used in the article isn't the type of editing I was referring to. Obviously. Editors (whatever their personal views) have been removing views they don't like from this article for years. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

"Criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints"

Right now, the second half of the section "Criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints" in fact just contains trans-exclusionary viewpoints. Literally every single quote is by a person with a trans-exclusionary viewpoint, and trans-inclusionary replies challenging these quotes have not been added. This heavily misrepresents the discourse. It's already not neutral to quote multiple trans-exclusionary standpoints in a completely unchallenged manner, but to do so in a section that is literally about the criticism of said viewpoints is obviously wrong.

I will therefore remove those sections hereafter. If anyone disagrees and thinks of re-adding them, please discuss here before. Maybe they can be re-added elsewhere? --StardustCat (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Per what I argued here and in the #Undue section above, there is going to be criticism and a response to the criticism. I think the responses belong in the same section. That 2012 Sheila Jeffreys The Guardian piece is specifically responding to the criticism; it's about those who "criticised transgenderism." So, in my opinion, the "Criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints" section should not be without rebuttals. I reverted your removals. As seen in the aforementioned "Undue" discussion, we've been discussing what to do about the "Feminist support" and "Feminist exclusion of trans women" sections. You stated that "trans-inclusionary replies challenging these quotes have not been added," but that is not something that can be forced. Such rebuttals must actually exist. You are free to look for them and support them with WP:Reliable sources. Read WP:Neutral. As I've stated times before, being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse. Regardless of how we format this article, the text you removed should be in the article.

In the aforementioned discussion, I stated, "I would consider having a section titled 'Radical feminism,' 'Contemporary feminism,' etc., but I feel that redundancy would result in that case because different types of feminists will be in agreement on some things or in disagreement on the same things. Titles such as 'Radical feminism' and 'Contemporary feminism' could cover a lot of material. So I think it's better to specifically address issues, such as 'Socialization differences,' like we currently do and include the views from different types of feminists in those sections. Title-wise, I'm not sure what to do about the 'Feminist exclusion of trans women' and 'Feminist support' sections. Exclusion of trans women is a big deal, as made clear in the literature, and it's a specific issue. Really, the 'Criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints' and 'Feminist support' sections could be merged into one section, and broken away from the 'Feminist exclusion of trans women' section. The anti commentary in it could be cut or moved to the main exclusion section, except for the material that needs context...or the rebuttals like Sheila Jeffreys specifically responding to being criticized for her views. What to title the merged section, I'm not sure. Maybe 'Feminist support and criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints'? That's a bit long." I also told Aircorn that "I thought about just keeping the section titled 'Feminist support' for the reason you mentioned, but I wondered about the rebuttal material in the section. Some might view rebuttal material as not belonging in a 'Feminist support' section. With this, this and this edit, you can see that even including rebuttal material in the 'Criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints' section was questioned. But, yes, I could live with just going with the 'Feminist support' heading after merging."

As for this addition by you, while Julia Serano is a notable trans voice, it's best not to use blog sources such as Medium (website). I also recently discussed use of Medium here at Talk:Male privilege. If you or someone else wants to re-add that Serano piece, I won't revert, however. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

About your first point, I vehemently disagree. Clearly, the "criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints"-section should focus on precisely criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints. I agree that we can even include rebuttals, but when said rebuttals are given much more space (in the form of longer paragraphs, including a lot of direct quotes - but ONLY from the trans-exclusionary viewpoint), something is definitely not alright.

I would additionally argue that the text I removed doesn't include any actual rebuttals. For something to be a rebuttal of criticism, that criticism would have to be made concrete and first given comparable space to the rebuttal (especially in this section, but even anywhere else, we otherwise given undue weight to the trans-exclusionary position). But the text I removed doesn't refer to any of the criticism in the earlier parts of the section - both paragraphs are instead trans-exclusionary feminists complaining about a) internet hate speech (which definitely can't even be called "criticism", so the paragraph isn't a rebuttal of criticism) and being disinvited from speaking at one event (which probably was done because of criticism, but the text doesn't actually display said criticism, just its consequence - so it also isn't a rebuttal). This isn't remotely okay and I am not okay with leaving this text in this section. The selected quotes give way too much weight to the trans-exclusionary position in a section explicitly devoted to the trans-inclusionary position.

