Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Fleshing out the historical information

One of the things that's kind of sad about this article is the lack of detail on historical views. What would you all say to making a push to expand on the viewpoints of Dworkin, Steinem, Daly, and Stone? It shouldn't be too difficult or controversial, I don't think—their perspectives have received plenty of attention from reliable sources. Cheers, gnu57 01:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to it in theory, but I think that doing it right now is just going to make the problems with the structure of the article worse. I'm not sure we have a clear idea of what this article is even supposed to be, and we would need to settle on that before I feel comfortable saying whether including a lot of historical information is a good idea. Currently, different parts of the article are currently about trans issues that feminists have commented on, movements within feminism, and a bunch of historical events where feminists excluded or opposed trans people. These are all pretty different visions of the article and they all have different implications for what we do with further historical information.

So, for example: if we end up deciding that we're going to have a section for trans-exclusionary feminism and a section for trans-inclusive feminism, than Andrea Dworkin gets not that much space, because she wasn't particularly influential in the history of trans-inclusive feminism, while Sandy Stone, for example, very much was. On the other hand, if we're talking primarily about issues, Dworkin's views on the issues are not the same as those of most modern trans-inclusive feminists and so probably deserve significant separate coverage, while Sandy Stone's views are quite similar to those of modern trans-inclusive feminists and so probably don't deserve that much coverage. And if we're talking a lot about historical events, Stone was directly involved in a historical event and so deserves quite a bit of coverage, while none of the other three were. LokiTheLiar (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

To add to the thing I said earlier, for a while I've wanted to put in a bunch of information about feminist opinions about trans issues in modern politics, since there are a lot of sources on that and IMO they deserve some coverage in the article, but I haven't because there's no obvious place to put that in the current article. Even if I were to create a new section it would just make the problems with the structure of the article worse. LokiTheLiar (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Finding a consensus on page restructure

So far, it's seemed like we have a probable consensus to restructure the page but we haven't figured out how yet. This is an attempt to figure out how we're going to do that. The options we've identified can be grouped roughly into Status Quo (i.e. don't restructure), Issue-primary (the headers are all issues like "feminist views on gender socialization"; groups may or may not be subheaders and we can flesh that out later), Group-primary (the headers are groups like trans-exclusionary and trans-inclusive, issues may or may not be subheaders), or Chronological (the headers are time periods or waves of feminism, like "second wave" or "1970s", and we can hash out the details later.)

I'm going to do this like an informal RfC. Please comment with the order you would rank these options and your reasoning or any other comments. LokiTheLiar (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• My personal opinion is group-primary > issue-primary > chronological > status quo. I've gone over this before on this talk page, but in brief it's because I think the status quo is very bad, and that currently the page presents the information it has as more individual than it actually is in practice. I would like to highlight the importance of the groups, but failing that I'm for essentially any restructure that makes the page not a complete mess. LokiTheLiar (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• My preference is for issue-primary (with perhaps small hold-all sections for "history" and "conflict"), but I'd rather wait and see Flyer's proposed draft before doing a drastic overhaul. Cheers, gnu57 18:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• 1st choice: Thematic (either group-first or issue-first). 2nd choice: Chronological. 3rd: Status quo. Reasons: Thematic seems easier to read and easier to maintain. Status quo is mud. A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Off my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• I just read upon this restructuring discussion. The current structuring of this page seems to be a complete shitshow. The following seems to be most intuitive to me: 1) History (w/ section lead) 1.1) Initial / Opposition 1.2) Acceptance / Current situation 1.3) Transfeminism 1.4) TERFism (a complete section re TERFs, not just the word) 2) Views on specific issues 3) Specific incidents and clashes.

This is currently the only way I can think of that resolves readability issues and avoid neutrality violations where most prominent weight and positions are given to the minority trans-exclusion groups. Views on specific matters are not the most important things, and incidents are quite trivial in terms of importance. Readers need to read the history to have a better understanding of the incidents anyway. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that's pretty reasonable. (It seems to broadly fall into the category of "chronological"; would you agree with that characterization?) So far, I don't think we really have a consensus for any single best option but we do definitely have a consensus that nobody likes the status-quo and a restructure is definitely necessary, which is at least progress from where we were. LokiTheLiar (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Just a note: I did some restructuring just now because it appears everyone agrees the current structure is awful, and I felt it was prudent to at least start the process of turning it into something less egregiously awful even if we aren't currently sure exactly what that means yet. LokiTheLiar (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

'High level of capital'

Regarding this claim (which appears in both the lede and the "terf" section): …they have a "high level of social, cultural, and economic capital." Would it be fair to ask a second source for this conclusion? I've not seen this contended elsewhere myself, so it seems a bit bold to me, especially for the lede (though I admit we each live in culture bubbles). The source is Sally Hines writing for The Economist in 2018.[1] It's behind a paywall, but I've access to its full text. Thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there are other sources noting the power that these feminist have. I thought about adding another source for it. But like I stated with this edit, "whatever wording I would use would be more subject to debate [than the quoted wording]." Instead of trying to put the matter in my own words and adding an additional source (an academic one) for it, I stuck with the quote...which can only be attributed to Hines.

Are you doubting the power that these feminist have? Why would Hines, who clearly is not trans-exclusive, note it if it weren't true? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I actually sort of agree with this criticism. Sally Hines and the Economist are both British, and it's not hard to find other sources that agree that trans-exclusionary radical feminists have a high amount of influence in Britain. But I think that combining American sources which say they are a minority with a British source that says they're powerful is an accidental case of WP:SYNTH in this particular case, because the actual truth is that they are a small minority in America (and most English speaking countries) but powerful in Britain. See here and here. LokiTheLiar (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I was not talking about British sources when I stated, "there are other sources noting the power that these feminist have." And as for a minority, the source itself calls these feminists a minority while also noting the power they have. You know that. As for WP:Synthesis, I haven't engaged in WP:Synthesis of any kind by adding that "but" line. Do read WP:INTEGRITY. As is clear by WP:INTEGRITY, having a sentence that makes different points and sourcing those different points as accurately reflected in the sources is not WP:Synthesis. If it was WP:Synthesis, WP:INTEGRITY would not include the "The sun is pretty big, but the moon is not so big." example that it includes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

But both of the sources I linked explicitly say that trans-exclusionary feminists in America are weak. "In America, however, TERFism today is a scattered community in its death throes, mourning the loss of its last spaces, like the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival, which ended in 2015. " from the NYT source, and "It’s vanishingly rare that I think any country should take advice from the shitshow that is the U.S., but with regard to feminism, at least American leftists don’t tend to Lean In to bigotry quite as much." from the Outline. This is a pretty clear source conflict which I think is most easily resolved by presuming that Sally Hines was writing from her own experience as a British woman and that the situation she describes should not be generalized to the entire world. LokiTheLiar (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

"Are weak" is not the same thing as "no power." More stated at the TERF talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

As stated over there, "no power" is a strawman. The thing I'm trying to argue is that "are strong" (as the article currently claims) is false in America. My sources back that up. LokiTheLiar (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

And as also stated there, it's no straw man at all. All that the Wikipedia article states is that they have a "high level of social, cultural and economic capital." Your sources do not state that they do not have that or that they have no power at all. Per WP:Synthesis, you cannot add the "no power" claims you've made. Based on those two sources, any text you add on that should use WP:In-text attribution. It absolutely should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

there are other sources noting the power that these feminist have … Instead of trying to put the matter in my own words and adding an additional source (an academic one) for it I don't understand why we wouldn't list an additional source and include its quote in its citation. Each side has claimed to be the underdog, unfairly ignored by mainstream media. And is this capital owned by academics, authors, advocacy groups, activists, or the masses of lay folk? More than one source, with quotes in the cites, would help readers understand and appreciate the creditability of our claim. A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, I didn't list an additional one because I decided to quote that source. Other sources don't use that exact wording and, per WP:INTEGRITY, they shouldn't be placed beside a quote as though they support that quote. I noted that I decided against trying to put the matter in my own words -- such as stating "but they have significant social power" -- when my wording would be more subject to debate. I've seen how editing has gone on at this article and other transgender articles. All it takes is one editor coming along and stating "the source doesn't say that," as if we are not allowed to summarize matters and put them in our own words. And then we'd have a debate going on. But even using the source's exact wording, this argument now exists. So it's resulted in an argument either way. I did suggest WP:In-text attribution for the lead with regard to that wording, but I noted that the lead is for summarizing and that I gave the WP:In-text attribution lower in the article. I also preferred not to make the "they have power" matter seem like it's just according to one author (even though I attribute that exact quote to one author lower in the article because it's that author's quote). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

An archive of the Hines/Economist article's text is visible at https://archive.fo/7fvsg. The author cites no evidence to back her claims. A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Many WP:Reliable sources don't cite a source, and that includes most of the sources in this article. As has been discussed times before on this site, WP:Reliable sources does not state that reliable sources need to cite sources. And WP:In-text attribution exists for a reason. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The claim that one group has more capital (wealth, power, influence) is bold. I don't know if it technically requires a second source or a source that includes evidence, but I see no reason not to include one, and I believe it would improve credibility, especially given its appearance in the lede. A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The source in question does not state "more." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Mooeena, re: diff: I don't "personally disagree" with the "high level of capital" claim, I express healthy skepticism. The "capital" claim has a single, opinion-based source. The line I added makes no "conspiracy" claim; it notes activists' funding, with sources that include evidence. / I don't engage in "retribution". Please take your personal concerns to the user-talk discussion that you seem to have abandoned.[2] A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"Wealthy philanthropist" aka George Soros funding is a well known antisemitic canard now applied to an anti-LGBT narrative. Alleging pharma industry support for transgender is also some bold conspiracy theory. Washington Times and Federalist are heavily and unwaveringly partisan sources, the former of which are only marginally reliable for factual statements. I am extremely concerned for your third source, where you unironically cited the anti-LGBT hate group Family Research Council to factualize the conspiracy theory. You should stop this bizarre POV advocacy while you could. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 17:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I third Mooeena and Tsumikiria here. I thought those sources were fishy as proof on this talk page that the opinion existed, but actually trying to link "Soros did it!" as a source in the article is frankly ridiculous. LokiTheLiar (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I searched for consensus on our RS Noticeboard before adding these three sources and found none. This article has sources that lean in the other POV direction, such as TransAdvocate. The line added and now removed from this article was NPOV: Other authors have noted the transgender rights movement has the backing of wealthy philanthropists. Again, it doesn't claim "Soros did it". Are we denying this funding? A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