Some of this can be fixed, of course. Since Jeffrey's article was a direct response to an earlier article by Roz Kaveney, someone who wants to display Jeffrey's position should first display Kaveney's position, and then display Jeffrey's article as a response to that - and not as if it was only prompted by a supposed internet hate campaign. Do you want to try rewriting this paragraph to incorporate that, or should I do it?

Regarding Julia Serano, the Medium post is I believer a very good source because we can pull quotes form it that nicely summarize her position, while the post itself gives direct sources to her books for these claims she makes. The alternative to quoting her eassy would be for Wikipedia editors such as ourselves to summarize her position as from her books. Letting her summarize her position and criticism herself seems like the clearly better way to me, don't you agree? It's not like she only writes medium articles, she has written some of the most influential books in the topic of trans exclusion in the past decade. So I will re-add this section. --StardustCat (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I get that you vehemently disagree. But have you read WP:Neutral? It's not about creating false balance. We can only follow what is available in the literature (whether in academic sources or in the media) and with WP:Due weight. You stated that the "'criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints'-section should focus on precisely criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints." But it does. It begins with a focus on Judith Butler arguing for feminist solidarity with trans and gender-nonconforming people, and being critical of Sheila Jeffreys, who she says engages in oppressive attempts to dispute trans people's sense of identity. The first paragraph about Bindel focuses on the fact that many considered the language she used in a The Guardian article to be offensive and demeaning. The 2009 paragraph about Bindel does include some of her views, but it also states that there were protests (with regard to celebrities being split over trans protests at the Stonewall Awards, which I will clarify in the article in a moment). The 2012 piece concerning Sheila Jeffreys makes sense to retain because, as I noted before, she is responding to those who have criticized her views and those like them. The Linda Bellos piece makes sense to retain because it concerns her being invited to speak at Cambridge University in 2017, and later disinvited because of her views on transgender people. It was significant enough that The Times reported on it, which is also included in the section...with The Times author's commentary.

I can see us validly cutting some of the Bindel material, making sure to trim without cutting out essential detail. But most of the text you removed before I reverted should stay. If you can look at these sources or other source and see that more can be added about why these women's views have been criticized from a trans perspective, we can add that. You mentioned Kaveney's position, for example. Just make sure that the sources pass the WP:Reliable sources guideline. If there are no sources that criticize any of these statements, we can't do anything about that. We can add more statements that criticize such views, though. As noted, we can also rearrange and retitle. You can make suggested edits here on the talk page for trimming the Bindel material or rearranging or retitling. Per what I noted above, rearranging and retitlng are things that we need to get right if we are going to do that. Given Bindel's response to the protest, Jeffreys's response to her and others' critics, and Bellos's response to being disinvited to speak at Cambridge University in 2017, I'm going to disagree with your definition of "rebuttal." Like this Vocabulary.com source states, "We often associate rebuttals with arguments made in the courtroom or public debates that occur around election time, but the word can really apply to any situation in which an argument is put forth and someone disagrees, and explains why." And this Dictionary.com source states "an act of rebutting, as in a debate." I see nothing in the rebuttal sources about an argument needing to be concrete. Whether or not an argument is concrete on this topic is an opinion. And complaining about Internet comments, what you and others call hate speech in this case, is criticism. Furthermore, to a number of these feminists, and as made clear by some of their comments, their statements are not hate speech. Regarding "undue weight to the trans-exclusionary position," I go back to what I argued in the Undue discussion above

As for Julia Serano, see WP:Self-published, which, among other things, states, "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities." Because Serano is a notable trans voice and WP:In-text attribution was used, I stated that I would not revert the Serano piece if you re-added it. But WP:Self-published is clear, and so is its WP:About self section. I was not focused on reverting Serano before. It's just that I wholesale reverted and removing the Serano piece was a part of that. As you likely know by now, another editor reverted your restoration of the Serano piece, stating, "Self-published. If other sources covered it... then that would indicate it's a notable opinion." I have no issue with including a summary of Serano's views from her books as long as it's on-topic and sourced to one or more of her books or a secondary source that passes WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

With trans positions being extremely underrepresented in the media, this is a good example of why WP:Self-published leads to a strong bias against minorities such as trans people. You really gotta decide: do you want to be neutral in this article, fighting against an undue favoring of anti-trans positions? Then you'll have to accept self-published sources when it's abundantly clear to anyone who knows about this topic that someone like Serano is a known and respected voice in this debate. She is even mentioned in the beginning of the article, so I can't understand why we can't actually display her position then. It's nonsensical.

I'm very frustrated. I don't feel like my intents of improving this article and working against the extremely obvious bias giving way more room to anti-trans voices is actually wanted or even honored here in any way. If you are a more experienced editor, then maybe help me out here and show me how Serano's positions can be represented here, by improving my edit? Because I'm at a loss, but you and I both know that the *outcome* of having her position in the article would improve it and give less undue weight to anti-trans positions, right? It's all about seeing how one can fulfill the Wikipedian beaurocracy to make a good edit stick, as it seems to me. And I don't know how to do that and feel like just giving up and just accepting that this article will remain anti-trans anyhow. --StardustCat (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia reflects that under-representation in the media. That is the point of WP:NPOV; we reflect reliable sources even if they are WP:BIASED. What is the Truth is always debated, and, in my opinion, defined by the groups in power. Wikipedia is a reflection of that, for better or worse. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

StardustCat, I understand that you are frustrated, but, like EvergreenFir stated, Wikipedia has its own way of working. We all had to get used to this. We cannot use Wikipedia to right the great wrongs. And Wikipedia working like this is actually for good reasons, as explained at the policy and guideline pages. For improvements, we can start with my suggestions above in this section. We can add Kaveney's position, like you suggested. Whatever the stated reason, we don't need to add self-published sources to the article. We can add Serano's views to the article (and we do mention her in the "Transfeminism" section, after all), but the sourcing should be one of her books (which counts as WP:Primary) or a secondary or tertiary source addressing her views. Yes, given the views on transgender people (especially transgender women), the article contains anti-trans views, but it contains pro-trans views as well. And we can work to add more pro-trans views. But should we do all of this with WP:Due weight in mind (such as the fact that sources on the topic usually don't address trans men)? Yes. Wikipedia is not a beaurocracy, but it has important rules. WP:Ignore all rules is rarely employed; it is used in rare cases because it is not a free-for-all. It is not a "get out of jail free" card to do whatever we want. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Citation overkill

This is citation overkill, especially in the lead. In general, one should pick which of the citations best act as references for the statement and keep those in the article body, omitting the rest. Another method of reducing the excess of little superscript numbers would be to bundle citations which are not used anywhere else in the article into one ref tag. -sche (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, editing improvement now. A145GI15I95 (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposals To Rework

On the DRN, sche suggested breaking out the discussion into concrete proposals about particular parts of the article. I think this is a very good idea, and so I'm making this section with several subsections to attempt to get discussion going on particular issues with the article: LokiTheLiar (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

General Structure

Currently, the article is organized very messily. It has a few sections on particular areas of dispute, a section on an overarching position (transfeminism) and a section on conflicts. All of these are somewhat repetitive, and inadvertantly make trans-exclusive feminism to appear more prominent than it is because it appears from multiple different people across the article, which obscures the fact that it is a single coherent ideology whose adherents all largely believe the same thing about trans people. In my proposed rewrite I re-organized the article into sections based on overarching position (trana-exclusive radical feminism, trans feminism, other), and I still think that something like this is the best way to do it. Failing that I would at least strongly suggest that the article should be reorganized so that each section is parallel to the others (they should be either all ideologies or all topics of debate). LokiTheLiar (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I do think the current structure is weird, a hybrid of sections on generic "feminist exclusion of trans women", "feminist support", and "trans feminism", and then also sections on specific issues cis feminists support / exclude trans people based on, like "differences in socialization and experience", or support or oppose trans people accessing, like "sex reassignment surgery". But the non-issue-specific sections are needed because so much opposition and support is generic (see how many people cited in the "feminist exclusion of trans women" section don't (in the quoted/reported/RS-covered portions) base their positions in anything in particular like "differences in socialization and experience"), and while e.g. Feminist views on pornography puts specific anti-porn arguments into (or as subsections of) a generic "anti-porn feminism" section, this article presents multiple points of view on some of the issues (e.g. that socialization differences are vs aren't distinguishing or meaningful), so it would be hard to apply a structure like that here and remove the issue-specific sections without introducing more repetition. (Although you made an admirable attempt, I don't think it succeeded: simply moving where the "Patricia Elliot argues that this perspective..." sentence was, for example, made it unintelligible, as if the "this perspective" referred to was transfeminism. While that could be fixed by rewriting, I'm not sure introducing a response to something in an entirely different section from the thing being responded to is the clearest approach.) Basically, I agree that the current structure is weird, but I'm not sure how to improve it. :/ (I will say that the "feminist and trans issues" section seems like a wastebasket section for a two-sentence quotation of Steinem that no-one managed to fit anywhere else, which we ought to be able to improve upon somehow...) -sche (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and there's also some consolidation that needs to be done, with Steinem in two places currently, one short section entitled Feminist and trans issues, and another called Sex reassignment surgery. Then again, discussion of Dworkin's support in the SRS section, as well as lower down in Feminist support.