False. "The money behind the transgender movement Billionaire George Soros opens his wallet to transform America" is the title of the first source you cited. And don't make false equivalence comparisons on civil rights advocacy sources and unreliable conservative mouthpieces and hate groups. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 18:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Let's for sure leave Soros out of it (in the absence of overwhelming evidence in unimpeachable sources for such a claim, which these are not). It does seem to me, though, that there's an incongruity between the idea of social capital and the various deplatformings and backlashes. For example, this IHE article talks about how some feminist philosophers think they're being silenced and other ones disagree. So I wouldn't mind hedging the claim a bit, and adding more information from other reliable sources (for instance, on the different situations in the U.S., UK, and Korea). Cheers, gnu57 18:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I expanded this statement to include the American perspective (from: …they have a "high level of social, cultural and economic capital. / to: Writers in Britain have noted this group has a "high level of social, cultural, and economic capital", while American writers have noted a culture of fear to be silencing their views.), citing the "By Any Other Name" source. This was reverted (diff) with the log "It doesn't even say 'culture of fear'and this change undermines multiple sources by misleadingly represent one writer as mainstream." In the article's description of the situation (which I attempted to summarize as briefly as possible), the word "fear" is used twice, and "silence" is used thrice. I wiki-linked to Culture of fear; I also considered Chilling effect and Self-censorship. Can I ask help here for better wording? A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem with the phrasing of that sentence is that it portrays them very sympathetically, like a minority under attack. Even if the reason the American mainstream has rejected them wasn't because of their transphobia, it would be a violation of NPOV. The way I would say something like that is Trans-exclusionary radical feminists are "a powerful force" (quoting the NYT source) in Britain, while in America they are much less influential. LokiTheLiar (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

It is out of your capacity to insert your novel syntheses like transgender incite "culture of fear", "chilling effect" or "self-censorship" when sources explicitly raised none of them. It is also grossly inappropriate to use this one source to represent all of mainstream American opinion, which our other American sources would clearly contradict. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 19:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Lol okay. The source you linked doesn't make a conspiracy claim. *I* made a conspiracy claim because Soros-backed trans rights activism is a conspiracy theory. LokiTheLiar and Tsumikiria are correct here. Inserting a sympathetic line about the oppression of TERFs is completely inappropriate, as is citing such a claim as reliable. Please don't take every edit to your content as an unfounded personal concern. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 02:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Loki: Thank you for helping with wording of the American perspective. Tsumikiria: The Inside Higher Ed source indeed describes a feeling of fear (culture of fear) for expressing critical concerns, a silencing (chilling effect) of free speech, and self-censorship among American writers due to their situation. Mooeena: I don't see where I took this personally. A145 (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

That some rich folks spouted some offensive views about trans people is not in question. However I do not understand why it is in the least bit important or credible for Wikipedia to cut and paste in "social, cultural and economic capital" from an op-ed by some media pundit, when the separate elements are not unarguably demonstrable. As a counter example, a couple of lesbian TERF extremists disrupted the last London Pride march. The people in question were not notable, there is no indication they were either funded or rich, and there is zero evidence that they have a high social following, or were part of a "cultural" movement. Slapping this in the Wikipedia article is just accepting what some pundit says as the "truth" just because similar op-eds have mirrored the wording. It would be better to cut down this article to demonstrable facts, and minimize the mirroring of opinions, spin and general fluff that happens to fall in with the media generated myth/convenient fantasy that there are two sides of a reasonable debate at war with each other, and that "there are good folks on both sides". Wikipedia is not just another publishing platform to promote these myths. --Fæ (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that a single op-ed which doesn't appear to represent a worldwide view of the subject is not a great source for this claim, and we should probably not be including the quote. It also makes the sentence look like it's been the victim of an edit war when every clause is implicitly contradicting the previous one (which, uh, it kinda has but it ideally shouldn't be so obvious to the reader). I'm gonna go boldly re-edit that sentence and hope the result is agreeable to people.

I also agree that we should be cutting down on the number of opinions and that the article has a major WP:FALSEBALANCE problem, but I've been pretty clear about that opinion for a while now. LokiTheLiar (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

NB: Talk discussion on related redirects

Just a note here that a small discussion has begun regarding how to handle "TERF" and "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism/ist" redirects at the Talk:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism page. A145 (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Ism vs ist, and TERF-word article link.

I made the following section-title and template-title changes (diff):

• Section title change: Trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERF) -> Trans-exclusionary radical feminism [because this section is more about the ism than the ists]
• Template title change: Main article: TERF -> See also: The word "TERF" [because that article is about the word not the ideology]
• Section title change: Trans-inclusive feminism -> Trans-inclusionary feminism [to mirror "exclusionary", and because it seems more appropriate given dictionary definitions]

These changes were reverted (diff). What's the consensus for these three? A145 (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The sources show that TERF uses "feminists", so the change is misleading.

Nobody uses "Trans-inclusionary feminism" as a phrase do they?

--Fæ (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Anecdotally, when I search "trans-inclusionary feminism" Google suggests I search for trans-exclusionary feminism. This is not the case for "trans-inclusive feminism". I also get far more results (by Google's admittedly inaccurate count) than with for "trans-inclusionary feminism". I really don't think "trans-inclusionary" is used often enough to justify using it over "trans-inclusive".

I agree the section header should be "feminism" not "feminists" for the sake of parallelism with the sections on trans-inclusive feminism and transfeminism.

I think that the headnote should be phrased as "See also", since that section is not really about the term anymore. LokiTheLiar (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding literal definitions: From Oxford Dictionary:

• Inclusive: "Including all the services or items normally expected or required." [3]
• Inclusionary: "Designed or intended to accommodate diversity in age, income, race, or some other category." [4]
• Exclusive: "1. Excluding or not admitting other things. 2. Restricted to the person, group, or area concerned. 3. Catering for or available to only a few, select customers; high class and expensive. 4. (exclusive of) Not including." [5]
• Exclusionary: "Relating to or characterized by the exclusion of something, especially from a contract or group." [6]

Regarding common usage: De-duped Google counts:

• "trans-inclusive feminism" OR "trans-inclusive feminist": 80 results [7]
• "trans-inclusionary feminism" OR "trans-inclusionary feminist": 66 results [8]
• "trans-exclusive feminism" OR "trans-exclusive feminist": 129 results [9]
• "trans-exclusionary feminism" OR "trans-exclusionary feminist" 146 results [10]
• "trans-inclusive radical feminism" OR "trans-inclusive radical feminist" 55 results [11]
• "trans-inclusionary radical feminism" OR "trans-inclusionary radical feminist" 35 results [12]
• "trans-exclusive radical feminism" OR "trans-exclusive radical feminist" 146 results [13]
• "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" OR "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" 140 results [14]

Regarding changing "Main article: TERF" to "See also: The word 'TERF'": I'm hopeful this would clarify article differences for readers and editors.

A145 (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

So, for one, your google searches are inconsistent with ones I do for myself. I get far more results for "trans-inclusive feminism" than I do for "trans-inclusionary feminism". See, 35 results vs 93 results. For two, most results in a Google search and especially these searches are not reliable sources. We don't have to use the word "trans-inclusionary" because of a bunch of tiny blogs. And for three, most feminists that include trans people do not use a separate word for it (or perhaps call themselves "intersectional"). Our use of "trans-inclusive" in this page is therefore actually a bit uncommon.

Also, of course the dictionary has nothing to do with any of this. It doesn't matter why reliable sources choose one version over the other, just that they do. LokiTheLiar (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

For those that might be unaware, although on Wikipedia we talk about Google search tests, this started a decade ago and Google search has changed a lot since then. Google searches try to show you stuff influenced by what it thinks you are interested in, what country you are in, and any other data the AI can sniff out about you. If you are often searching for cute cats, then women with cats are going to magically appear in your searches for feminism. Anyway, it's not a reliable or repeatable indicator of what is statistically "normal" for the rest of the world. --Fæ (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• I would ardently oppose to use '-ism', principally because per the sources, it really isn't a coherent ideology or a developed, proper feminist theory, but rather a fringe group of self-professed "feminists" united in nothing but prejudice and hatred for trans people and willing do anything, including throwing away any tenet of feminism and taking help from conservatives, to deprive trans people of human rights. Nobody uses "trans-inclusive feminism", 'cause that's just like, feminism. That word is TERF's reaction to being affixed "trans-exclusionary". The google search counts aren't indicative of anything. It's a grave false equivalence to say that "trans-inclusive" and "trans-exclusive feminism" are equally valid. It really isn't. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a good point being raised that is hard to express neutrally. I agree that there is a general problem with a Wikipedia article that accepts that radical groups are a form of "feminism", and keeps on being rewritten to making it look like "feminism" can be defined by being split into camps defined by these radical terms and concepts, simply because groups like TERFs exist and call themselves "feminists", when pretty much the entire reason they exist as an entity is to be in opposition to the recognition and rights of transwomen.

What is being lobbied for by making these changes of section titles and other apparently small changes on the surface, fit this pattern of repeated rewriting to give the false impression of "balance" between TERFs and those that are now defined by not being TERFs.

As has been said by others, I do not see this being fixed, mainly because this is constantly how media pundits keep on painting the world because it is a popular news cycle meme. That the article remains a target of lobbying makes me honestly believe we would be better off deleting it rather than see volunteer time spent this way. --Fæ (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Almost all the sources call it "trans-exclusionary radical feminism", though. And they do appear to think of themselves as a unified group: they have shared spaces, shared jargon, and shared talking points. I agree that they are a fringe unified group but I don't see why that means they're -ists rather than an -ism. (Also: I've been using the phrase "trans-inclusive feminism" to distinguish it from trans-exclusionary feminism, but I agree that easily 99% of all feminists are trans-inclusive and just call what they're doing "feminism" unless this specific topic comes up and they need to distinguish.) LokiTheLiar (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Google isn't a reliable source, but it can be a general indicator.

I'd agree I've more commonly heard "intersectional feminism" (254 results) for what we've called "trans-inclusionary/inclusive".

How can there be "-ists" without an "-ism"? There is a perspective/theory, and it has its adherents/supporters.

What also about dropping the "(TERF)" parenthetical in the section title? This seems an endorsement of a term applied now outside feminism, which wouldn't be NPOV.

Are we at least in agreement about changing the hat-note from "main article: terf" to "see also: the word 'terf'", for clarification of word vs perspective/theory?