The other thing I find odd, is that many articles which discuss evolving views on some topic, especially one where the views evolve as quickly as on trangender topics, often have an arc of history that is easiest to comprehend when it is presented chronologically. But that doesn't seem to be the case here, and the jumping back and forth among the decades from one section to another, makes it hard for me to have a global picture of the evolution, or even see whether there is a trend or not. There are other ways to present things than chronological; thematic, for example, but in that case, perhaps there should be a section "Evolution of views" or some such, specifically to provide that overarching view of chronological development over time. Mathglot (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I like the idea of changing it to chronological order. Does anyone object to me rearranging the article that way? I want to do some rearranging because before we do it there's not a lot of point in editing the subsections. LokiTheLiar (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Too many lists and too few summaries

As the article currently stands, most of the sections are lists of opinions of specific feminists, or incidents. I think it would be more informative to describe the trans-exclusive position as a whole, and the trans-inclusive position as a whole, rather than simply listing things individual feminists have said about some particular topic. E.g. instead of listing Janice Raymond, Mary Daly, Germaine Greer, and Julie Bindel separately, I would say "Trans-exclusive radical feminists such as Janice Raymond, Mary Daly, [etc] believe [such-and-such]. One influential work within trans-exclusive radical feminism is The Transsexual Empire by Janice Raymond, which [...]" LokiTheLiar (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Citation issues

Over-citation of trans-exclusive radical feminists, and of radical feminists in general

In each of the lists in the current topics, there are disproportionately more trans-exclusive citations than there should be under WP:UNDUE. When the sex-reassignment section cites Andrea Dworkin, Gloria Steinem, Janice Raymond, Mary Daly, Germaine Greer, and Julie Bindel, that immediately causes me to wonder why we are citing those last four people separately. They believe largely the same thing because they share largely the same ideology (trans-exclusive radical feminism) which has a single position on this issue, so it's my opinion that that overall ideology should only be referred to once. Furthermore, in this list five out of these six people are radical feminists when that itself is a matter of active debate within feminism. I wouldn't be opposed to a section on positions within radical feminism, but portraying positions within radical feminism as if they're the only positions in feminism is clearly not correct. LokiTheLiar (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Under-citation of trans feminists, trans-inclusive feminists, and modern feminists in general

That same list causes a few more questions in me which hopefully go some way towards fixing the citation problem.

1. Where is Julia Serano or other trans feminists? Why is the most trans inclusive voice in that list Andrea Dworkin writing in the 70s? This problem plagues the entire article: trans-positive views are shoved into a single small section when by their prevalence they ought to be the majority of the article.
2. Where are the modern feminists? The feminists on that list appear to have been chosen either because they're trans-exclusive (Raymond, Daly, Greer, Bindel) or because they were major figures in feminism at the height of the second wave (Dworkin, Steinem). But it's been a long time since second wave feminism, and there are now many modern feminist activists who ought to appear in a list of opinions of prominent feminists if we are going to be including that sort of list in the article. LokiTheLiar (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that may reflect the nature of feminist commentary on the subject, which had one peak in the 70s, and then went mostly dormant for a while, before popping back up a couple decades later as transgender awareness grew. I believe that Transcamp at Michfest had a lot to do with it, but it wasn't the only thing. But as far as views, clearly Serano needs to be there, as do many others. I think part of the problem is something Flyer alluded to earlier; most feminists are merely accepting, and it's just human nature that people who are against something, will be the most vocal; you don't have people marching in downtown in huge parades saying what a great job society is doing keeping the lights on, and having the snow removed promptly. Feminists who are happy with trans-inclusion, never thought it necessary to write about what a great thing it is to be trans-inclusive, until someone came along with the opposite attitude, and needed to be responded to. There is a vocal minority on this subject, and as Flyer already stated, per WP:DUEWEIGHT they are going to get an amount of coverage here proportionate to their writings, even if that's disproportionate to the views of a larger, feminist public that isn't writing. Mathglot (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