A145 (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Read what is written above. TERFs isn't a coherent feminist theory, but rather pickled and aged prejudice. Plus, it was originally created to refer Radfems (people), not the theory. And yes, we are going to unambiguously endorse the term TERF and use it directly, because most of the mainstream RS did so. We are not going to respect fringe rants. You may wish to redirect this complaint to the sources as an alternative. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I still don't understand the objection to calling it -ism. The sources do, and there are a whole lot of prejudices whose names end in -ism. Plus I actually do think that TERFism is at least as coherent as other bigoted ideologies (like, for example, scientific racism, fascism, and male chauvinism.) I wouldn't call it actually feminist, but they definitely have the markings of a shared (transphobic) ideology. LokiTheLiar (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Incidents in the History Section

I've been expanding the history section, and have tried so far to summarize instead of just listing random incidents and views of particular feminists. This is posing a problem with integrating the rest of what used to be in that section into the new section, because the current section consists of a list of incidents which mostly don't have a huge amount of historical importance.

What should we do with the remaining bits? I'm a little reluctant to just create another incidents section and shove them in there, because i feel like that would be recreating the problem that the history section is supposed to solve. Some of them I would have no problem just cutting (I really don't think we need a paragraph on a single op-ed), but others I think might have some historical importance (like the interruption of London Pride) even if I don't really see a great way to summarize them for the purposes of a history section. LokiTheLiar (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there any way that some of them could be grouped according to common elements (in terms of issues raised, or actors involved, or the way they were covered or something) so they fit together in a paragraph, and the rest dropped? Newimpartial (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe? For reference, the incidents are:

1. Two paragraphs on a relatively historically minor incident where a trans woman was refused employment by a rape crisis center, and the trans-exclusionary radical feminist Julie Bindel wrote an article about it.
2. A much smaller paragraph about trans-exclusionary radical feminist Germaine Greer opposing an honor going to a trans colleague, receiving negative publicity, and resigning because of that negative publicity.
3. A paragraph about a physical fight between a trans activist and a trans-exclusionary radical feminist. I feel strongly like we can cut this one because it has almost zero historical importance.
4. A paragraph about an op-ed written by Sheila Jeffreys and also a comment by Linda Bellos that's shoehorned in there for some reason. I think this also has zero historical importance and frankly probably shouldn't be in the article at all, or at least not in this form. We don't need to include whole paragraphs about every op-ed either side has ever written.
5. A paragraph about an incident where a group of trans-exclusionary radical feminists interrupted London Pride. This one I think does have some historical importance and should still be around, but needs to be cut down and contextualized a bit more.

As you can see, a lot of them are kinda marginally important. I think it would be possible to cut and summarize several of these (in particular, 1 and 5 are good candidates for that sort of treatment), but I think 3 and 4 probably ought to just be cut. 2 is the one that really puzzles me, since it's already definitely cut down enough and it's just that it would be hard to fit into the more narrative style I'm going for with the new parts of the history section. LokiTheLiar (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Another editor recently expressed concern for not seeing the physical fight at Speaker's Corner (on this talk page). A145 (talk) 01:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

To quote User:ShimonChai on that page (emphasis mine): "WP:NOTNEWS News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Wikipedia is also not written in news style." LokiTheLiar (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The amount of time that a piece of content remained on Wikipedia is never an argument. We've literally had patent hoaxes and nonsense remaining in place for month if not years on this project. It is never too late to remove some vile horseshit. I'll repeat here: both WP:10YT and WP:NOTNEWS apply for this trivial incident for which inclusion only serves to undermine trans rights arguments by smearing its proponents. You've seen at least 4 editors opposing its inclusion, yet you still re-added it. You would do well to self-revert this unveiled disregard of consensus, and start listening to other editors from now on. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 06:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, lemme add a little more reasoning here: Wikipedia is not a place to list every time a trans person has hit a TERF, or vice versa. A trans woman who is not a public figure hitting a trans-exclusionary radical feminist who is not a public figure is not appropriate material for an article that is supposedly about feminist views on transgender topics. It's also POV-pushing: the obvious purpose of listing this violent incident, and only this one in the entire article, is to portray trans women as violent. It is not hard to find examples of incidents where TERFs behaved violently towards trans women. If I wanted I could expand the section on Sandy Stone to include more detail about an incident where a group of TERFs raided an Olivia Records event with guns in an attempt to murder her. I don't do that because I want to keep the number of particular incidents in this article that's purportedly about views to a minimum. LokiTheLiar (talk) 06:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Lewis and Miller paragraph: New addition?

This also comes from the TERF article, and I think it'll need some editing to fit into this one. Cheers, gnu57 23:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

Feminist theorist Sophie Lewis wrote in 2019 on The New York Times that "TERFs" in Britain have succeeded in "framing the question of trans rights entirely around their own concerns", including framing transgender people's right to exist as a contributor to "female erasure". Lewis used the term "TERFism" to describe anti-transgender feminism particularly in the United Kingdom, noting that despite TERFism's American roots, it died out in the United States, and were rejected by Irish feminists citing similarities with British colonialist policies that enforced heterosexuality and gender binary. Lewis wrote that the term TERF has became a catchall for all anti-transgender feminists, regradless of being radical or not. Edie Miller, writing in The Outline, said that the term was applied to "most people espousing trans-exclusionary politics that follow a particular 'TERF logic', regardless of their involvement with radical feminism". References

I intended to leave this paragraph as is on TERF, mainly because it showed usage from named experts and provided important context for the succeeding new term TERFism, although a little trim would be good. I am now writing a longer paragraph for this article because Lewis provided a rather long and very detailed account on the history and development of British TERFism that I think doesn't fully belong to TERF. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 23:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

It's still kind of my opinion that we ought to make a separate article about trans-exclusionary radical feminism the ideology, since it's clearly notable and it might help with some of the problems of this page to move some of the content that doesn't quite fit over to that article (just like it helped to move over the section on the term "TERF"). I bring this up since you mention writing a long section on history, and I think the large amount of history we already have on this page which is not supposed to be about history is strong evidence that making that page would be a good idea. LokiTheLiar (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm opposed to that because of the lack of clarity around who counts as trans-exclusionary. (For example, does Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie belong in a trans-exclusionary radical feminism article? Does Holly Lawford-Smith?) It seems like everyone and his brother is getting called a TERF lately—and as the sources at TERF say, they aren't necessarily part of the radfem intellectual tradition of Raymond and Jeffrys. I think that a solution to the apparent lopsidedness of this article isn't to spin more off but to add more information about the spectrum of views on different topics, beyond just "here are some no-context quotes of extreme, offensive things feminists have said". Cheers, gnu57 01:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that an article on the radfem intellectual tradition of Raymond and Jeffreys would still be useful, though. But I'll agree to drop the subject for now, since it doesn't appear to be terribly popular on this page. LokiTheLiar (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point. I am also inclined to oppose the idea because it seems like a textbook WP:POVFORK; if there are concerns that this article has e.g. false balance issues or POV problems as far as making trans-exclusionary radical feminism seem more prevalent or accepted than it is, giving tee-ee-arr-eff-ism its own article would only magnify those problems, AFAICS. -sche (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

A145GI15I95

Off topic material about user behavior, not appropriate here

Would anyone care to propose better solutions for handing the lobbying from @A145GI15I95:? Despite lengthy, and tedious, debate on this talk page trying to reach different forms of agreement on layout, words and balance, the article is still being lobbied to introduce a pro-TERF view. During last months abandoned Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_173#Talk:Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics#Rewrite_and_Template_Removal DRN request, they made repeated and apparently deliberately false assertions that medical standards that Wikipedia should follow, culminating with the statement "I've already responded above to your concern for trans-related diagnoses and supposed "reduction to a disorder". This isn't my action but the action of those who write manuals such as the DSM and the ICD, the doctors who code their diagnoses, and the insurance companies who cover or deny." Anyone that actually looks at what the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) and the ICD (International Classification of Diseases) these will discover they were both changed years ago to remove being transgender or gender identification as a disorder or a disease or a mental illness. This was not simply misleading, this was the choice of to use disruptive fake news arguments that anti-trans groups have been using for decades by spreading false defamatory arguments about trans people that are both hard to understand and complex to rebut. I think this article remains their most problematic and disruptive contribution to Wikipedia. The edit history of the article shows that most of the times they have edited the article, their changes have been quickly reverted as inappropriate. Despite a DS alert, a request at DRN and an failed Arbcom request, I do not see this pattern changing. The advice from DRN was to take this case to ANI, however I am unsure if that would be a helpful next step, considering how discussion on gender related issues there has been treated recently. Links to directly related noticeboard discussions and evidence: 14 Mar 2019 DRN Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_172#Talk:Detransition 14 Mar 2019 COIN Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_141#User:Mooeena_&_Wiki:Detransition 15 Mar 2019 NPOV/N Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_75#User:Mooeena_&_Wiki:Detransition 16 Mar 2019 ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006#Transgender-related_POV 11 Apr 2019 DRN Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_173#Talk:Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics#Rewrite_and_Template_Removal 14 Apr 2019 RSN Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_263#TransAdvocate 15 Apr 2019 3RR Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive388#User:A145GI15I95_reported_by_User:Mooeena_(Result:_Page_protected) 14 May 2019 SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/A145GI15I95 The history of conflict on trans-related articles, along with a name change which was clearly never intended as a proper clean start due to remaining engaged in exactly the same conflicts, and "invisible" events that are not accountable for the average user, like hitting the spamblacklist by attempting to add bad links to Detransition and Radical feminism, or creation and deletion of userspace pages, should be of general concern. Even if individual events and edits may be ignored as mistakes or coincidences, the long term pattern is one of persistent and disruptive lobbying. --Fæ (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC) An article talk page isn't the appropriate place for personal concerns. they made repeated and apparently deliberately false assertions that medical standards that Wikipedia should follow I did no such thing, not sure how you're concluding that. Anyone that actually looks at what the DSM…and the ICD… The current edition of the DSM (DSM-5, published 2013) classifies gender dysphoria as codes 302 and F64 on pages 451–459. And I don't quote this to stigmatize anything (you brought it up). I've no knowledge of User:Cestlavieleir, I've never even noticed them. I've no sockpuppets. The question of whether The TransAdvocate is a reliable source I asked in good faith, and I participated in its discussion fairly. All other concerns linked above are from a user who's taken a personal interest in me. These concerns have resulted in no action. Again, and as I've asked you multiple times before, if you've a personal concern, please raise it in the appropriate place. Thank you. A145 (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC) So, honestly the obvious pro-TERF bias doesn't bother me that much. It's not against the rules to have a bad opinion, or to be against consensus. I feel like A145 should lay off the edits that are clearly going to be reverted, I'm concerned about the possible sockpuppeting (I think a new account making an edit that A145 already made before is quite concerning) and I think trying to quick-close this discussion is quite bad. But overall I think we're in the land of civil POV pushing and kinda have to deal with it. LokiTheLiar (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Collapsed the section above per WP:TALK and WP:TPO. LokiTheLiar, if you still wish to address the topic, you should blank this section and move it, to A145's User talk page. This page is not an appropriate place for this. This article talk page is reserved exclusively for discussion about how to improve the article, and not for user behavior issues. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC) Well, at least we know that this user has been highly problematic and their edits requires elevated attention and examination from everyone else working on this page. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Usage of 'anti-trans' in Wikipedia's voice

Several instances of the phrases "anti-trans" and "anti-transgender" were recently added to this article's prose in Wikipedia's voice (in the "Collaboration against trans rights with conservative groups" and "Feminist support of transgender topics" sections). While I certainly don't oppose quotations of the phrase, this otherwise appears to be POV-pushing. I attempted to reduce these (changing non-quoted instances to the more common "trans-exlusionary"), but this was within seconds reverted. How do other editors see this? A145 (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

All those instance of "anti-trans" are directly supported in cited sources verbatim. And as I explained in above sections, this is a neutral term backed by many reliable sources and avoids falsely painting the mainstream-fringe divide as in equivalent opposition (a problem with using "exclusionary" and "inclusionary"). Your opposition to the term is, frankly, bizarre, if not overtly POV in a quite undesirable category. You should stop while possible. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 02:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Back off with the never ending lobbying please. --Fæ (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I also have no problem using "anti-trans" in Wikipedia's voice. It's a fact documented in probably over half the sources on this page, including multiple sources sympathetic to trans-exclusionary radical feminists, that trans-exclusionary radical feminists are anti-trans. Not only do many of the sources use that phrase specifically, even TERFs will say pretty clearly that it's not merely that they want to exclude trans women from feminism or women's spaces, but that they are actively against trans women period. They almost universally say trans women are not women, call trans women men, use male pronouns for them, claim trans women are sexual predators or misogynists, say trans women "mutilate" their bodies, yadda yadda yadda, the usual transphobia merry-go-round. It's not like they are subtle about their opposition to trans women. LokiTheLiar (talk) 06:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

"Trans women deserve no rights at all and are drag wearing sexually predating males who seek to rape and murder women at every opportunity" is not a particularly kind form of argument that we flatter as some garden-variety, healthy exclusion about. Just saying. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 07:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

(Yes, of course. Are you intending to respond to me? This is the second time recently you've responded to me in a way that appears to me to be weirdly aggressive. I would like to be clear here that I am not a TERF and don't like TERFs, to put it very mildly, and I would hope the above paragraph as well as everything I've said on the topic makes that pretty clear.) LokiTheLiar (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant to concur your statement, not to offend it. Should have used a different indent. My bad. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 07:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, when I ask what other editors thought of this, I meant other than Tsumi and myself. Thank you, Loki and Fae, for replying. I'm not lobbying. I'm seeking to maintain neutrality and consensus. If indeed we've general support for this, as these initial replies would indicate, I accept that. A145 (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

To my understanding, the rule that should be taken into consideration here is WP:RACIST. The question that must be asked here for it to be an NPOV issue is anti-trans a contentious label? If so, the stipulation about requiring in-text attribution should be taken into consideration, if not, to my understanding we can define the subject inline with what WP:RS uses. At the same time, we should not remove what multiple WP:RS citations call a subject completely. So if something is considered anti-trans by several notable WP:RS citations, we should mention that, the question is, do we directly call the subject anti-trans, or do we say, according to these WP:RS citations, the subject is anti-trans. I would argue, that "opposed to transgender rights" is neutral, and not contentious if that person being opposed to transgender rights is backed by WP:RS. However, one could argue that saying a subject is Transphobic, could be seen as contentious and requiring inline citations. The reason being is that, transgender rights are a definable set of policies, that are widely agreed on in the political and philosophical sphere. I would also say that context matters, generally, even if it is a contentious label, there are still times where that label is accurate, such as with The Transsexual Empire. As even if applying good faith, quotations like "All transsexuals rape women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves .... Transsexuals merely cut off the most obvious means of invading women, so that they seem non-invasive." are only acceptable on the WP:FRINGE as non-transphobic. ShimonChai (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the sources have outlined clearly enough that TERFs are not only "trans-exclusionary", but specifically against trans people's civil rights and actively work to block and undermine such rights. As it was used prevalently by neutral sources, it isn't much of a contentious label as to things like "antivaxx" or "antiscience", 'cause these things are defined clearly enough and we certainly don't use the softening "vaccine-rejective" or "science-questioning". I reiterate my observation that "anti-trans" is a better neutral term than "trans-exclusionary", which implies a simple dichotomy, not the reality of mainstream vs fringe. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 02:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't agree that "trans-exclusionary" is softer than "anti-trans" in actual use. I think that they both occupy roughly the same rhetorical space, and that the harsher term would be "transphobic". Certainly no TERF would be caught dead calling themselves "trans-exclusionary" even though many of them do call themselves "anti-trans". LokiTheLiar (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

…is anti-trans a contentious label? It can be, if it's used too loosely. Are the named parties against trans persons/rights/issues, or are they excluding trans folk, or are they excluding males, or are they pursing only on their own persons/rights/issues? We've seen labels applied loosely in the spaces before, which is why I expressed skepticism and asked for a simple consensus check. A145 (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

"Excluding males" is precisely the language of anti-trans lobbyists, used to demean and deride transwomen. "Anti-trans" is a factual description, in precisely the same way as classifying the objectives or lobbying of a white supremacist as "racist". --Fæ (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to endorse a scale of "trans-exclusionary", "anti-trans", and other labels, now that you mention it, Loki. And Fae, all I asked was a consensus check of what the parties and sources actually say, to avoid SYNTH and POV. A145 (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

If you believe that there was SYNTH and POV problems, feel free to review the sources yourselves and come up with your own rewrites for all of us to review. This is how Wikipedia works. And as Fae noted above, aligning your language with the exact kind transphobic bigots use are extremely concerning. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight tag on both articles

As @A145GI15I95: has ardently and repeatedly removed the "anti-trans feminist" from "this page may give undue weight to anti-transgender feminists' opposition" tag and article content on TERF, citing a perceived NPOV violation, and is arguably the only person objecting so (the other account who did the revert, Cestlavieleir, is an obvious sock from someone). And as both pages suffer from the same problem of TERF opinion getting overrepresented. I'd like to resolve the tag language on both pages on this better-maintained page. Per sources, many radfems distance themselves from TERFs, so the "undue weight to radical feminist views" on this page is inaccurate. And the consensus above held that TERFs are not merely excluding trans people, but actively against their rights as well. I do think it is pertinent for both pages to use the tag "undue weight to anti-trans feminists". Thoughts? Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 03:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I'd slightly prefer "undue weight to trans-exclusionary radical feminist views" on both pages since I think that's slightly more accurate but that preference isn't strong. LokiTheLiar (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Off topic material about user behavior, not appropriate here

Tsumi: Well, at least we know that this user has been highly problematic and… [Added to the folded section below named for me.] Nothing of that sort is "known". Please stop the WP:PERSONALATTACKS and WP:HARASSment. I'm not the first editor to revert a change there for pushing POV.[15][16] Reverts are part of WP:BRD, and there's WP:NORUSH to skip discussions. Note that I've repeatedly brought content concerns on your behalf to talk pages, and without singling you out by name.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23] Your hesitance to discuss content but eagerness to discuss users on talk pages is telling. There have been attempts to recruit… [Added to the top of this talk page.] There have? Please share with us all where and when, please. I'm curious now myself. Otherwise, why did you add this tag, and with a backdate of last November?[24] And could someone point me to the doc page for this tag, please? Cestlavieleir is an obvious sock… [In the comment just above here.] Again, I've no puppets. If you think otherwise, pursue it in the proper place, and stop spreading rumors while you await the result.[25] Your daily accusations and templates are WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:DISRUPTive. You made a new subsection title here, but you begin again with complaints about me; this is inappropriate. Please stop cluttering everyone's watchlists with non-article talk on article-talk pages. And please don't ping me on a page where you've seen me reply within 24 hours (which is a more-than-reasonable duration, I'd rather you give me a week). If you've a personal concern with me, please drop it or take it to a more appropriate place, and let's return these article-talk pages to the merits of article content. A145 (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC) A145: "Problematic" is not the strongest word that applies, and it is only a fair observation shared by other experienced editors as well. Dismissing these reasonable concerns as personal attacks or harassment are avoidant and disruptive on its own. And my rigorous discussion history should annul your BRD concerns. Upon reviewing links to your past conflicts provided below, it appears that you yourselves was involved in off-wiki canvassing attempts to several pages relevant to the transgender topic, including this article. Although the precise links were revdelled after you claimed that people pointing out these COI concerns are somehow "doxxing" you. The date was mistaken as I copied it elsewhere, but at least, please own your actions, and do not do those again. You are in an WP:1AM situation where you are the only editor raising objections to commonly used and neutral terms. The discussion above is relevant to the page, with consensus against your objections in a clear fashion. You need to drop the stick, and walk away from the dead horse that was beaten beyond recognition. Cestlavieleir was likely a sock from someone else that sought to imitate your edits - this was what I wrote on the SPI page. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 00:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC) These accusations are false and off-topic, and I'm ceasing my attempt to reason with you about them here. Please continue user talk.[26] A145 (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

"Particular topics" section is bloated

User:Genericusername57 made a series of edits a few days ago which put a lot of the page under the "particular topics" section. I very much do not like this change: the particular topics section was already kind of a catch-all section, and putting everything under it has IMO just made that problem worse. I get the impulse to lump everything under a single section given the other problems with this page, but I don't think it's a good idea. LokiTheLiar (talk) 06:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC on Templates

The article currently has four templates:

1. too many quotations
2. too many primary sources
3. lacks NPOV
4. undue weight to (trans-exclusionary) radical feminist views

There has been some controversy on this talk page about whether to remove these templates, especially the NPOV and due weight ones. Should we remove any of these templates, and if so, which?