It's worth noting a lot of the people fighting against transphobia in 70s feminism were other feminists. They don't get as much modern coverage, but they are present in books that discuss histories of the movement the. Andrea Long Chu covers a bit about how this part of the history is often elided in modern retellings in this essay, particularly around the Beth Elliott incident. I've noticed also several big feminist figures like Angela Davis, bell hooks, Kimberle Crenshaw, Roxane Gay etc have spoken against trans exclusion but they don't get as much press write up, likely since more controversial takes get more attention. Rab V (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

In addition to what Rab V said, it's not hard to find position statements from large feminist organizations. For example, NOW resolved in 2018 to explicitly support trans inclusivity and had previously supported pro-LGBT causes including pro-trans causes. I think that this is a reasonably good proxy for what the "average feminist" believes in the absence of actual polls of feminists (which unfortunately don't appear to exist, as far as I can tell). LokiTheLiar (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to Mathglot for understanding what I mean about WP:Due weight. That's it exactly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

False balance in individual statements

This is related to the issues above. When the article says things like "Some feminists such as Judith Butler and Jack Halberstam believe that transgender and transsexual people challenge repressive gender norms and that transgender politics are fully compatible with feminism, while others such as Janice Raymond and Sheila Jeffreys believe that transgender and transsexual people uphold and reinforce sexist gender roles and the gender binary." that makes it appear that Judith Butler and Janice Raymond are two equal sides in a debate. However, in fact Butler's position is much more widely held in academia than Raymond's, and outside of academia, positions such as that of Julia Serano, a well-known transfeminist activist, are more common than either.

Instead of the line above I would write something like: "Most feminists are inclusive of trans people, and believe that transgender politics are fully compatible with feminism[several citations here]. However, a minority position believes that transgender people uphold and reinforce [etc]." LokiTheLiar (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

As above, it's not about what position is more widely held, but rather, which one is attested more in reliable sources. That may skew against public opinion, but that's the way WP:DUEWEIGHT works, for better or worse. Mathglot (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

That skips any potential for a 'walled garden' effect among notable academics and public facing academic pundits. There is scope in this article to discuss and distinguish between the balance of views in academic papers (i.e. verifiably peer reviewed) and the balance of most widely published op-ed views in, say, the EU or US largest newspapers and magazines. --Fæ (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot, I'm aware of that, which is why I said we should put a bunch of sources after that claim. We already have a few sources like this Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article which fairly clearly backs up the point that trans-positive feminist views are common and have become increasingly more common over time. I'm reasonably sure that if we had someone who could get past the paywall on academic articles we could find more (so, for example, I'm reasonably sure this academic piece is trans-positive even though I can't access it).

There's also stuff like position statements from large feminist organizations: for example, NOW resolved explicitly to support trans inclusivity in 2018, and have said in a previous resolution that "the issues that are included in NOW’s multi-issue structure include ... women who identify as straight, lesbian, bi, or transgender" (my emphasis). This might not technically be a reliable source for what the majority of feminists believe, but we can certainly say "The largest feminist organization in the United States, NOW, has resolved explicitly to support trans inclusivity." LokiTheLiar (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Alright, based on some of the stuff we've discussed here I went ahead and rewrote the intro. Is the new intro acceptable to people? The next change I want to make is some sort of restructure, and we haven't really talked about that enough to make that kind of sweeping change, but supposing the intro is acceptable I would like to rewrite other sections on the page in a similar fashion. LokiTheLiar (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments in the #Recent changes to the lead and drafting section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)