Please comment with Remove [number(s)] and/or Keep [number(s)], and explain your reasoning. LokiTheLiar (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Survey

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus regarding any of the templates, defaulting to the status quo of leaving them in. Suggestions that this article should be deleted belong at WT:AFD. Closed per request at WP:ANRFC. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

---

• Remove the templates. Like I stated in #Removal of page templates section above, I was clear in the #On the nature of transwomen section that the article doesn't give undue weight to the trans-exclusionary feminist view. As seen in the #Rewrite and Template Removal section, I've been over this. So has Mathglot, in the #Under-citation of trans feminists, trans-inclusive feminists, and modern feminists in general section. I really can't see what it is that is difficult to understand about WP:Due weight concerning how much weight is given to a matter in the literature. The conflict (or dispute, or whatever you want to call it) between feminists and trans women (who may or may not be feminists) is what "feminist views on transgender topics" is primarily about. And this is clear from reliable media sources and academic sources. That the exclusionary view might be the minority view does not negate the weight that view has been given in reliable sources. I again refer people to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. For a comparison, the domestic violence literature gives the vast majority of its weight to feminists than to men's rights views. That is why we -- Wikipedia -- do not give nearly as much weight to men's rights views on that topic. The domestic violence literature is also primarily about women; that is why Wikipedia follows. Look at how I presented my case in that link -- that RfC -- and the sole opposing viewpoint (that is also currently being expressed on that article's talk page because the topic will always have such editors weighing in). I'm not stating that trans-inclusive feminists are like men's rights people or that their views are a minority or significant minority. It's just a comparison of the weight given to topics.

As for primary sources, I noted in the "On the nature of transwomen" discussion that the "relies too much on references to primary sources" tag is questionable because this article currently mainly relies on media sources instead of academic sources and so many or most of those sources are opinion pieces or similar. So, of course, the article is going to mainly consist of primary sources. A source being a media source obviously doesn't automatically make it a seconary source. For example, like WP:RSBREAKING states, "All breaking-news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution." But, anyway, despite what I stated about this article relying on primary sources, Aircorn is obviously right that Wikipedia articles should ideally not be mainly based on primary sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep 1, 3 and 4; I don't have a strong opinion on 2. My reasons for keeping 3 and 4 are stated above in the section Removal of page templates, so I'm not going to go too into detail about them here, but basically if you look at the entire universe of reliable sources, the vast majority of reliable feminist sources are trans-inclusive and do not mention this argument. Those feminist sources that do mention the conflict directly are also mostly trans-inclusive. More than a few sources do cover the conflict, so the conflict should be covered, but in order to support removal of the templates, it should be much clearer that the trans-inclusive view is the majority and the trans-exclusionary view is a heavy minority view if not a fringe one. (I actually think that feminist vs. men's rights views on domestic violence is a good analogy: it's not hard to find sources about the conflict if you're looking for them, but if you look for sources on the topic itself they overwhelmingly lean one way.) I care less about template 1 than 3 or 4, but I do still think the article quotes too many people directly and could still use some summarizing, although it's better than it was. LokiTheLiar (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The "vast majority of reliable feminist sources are trans-inclusive and do not mention this argument" is inaccurate a misleading statement; this is for reasons I've gone over above. The only way that it's accurate is if one looks to the trans-inclusive media sources you've looked to that are not specifically about feminist views on transgender topics. When one looks at the sources that are specifically about feminist views on transgender topics, it is easy to see that the literature is overwhelmingly about the conflict/disputes between feminists and trans women. Fact. As noted in the "Removal of page templates" section, you even stated that "trans-exclusionary feminists really are overrepresented in reliable sources." And I stated, "Well, that reliable sources give so much weight to them is why Wikipedia is supposed to follow." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, name me one feminist media organization (and by "organization" I mean "large enough to pay people to write for them") that is not Feminist Current. Because I can name you easily five large ones who are trans-inclusive as a matter of editorial policy, and every single thing those organizations have ever published on trans issues is a reliable source that goes to determining the proper weight in this article. For example: according to Alexa, Jezebel is the 3558th most viewed site in the world (838th most in the United States), they are explicitly feminist, and their output on trans issues is overwhelmingly trans-inclusive. And I can go through the same logic with other feminist organizations: although none of them are nearly as big as Jezebel they're still all quite influential, and almost all of them have an explicitly trans-inclusive editorial position.

Like, I'm aware that there exist trans-exclusionary feminist media organizations (or well, at least one), it's just that there are much fewer of them and they're significantly smaller to boot. Feminist Current is the largest and only trans-exclusionary feminist source I'm aware of, and it's rank about 275,000 globally, compared to 34,000 for Autostraddle and 97,000 for Bitch Media. (And I'm not joking or cherrypicking when I say there aren't any other trans-exclusionary feminist organizations: Alexa says the most similar sites to Feminist Current are four trans-positive sources, one of which is set up exclusively to rebut TERFs, and a suspended wordpress blog.)

(Also, please don't take me out of context. I clearly stated in that section that even though trans-exclusionary feminists are a minority in reliable sources they are still overrepresented in them because they are even more of a minority of real life feminists then they are online.) LokiTheLiar (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep trying to explain WP:Due weight to you. You either don't understand it or you are willfully ignoring it. That there are a number of feminist-inclusive sources or a lot more feminist-inclusive views than feminist-exclusive views is not the same thing as "the feminist views on transgender topic is mainly about trans-inclusive views." It's clear from the #Media 'terf' usage section that you also have a problem with WP:Original research or WP:Synthesis in particular. For example, we do not state "Many feminist media organizations" unless a reliable source states that. That's why I removed "many" when tweaking/trimming that content, although your list of media sources should not be there. As for taking you out of context, the point is that you stated "trans-exclusionary feminists really are overrepresented in reliable sources." If we don't want to focus on what you stated there, you've stated similarly elswhere on the page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove 1, 3, and 4, keep 2—I agree very much with what Flyer22 Reborn has said about reflecting the weight given in reliable sources. I do have some remaining concerns, but I don't think they're serious enough to warrant templates. (See my comment below) gnu57 01:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a terrible article, it's not neutral and gives false weight and credibility to transphobic views expressed by highly transphobic controversialists and self promotional pundits who have gone out of their way to say and do damaging things against trans women in particular, despite those same pundits preceding every article with "I'm not transphobic, but". "Balance" does not mean that for every non-transphobic quote we can get away with publishing a transphobic quote and give readers links to the anti-trans sources because "neutrality". The article should remain heavily flagged as being crappy and unencyclopedic until a major rewrite puts a proper long term encyclopaedic perspective on actual "feminist views" per the title of the article. Putting four tags at the top is minimal in this context. By the way, I am aware that "oppose" does not fit the RfC, but an RfC proposition written this way is not of itself neutral, it's like asking people to vote on the right number of angels to fit on the head of a pin rather than giving an opportunity to decide if angels exist. --Fæ (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Fæ: In context, by "Oppose", I presume you mean "Keep all templates"? (E: Nevermind, reading more carefully I see you mentioned that already.) LokiTheLiar (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep templates, AfD this page - Couple reasons we should consider deleting 1) It's not clear to me that this topic is notable. There's an impressive list of references, but if you examine them critically, only a handful seem to grant the topic direct coverage. That handful are from sources like "The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy". Do these seem like the kind of high-quality RS that we typically rely on to prove notability?, 2) This article seems like a long list of Op/Eds from little known feminists. Wikipedia is not opinion. NickCT (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The "only a handful seem to grant the topic direct coverage" aspect is exactly what I mean by "when one looks at the sources that are specifically about feminist views on transgender topics, it is easy to see that the literature is overwhelmingly about the conflict/disputes between feminists and trans women" and "that there are a number of feminist-inclusive sources or a lot more feminist-inclusive views than feminist-exclusive views is not the same thing as 'the feminist views on transgender topic is mainly about trans-inclusive views.'" Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

NickCT, the topic is WP:Notable, though. Editors' poor choice of sources doesn't change that. Its title is descriptive. And some topics are mainly media topics. We have a lot of topics that pass WP:Notable even though they are mainly covered by media sources. This topic, however, can be supported by a number of academic sources as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral on 1 & 2; Remove 3 & 4: I see many short quotations. Given the controversial social context, they may be helpful to mitigate NPOV concerns. / I see there are some primary sources. I've not read thoroughly enough to say if their number is too high or low enough. / The article's POV is mostly neutral. Where it leans too far is in the opposite direction claimed. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• Blow the article up It is all over the place. It has been pushed in one direction and then another by SPAs and POV warriors. Let some editors who actually write encyclopaedic articles rewrite it if it needs to exist. It is really too unstable at the moment to make any real call on the tags. There is no exact point of weight of coverage that is going to be the exact balance point. What we have at the moment is probably close enough. The reliable secondary sources which are around the views of feminists on this issue tend to discuss the exclusionary ones as much, if not more than, the inclusive.[27] Even opinions that paint it in a negative light.[28] It could be them giving the undue weight because this is the more interesting aspect of the topic, but we are really bound by what they do. The single biggest issue with this article is the use of Primary Sources, so that tag should stay. I don't buy the arguement that we should use Primary Sources because the article is on opinons. The biggest advantage of using secondary ones is that it assigns the weight to each feminists view and the counterview, rather than us. This obviously solves the issue with weight. As for the quotes I really dislike the use of quotes on any article and would be happy having them reduced. This is more a stylistic thing though and this article is far from the worst I have encountered that overuses quotes. So in summing up destroy the article or Keep the Primary Sources one and delete the rest. AIRcorn (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

As you know, I'm working on blowing the article up via the draft I'll be presenting. Above, I didn't mention quotes, but I agree about reducing quotes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Then I suggest this RfC is closed without changing anything. When the rewrite happens, so long as the issues are visibly resolved, there will be good reason to reduce or remove warning notices for readers. Leaving an RfC open when an article is undergoing major rewrite does not make sense, as the first votes will be against the old article, and new votes against a different one. --Fæ (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Editors are not waiting for my draft, though. And like I noted in the #Recent changes to the lead and drafting section above, I understand them not waiting. That stated, it appears that LokiTheLiar is more intent on not waiting for my draft and that the others would be fine waiting for it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Unless quite a few more editors come in and comment, the result of this RfC is clearly going to be "no consensus". So I'd support closing it. LokiTheLiar (talk) 01:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Off my watchlist. If you reply to any statement I've made on this talk page, it would be best that you ping me. But, really, it's best that you don't post a late reply to me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion

These are my minor remaining concerns, which I don't think warrant templates:

• Quotations: The Dworkin, Daly, and Greer sections really need fleshing out. The pull-quotes can stay, but there should also be more general (primary- and secondary-sourced) information about their views.
• Primary sources: The article needs more academic information about feminist viewpoints and movements, and probably a bit less blow-by-blow of particular inflammatory things feminists have said in interviews. (I agree with -sche that the Bindel stuff could be trimmed down.) It's good that the TERF-as-a-word section has been heading in a more academic direction recently, but the rest of the article needs that expansion as well.
• Lacks NPOV: The only major issue I have with the article's presentation of viewpoints is that the focus on exclusionary vs. inclusive elides the differences among feminists who aren't part of the radical Raymond-Jeffrys intellectual tradition, yet still disagree with one another about things like socialisation, privilege, and (for lesbians) same-sex vs. same-gender attraction.
• Undue weight: Loki, why don't you start parking refs you'd like to include on the talk page? (Stick them here, perhaps?) It's hard to talk about the balance in reliable sources when we don't know which sources you have in mind. Cheers, gnu57 01:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you on primary sources, and about the Dworkin quotation. I can add sources to that section, but one caveat is that, just like (e.g.) the vast majority of discussion in reliable biology sources presumes evolution exists and not all of that deserves to go into an article on evolution, the vast majority of discussion in reliable feminist sources assumes a trans-inclusive position, while I don't think everything reliable feminist sources have ever written on trans issues deserves to be added to the page. Or in other words, I'm going to be listing some sources that are either the trans tag in some large feminist sources or else several clearly trans-inclusive articles in feminist sources, and I'm hoping to demonstrate the general trend by doing so while not necessarily endorsing adding them to the page. LokiTheLiar (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

A discussion has gone on too long in the Survey section, so I'm moving my response to the discussion section:

I think now we are getting somewhere sort of productive instead of rehashing the same argument. In particular, I think you are partially misinterpreting the sort of thing I'm advocating, and partially interpreting WP:SYNTH too broadly. (I agree the thing I was doing in #Media 'terf' usage was original research, but that was largely due to the fact I was making inferences from these sources' use of a term, and if I had found more direct statements on the issue that sort of sentence would have been acceptable.) WP:SYNTH does not say you can never summarize multiple sources, nor that you can never make inferences from multiple sources if those inferences are sufficiently obvious. WP:SYNTHNOT says explicitly that you could cite the statement "The sun is bigger than the moon" with a source on the size of the sun and a source on the size of the moon without problems. Other articles on topics about controversies between a majority and a minority position cite like this: the article on the creation-evolution controversy cites "in the scientific community, evolution is accepted as fact" with a official statement from the IAP, but a pedant could point out that technically speaking, the IAP isn't the "scientific community", it just contains almost all scientists.

What I would like to do is, for example, to put sentences like "Most feminists are trans-inclusive" in the article, with citations from the NOW and Feminist Majority statements (I could also find equivalents for Emily's List, etc etc) plus the line "such views are shared by few feminists now" from this New Yorker article, Julia Serano's Medium piece calling TERFs "fringe", and this Vox article which says the third and fourth waves of feminism are trans-inclusive. Another thing I would like to be able to do is to say something like "Many feminist organizations opposed Trump's trans military ban", and cite many feminist organizations opposing the ban as I did in the #Parking some cites here section above. This sort of thing is not WP:SYNTH as long as any reader would conclude the inference being drawn is obvious from the sources. LokiTheLiar (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Calling your "many feminist media organizations" sentence WP:Synthesis is not interpreting WP:SYNTH too broadly. And that is the only aspect of your editing I have called WP:Synthesis thus far. Summarizing is one thing. But it's still the case that you should not string together multiple sources the way you did and state "many feminist media organizations." This is why words like "many" often get tagged as a WP:Weasel word unless supported by a reliable source. Do read WP:Weasel word, which, for example, states, "views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the no original research or neutral point of view policies. Equally, editorial irony and damning with faint praise have no place in Wikipedia articles." I use "some" and "many" in different cases, but not in the way that you did, and I try to attribute them to a reliable source. Your sun and moon comparison is not close to the same thing. Neither is your creation-evolution controversy comparison. It's not like you stated "these feminists are a minority within feminism" like you did with this edit, and with a source. And when it comes to the creation-evolution controversy, those are two different topics. Feminism, by contrast, is one topic (with subtopics). Creationism is obviously the view among the vast majority of religious people since religion usually has a creationist view. Among scientists, evolution is the majority view. That is why that text states "in the scientific community." If that article has engaged in WP:Synthesis, it is not an excuse for this article to do the same. Anyway, to go along with the "a minority within feminism" piece, I noted the power that trans-exclusive feminists have....since noting that is just as important. No, we shouldn't be including Julia Serano's Medium piece calling trans-exclusive feminists fringe. Just like I noted at Talk:Male privilege, Medium is a poor source. In fact, it's not a WP:Reliabe source. That source is Serano's opinion. The poor source is fine for WP:About self stuff, but not for calling trans-exclusive feminists fringe. As for "many feminist organizations opposed Trump's trans military ban," it should first be a topic in the article, not just included randomly. You still should not state "many" in that case, and engaging in citation overkill is not a good thing. In addition to WP:Weasel words, see WP:SUBSTANTIATE.

And, like I noted above, NickCT's statment that "only a handful seem to grant the topic direct coverage" aspect is exactly what I mean by "when one looks at the sources that are specifically about feminist views on transgender topics, it is easy to see that the literature is overwhelmingly about the conflict/disputes between feminists and trans women" and "that there are a number of feminist-inclusive sources or a lot more feminist-inclusive views than feminist-exclusive views is not the same thing as "the feminist views on transgender topic is mainly about trans-inclusive views." You're just cobbling together any trans-positive source you can; that's not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I actually don't think that we disagree as much as we've thought we do so far. You're drawing a distinction between me adding that "minority within feminism" statement and what I'm proposing here, and while I do see it based on what I've said, I also feel like I may have been taking a more contentious line than I actually had to. The basic thing I'm arguing is that there are a lot of sources out there, many of which are already in the article, which bear out that this article currently gives undue amounts of weight to trans-exclusionary views. I'm not picky about those sources being from Jezebel or Autostraddle or wherever else; my point is simply that they do exist and we should include more of them and do more with the ones we already have.

I'm getting the impression that rather than argue on the talk page about whether these sources theoretically exist, it would be more productive to simply edit the article and prove that they do exist. So far every time I've actually added such a source to the article, they have mostly been pretty uncontroversial, while when I assert that they do exist on this talk page, people seem to think I'm making stuff up. And to be fair, this is at least partially my fault, because when I try to name examples of sources from everyday experience, the first sources that come to my mind are feminist media sources which are often not that reliable in a Wikipedia sense (like Jezebel), and not something like the NOW website which is much stronger evidence for claims about what the consensus among feminists is but which I don't personally visit very often.

I do want to defend including more of Julia Serano's Medium pieces though, since Serano is a relevant expert. I don't really think she could support an assertion that trans-exclusionary feminists are fringe by herself, but I do think that, since she's been treated as an expert on this topic by multiple mainstream news organizations, we also ought to treat her as an expert even when she self-publishes. I also think we should be citing her stuff much more for information on what trans-positive feminists believe, because in that capacity she's clearly a relevant expert and we frankly lack a lot of information on that topic as it stands.

I also want to repeat that, while I agree there is certainly no shortage of coverage about the conflict between trans-positive and trans-exclusive feminists, I don't think that that's even the majority of the coverage. This article isn't about that conflict exclusively, it's about all feminist views on trans issues, and most sources about feminist views on trans issues aren't about that particular conflict. The NOW website, for example, never once mentions trans-exclusionary feminism, but it mentions trans issues plenty. Same for Ms Magazine: it doesn't ever mention trans-exclusionary feminism but it does mention trans issues a bunch. I am, however, not inclined to argue too much about this particular point on this talk page, since it's frankly somewhat of a pointless argument to simply state different interpretations of the balance of the sources at each other. LokiTheLiar (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

You stated, "The basic thing [you're] arguing is that there are a lot of sources out there, many of which are already in the article, which bear out that this article currently gives undue amounts of weight to trans-exclusionary views." We clearly disagree on that, and have discussed that enough on this talk page.

You stated, "[You are] getting the impression that rather than argue on the talk page about whether these sources theoretically exist, it would be more productive to simply edit the article and prove that they do exist. So far every time [you've] actually added such a source to the article, they have mostly been pretty uncontroversial, while when [you] assert that they do exist on this talk page, people seem to think [you're] making stuff up." Eh? As made clear by others, there is an issue with the type of sources you are focusing on. NickCT's statement is indicative of that. And, as seen in the #Media 'terf' usage discussion, the way you have added them in one case has also been a problem. When it comes to what you've added to the article, you have been reverted more than just once, including by me. My focus was on the content being added or changed, not so much on the sources. The sources -- used to support whatever you add -- are just another issue. Like Genericusername57 (gnu) stated, "really we can't just heap up a number of sources articulating particular viewpoints—to determine due weight we need ones giving an academic overview of the different schools of thought, like 'groups a and b think this, groups c and d think that (and no one cares what that fringy group e thinks, so we're barely mentioning them)'." That is pretty much what I have stated, what Aircorn has stated, and is what NickCT was stating.

As for Julia Serano's Medium pieces, they are only good for her personal opinions. Period. And they should not be used to classify anything as fringe. I was clear about why above.

Yes, this topic is about about all feminist views on trans issues. But the conflict between trans-positive and trans-exclusive feminists regarding trans women should still get a lot of weight. Most of the weight. There exists some commentary on trans men as well, for example. But that commentary shouldn't get nearly as much as weight as the conflict between trans-positive and trans-exclusive feminists regarding trans women. This is because it doesn't get nearly as much attention/weight in sources. We've already been over WP:Due. Like, I stated, we disagree on that. No need to rehash it yet again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

My edits to this article have been reverted a total of three times, two of which were bold attempts to restructure the article, and one of which was by myself after rethinking the edit. Aside from those times, I've added quite a few sources to this article over the previous few weeks and none of those edits has been reverted. This is the experience on which I'm basing my assertion that what I'm actually doing in the article is not as controversial as I think both sides of this argument have assumed.

Also, I agree with gnu's assessment of how to resolve the weight issue, but I want to point out that we do have one source which gives such an academic overview, which is the Stanford Encyclopedia source, and it gives trans-exclusionary radical feminists a lot less weight than this page currently does. (Of course, it's also focused narrowly on academic feminism; I suspect that a source about feminism and trans people more broadly would probably give a little more weight to trans-exclusionary feminists than the Stanford Encyclopedia source does, but still not as much as this article does.)

One more aside: I don't think we disagree that the conflict between trans-inclusive and trans-exclusionary feminists should get a lot of weight. I agree it should, because a lot of sources definitely do cover it. I just don't think the conflict should get the overwhelming amount of weight it currently gets within the article, and within the conflict I also think we are still underweighing the trans-inclusive position, both in individual issues and which issues we choose to have sections about. LokiTheLiar (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The reverts are not what matters. You brought up reverts as trying to justify your choice of sources. Even if you hadn't been reverted, it doesn't mean that your choice of sources are ideal. They are not ideal, per what I and others stated above. And some of what you have done is not ideal. Your edits have been accepted, reverted (including partially reverted), or tweaked. And per WP:Discretionary sanctions and this article having recently been full-protected, there should be very little reverting at this article. Ideally, there should be very little reverting at Wikipedia articles anyway. Plus, some things you are proposing are clearly contentious.

I've gone over the Stanford Encyclopedia matter in the #Removal of page templates section with you above; I'm not going over all of that again. But I will repeat that we do not look at another encyclopedia and follow its format (not the entire format anyway). Wikipedia has its own rules, including WP:Due weight. That encyclopedia gives more weight to aspects that Wikipedia should not.

I know that we disagree on the weight aspect. That won't change. But, in the past, you seemed to think that trans-exclusionary feminists' views and their conflict with trans-inclusive feminists should get very little weight. It at least seems that your opinion on that has changed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, my position was never that that conflict should get "very little" weight, at least not assuming my intuition for what you mean by very little is accurate. Obviously the conflict is noteworthy and deserves significant coverage, but I object to the idea that it is the only time feminists ever talk about trans people, and I object to the idea that we should cover it as if trans-exclusionary feminist views have not more-or-less already lost it. My very rough intuition right now is that the conflict should amount to probably around a third of the article if it was balanced properly. LokiTheLiar (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

You were making comments that indicated "very little" to me. You have, for example, been calling the view fringe. We don't give fringe views much weight, except for in their own articles if they have an article dedicated to their views. But even in that article, we are supposed to be clear about what the majority view is. As fo the rest, I know what you object to. Again, no need to repeat ourselves. I never put foward or indicated an "it is the only time feminists ever talk about trans people" argument. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Content moved here from section Transgender women in the lesbian community

This content moved here from section "Transgender women in the lesbian community" because it has nothing to do with the section topic, rather, it's about a transphobic protest by a small group at London Pride.

content removed from #Transgender women in the lesbian community

In 2018, the Pride in London march was disrupted by a small group of lesbians calling themselves Get the L Out. The group carried banners with the phrases "Lesbian = Female Homosexual", "Lesbian Not Queer", and "Transactivism Erases Lesbians", while distributing leaflets stating that LGBTQ politics had failed lesbians and was contributing to lesbian erasure and compulsory heterosexuality. A member of the group described their motivation as follows: "We protested the LGBT movement as a whole and Pride specifically because many lesbians feel erased and betrayed by a movement which claimed to represent us. The L in 'LGBT' is meaningless when the LGBT organisations claim that a man can identify as 'lesbian.'" The group was condemned as transphobic or "anti-trans" by several news outlets, and the organizers of Pride in London published a public apology, condemning the group for "a level of bigotry, ignorance and hate that is unacceptable." There had been a similar protest at Auckland Pride Festival a few months earlier, with a banner saying "Stop giving kids sex hormones—protect lesbian youth". References

Storing it here, until an approriate location can be found for it; maybe it needs its own section. Note also a WP:DUEWEIGHT question here: this is too many column inches compared to the length of the rest of the article. Mathglot (talk) 06:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

If the only problem were length, I'd condense it, but aside from the WEIGHT issue, I wonder if an article on feminist views (rather than one on lesbians, transphobia, or LGBT) is even an appropriate place for this. (But, a possible condensed version: The 2018 Pride in London was disrupted by a few lesbians calling themselves Get the L Out, who said LGBTQ politics contributed to lesbian erasure by allowing trans lesbians; organizers and some news outlets condemned them as ignorant and hateful.[1][2][3]) -sche (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd support condensing it and removing the promotional mission statements per due weight grounds. Mentions to flash mob protests doesn't belong to the article. sche's rewrite looks good. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Some of this has now been moved to the newly-created Lesbian erasure#In_relation_to_transgender_women, which is, all things considered, possibly a better place for it than this article (cf my comment above). -sche (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Are Terfs really a minority among feminists?

I have been looking for statistical information on the depth of support trans-exclusionary feminists have among women. It is stated in the article that they are a minority among feminists, but the references given appear to be anecdotal. Terfs are clearly unpopular in most of liberal media, but feminists who write for liberal media represent a tiny fraction of all feminists Ariel31459 (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The way sourcing works on Wikipedia does not require us to find statistics. A reliable secondary source is perfectly fine. There's no reason to suspect the sources given are unreliable, so we can use them. If you are aware of actual statistics, please tell us about them, but until then the current sources are sufficient. LokiTheLiar (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The view point that puts all "TERF critical" reliable sources in a box marked "liberal media" is unlikely to make any encyclopedic improvement. Fæ (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ariel31459: Welcome (back) to Wikipedia. As this article is not actually about the amount of support that "trans-exclusionary feminists have among women", that would be off-topic for this article, and so shouldn't really even be discussed here, except perhaps as general background if it impacts the main topic in some way (it could be more relevant to another article with a different focus, if you want to write one). Assuming you meant instead, the amount of support that trans-exclusionary feminists have among feminists in general as your section title would imply, that would definitely be relevant. Please have a look at the core Wikipedia principle of Verifiability, and the requirement to use reliable, independent, secondary, sources and to add citations for them. See also Help:Footnotes. Not to avoid your question: so yes, they are a small minority among feminists; a slightly larger but still small minority among radical feminists, and most prominent in the U.K. among a certain segment of radical feminists there, where they are still nevertheless a minority. Mathglot (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Newbie perspective

Wow!!!!! As pretty much a newbie, here am I about to start an article on Gender Critical Feminism - to add to the impressive varieties of feminism that Wikipedia has commendably got articles on. So I checked 'Search Wikipedia' and got landed instantly in 'Feminist views on transgender topics', and well here I am folks.

Have to say I am gobsmacked. The reason I thought it would be good to write such an article is because I thought that the Wikipedia requirements for neutral language and objective rather than emotional speech would be a good place to try and write down some gender critical stuff that did not immediately result in being slandered for "hate speech" or "transphobia". How naive can you be! I guess it just speaks to the need that I (and no doubt lots of others!) have for a place where ideas can be discussed without rancour.

Anyway I still think I will have a go at it, and that it is a good idea to have a separate article, to add to the other variety feminisms as I said. Without actual statistics (who/how should we survey?!?) I do suspect that the gender critical stuff is a minority position amongst feminists today - but that does not mean that it should not have a good description for Wikipedia users to read. SheHoo (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)SheHoo

[{replyto|SheHoo}} The idea of a separate article for trans-exclusionary or "gender critical" feminism has been discussed before, but many editors feel it would be a WP:POVFORK and also overlap too much with both this article and the article [[TERF]] (for which reason several users in past discussions have said they would promptly nominate such an article for deletion / unforking). I would suggest you propose the content you would like to add, and the sources you would like to cite, so we can discuss whether to include it in this article or [[TERF]]. -sche (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Adding courtesy ping SheHoo on behalf of -sche, due to broken formatting above. (Also, did you mean anything special about the excess brackets?) Mathglot (talk) 04:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the ping. The double brackets (making the display text look like the wikicode for a link) are a practice I picked up on Wiktionary, for visually setting apart mentioning a page-as-a-page (in this case, to say that a new third page would be redundant to that other page, and this one). I now realize how opaque it is, ha. -sche (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Greenesmith

Regarding the Greenesmith paragraph which was recently removed/readded: I had thought about restoring part of it myself when I saw its removal, but ultimately decided it didn't say anything vital that other parts of the section didn't say. Perhaps, as a compromise given concerns about how "weighty" the person's view is / should be, we could condense it? "Researcher Heron Greenesmith says recent collaboration between conservatives and anti-transgender feminists uses "scarcity mindset rhetoric" whereby civil rights are portrayed as a limited commodity that must be prioritized to cisgender women over other groups, and is partly a reaction to the trans community's increased visibility and rights." (Btw if Greenesmith were to be entirely removed, we should try to group the dangling one-sentence paragraph that would leave behind into one of the other paragraphs.) -sche (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

No, we already have someone from the PRA listed shortly before. It should be removed per WP:UNDUE. I appreciate an effort at compromise, but an ongoing problem is that some activist editors seem to want articles on this subject to just be a repository of opinions they like. it is easy to slip into activist-like thinking on such a politicially hot topic, and similarly, some material may have been added just to collect favorable opinions.-Crossroads- (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC) updated for civility and good faith's sake -Crossroads- (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

As the one who re-introduced the Greenesmith passage, I believe it not to be UNDUE (for one thing it is sourced to a RS news outlet, unlike many other commentators here, and this should be a factor in WEIGHT), and it also clearly articulates an analysis that is not as clear elsewhere in this article about the alliance between TERF and conservative intervenors.

This also is not a matter of my "wanting articles in this subject to be a repository of opinions I like", which is both untrue and moves in the direction of a CIVIL violation. I am not in the habit of cutting, for example, relevant scholarship because I disagree with its conclusions or distrust the discipline from which it emerges, as some contributors to this Talk page are known to do. I want to see a well-sourced article that actually reflects the range of perspectives on this topic within feminism, and base my editorial suggestions on this principle. Newimpartial (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps Crossroads1 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) would like to publish their blacklist of the people they are calling "activist editors" so the wider community can have a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence supporting this allegation and decide if it is worth acting on? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know who is responsible for originally adding the material to the article and others. I am not making an accusation; putting it back could also be out of a preservationist tendency. The problem of writing like an activist and excessive collection of favorable opinions is mentioned as a caution against letting material that does that remain unchanged, even though it is sourced. I certainly do not have a "blacklist". I would like to know the motivation behind linking my contribs and logs. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Redirects and where they go

This was discussed to some extent on Talk:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism, but following the creation of more redirects and the changing of where some existing redirects point, there is still/again a lack of uniformity in where various titles of that type redirect: for example, Gender-critical feminism and Trans-exclusionary feminism redirect here, but Gender-critical/Gender critical and Gender-critical feminist (the last of which is, to be fair, my creation/fault) redirect to TERF. Do we want to make any changes to this?
(Note also that there are redirects at a range of alternative spellings and plural forms of those titles, some of which serve as a non-admin form of "salting" the titles to discourage creation of a third article that'd be redundant to these two.)
-sche (talk) 06:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm interested in general, though I'm not an expert in this area, as to why General Critical should not be it's own article. It is the term that those accused of being TERFS use. I don't think we should pick either TERF (the critical) or Gender Critical (the positive) as the go to terms to describe said group to the exclusion of the other. But how do we pick a neutral term that is reported without being seen to pick a side?

Also "Gender Critical" can include people who are not radical feminists. That also gets into the concept of anti-trans. Is that a specific viewpoint or simply a failure to agree to the Trans viewpoint? This is an evolving issue and I feel it is often very subjective but "lets wait 10 years and see what the lay of the land is" isn't helpful either. User:95.150.80.152 (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding "how do we pick a neutral term that is reported without being seen to pick a side" and "'Gender Critical' can include people who are not radical feminists": at the moment this is handled by covering the matter in this article under its neutral title of "Feminist views on transgender topics", which is not restricted to radical feminist views. (The article "TERF" is principally about the word "TERF" — like how "Gay" is principally about the word "gay", while homosexuality as a concept is covered in Homosexuality.) If you think changes should be made to the content (...or subsection headers...) of this article, we can discuss that — and if you think Gender critical should redirect here rather than to TERF, that's a possibility I want to discuss in this very thread! :) — but in my opinion a whole separate article on "gender critical" would be redundant to this article (and would be very likely to run into guidelines against WP:POVFORKs). -sche (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

My first reaction is that the most neutral term is the fully spelled-out, descriptive one, Trans-exclusionary radical feminist (or, -ism; one should redirect to the other). We know the history of the term, and it was coined by a radical feminist for purely descriptive reasons to avoid having to write a paragraph every time she wanted to distinguish between two groups of radical feminists. The fully-spelled out term does not have the same baggage as the abbreviation later developed, and nobody writes it on a protest sign, or spits it out on YouTube as an epithet.

Both TERF, and Gender critical have a POV agenda, imho, and neither one should be the main article title, if there is only going to be one article covering the two of them. But that leaves those supporting the Gender-critical POV feeling left out, justifiably so in my opinion, as there are plenty of reliable sources on both sides. The current situation is clearly inequitable.

What should happen now, imho, is that there should be an article Trans-exclusionary radical feminist (currently a redirect) which should have a #Terminology or #Related terms section, under which there would be two subsections, #TERF and #Gender-critical. In each of those subsections, assertions can be made that would be POV for the article title main body, but not POV for each of those subsections, as long as principles of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV are adhered to. There should be a merge of the article TERF into that article, and those who want to create an article Gender-critical should instead add their content to the subsection. Both TERF and Gender critical would become redirects to their respective subsection. This is fully supportable by the range of RSes, is neutral, and solves the problem, imho.

In the event that a merged article would be too long (I don't believe it would be), the main article could be reorganized in Summary style, still with the two subsections as before, but briefer, with {{Main}} links to two articles: TERF about a term, and dealing with only that POV view of the main topic, and Gender-critical about a term, and dealing with only that POV view of the main topic. If organized as two child articles under the parent Trans-exclusionary radical feminist, this would not be a violation of WP:POVFORK. Adding @-sche:. Mathglot (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I've been following this but haven't been sure what I favor. I agree that your proposal here would be a great improvement. The reasoning in favor seems good and I think it would help with the existing TERF article's POV issues. I don't think your proposed article would be too long (and require splitting up) either. However, I'm not convinced any of this material should exist separate from this article. In other words, I don't think the article TERF should ever have been made; it should have stayed a redirect here. But if it is not changed back, we should do what you suggest here. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This article (and the discussion around it) has improved somewhat since the TERF article was split out, IMO, so I would be loath to see it repoliticized by recombination. However, I would strongly support the proposal by Mathglot to create Trans-exclusionary radical feminist and to merge (and prune) the TERF content there while expanding a section for the term "Gender-critical". This would be much more encyclopedic than either the status quo and the status quo ante, and in that case readers could evaluate the sourcing behind "TERF" and "gender critical" as labels more readily in one place, rather than hashing out the competing positions in the lede of particular articles such as Meghan Murphy. There is no realistic possibility that the resulting article would be too long. Newimpartial (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Among the concerns I have about creating a "Trans-exclusionary radical feminist" article is that similar "positions"/arguments/incidents/etc will be split/repeated between this page and that one, since a lot of "TERF-like" people are not (self-)identified specifically as radical feminists per se and would be trimmed out of that article on that basis, and then likely wedged (back) in here. Another concern is that in this article, such views are presented in [a] context, and are at least theoretically supposed to be given only as much weight as they are given in sources covering (all various) feminist views of trans people, whereas a standalone article seems liable to become focused on presenting only the perspectives of those feminists—e.g. would responses to trans-exclusive feminists be included in that article if the responses were not directed specifically at radical feminists? (We already mostly segregate Transfeminists into a separate article, which already distorts attempts to "present all views relative to their WEIGHT" in this article...) Meh. -sche (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I've been planning for a while to expand the transfeminism section of this article, but that will likely require combing through and source-checking Transfeminism first. Cheers, gnu57 22:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

lede

"Early feminist views on transgender people were often hostile,[1] but more modern feminists view the struggle for trans rights as an important part of feminism.[2]"

This is not appropriate content. The sources deal with American feminism, they are not necessary representative for feminism in every country in the world. Also, it is too vague, what does "early" and "modern" feminism refer to? What historical period exactly? Articles should be written with the presumption that some readers have no clue about the subject, and such readers must be properly informed and be able to understand the subject. Then, the way it is phrased, it implies that every "early" feminist was 'hostile' while every "modern" feminist is 'supportive', which too much of a generalization. 2A02:2F01:5CFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:482F (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the sources for that text are better than that text itself: the sources specify second-wave feminism which is certainly a relevant concept outside the US (especially in other English-speaking countries, but not only there). I am certainly in favor of improving the passage (specifying more precisely than "early" and "modern"; perhaps referring to decades rather than waves). But removal of the sources or what they actually support shouldn't be in the cards. Newimpartial (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I wrote that line and I agree it's poorly worded. I worded it that way because of a memory of a previous reverted rewrite which was based on the waves of feminism. If I had to write it again, I would definitely replace "early" with "second-wave" and "more modern" with "post-third wave". LokiTheLiar (talk) 07:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Undiscussed page move

Lmatt (talk · contribs), who really should have known better coming right off a block, moved this page without discussion. I’m mobile now, but I can move it back when I get to a computer, if it hasn’t already been handled by then. Mathglot (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Since I consider the current title incoherent, I support moving it back, at least until another new title gains consensus. I will not make the move since I am the administrator who has blocked Lmatt twice, and I do not want to appear vindictive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Moved. Someone might want to check my work (I haven't done a move before). I don't have strong feelings on the name, but "feminist views on transgender" just doesn't make sense grammatically. Nblund ^talk 01:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, looks fine. Mathglot (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed citation style change to LDR

I'm proposing a change of citation style to List defined references. Strictly speaking, this isn't really a change of citation style, since the same citation templates will still be there, byte-for-byte, as before; they will just be in a different place in the wikicode, namely, at the bottom, in the References section. They will still render the same as before.

The reason for this, is that it becomes harder and harder to edit the article, when there are long, and/or numerous references, especially stacked references. As an example, look at the wikicode for section Trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs) in the article, and try to find the insertion point where you could add some text to that section.

Here is an example of what that section would look like, after being converted to use LDRs instead:

section from rev 919755910 altered to use List defined refs

Trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs) See also: TERF "TERF" is an acronym for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". It is used to describe feminists who express ideas that other feminists consider transphobic, including the opposition of transgender rights and the inclusion of trans women in women's spaces and organizations, or who say that trans women are not women. While these parties lack influence in mainstream feminism, they are relatively powerful in the United Kingdom, in particular the British press, and have collaborated with conservative groups and politicians to oppose laws advancing transgender rights and existing rights and protections of trans people. Feminist Viv Smythe, who is credited with coining the term, has stated its intention as a "technically neutral description ... to distinguish TERFs from other RadFems ... who were trans*-positive/neutral." Those who exclude trans women call themselves "gender critical", and object to the word "TERF" calling it inaccurate or a slur. Collaboration against trans rights with conservative groups Researcher Cole Parke at Political Research Associates (PRA), an American liberal think tank, wrote in 2016 that fringe TERF scholarship has built a cultural and intellectual foundation upon which the right wing could, by "selectively highlighting and leveraging", construct anti-trans narratives that appeal to both conservatives and a certain sect of leftists. Parke concluded that, while the right wing sought to lay siege against transgender people—"some of the most vulnerable members of the LGBTQ community"—TERFs are responsible for designing the Right's talking points, fueling the dangerous "anti-trans frenzy". The Southern Poverty Law Center, an American civil rights nonprofit, issued a report in 2017 documenting American Christian right groups' attempts to "separate the T from LGB", noting an emerging trend in depicting transgender rights as anti-feminist and hostile to minorities and lesbian, gay and bisexual people. The report further stated that this trend is part of a larger strategy to weaken trans rights advocates by separating them from their allies, feminists, and other LGBT rights advocates. The SPLC detailed the anti-LGBT hate group Family Research Council's annual Values Voter Summit, during which attendees are encouraged to rebrand their rhetoric in the language of feminism, including framing gender identities as offensive to women. The report quoted Meg Kilganon, leader of an anti-transgender conservative group, as saying "Trans and gender identity are a tough sell, so focus on gender identity to divide and conquer". In January 2019 the Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think tank, hosted a panel of left-wing feminists opposed to the US Equality Act. PRA researcher Heron Greenesmith has said that the latest iteration of collaboration between conservatives and anti-transgender feminists is in part a reaction to the trans community's "incredible gains" in civil rights and visibility, and that anti-trans feminists and conservatives capitalize on a "scarcity mindset rhetoric" whereby civil rights are portrayed as a limited commodity and must be prioritized to cisgender women over other groups. Greenesmith compared this rhetoric to the right-wing tactic of prioritizing the rights of citizens over non-citizens and white people over people of color. Jessica Stern, executive director of LGBT human rights NGO OutRight Action International, wrote in April 2019 that the fundamentalist "anti-gender" movement had developed a segment within the LGBT community in recent years, that the fundamentalists had aligned with religious extremists to restrict reproductive and LGBT rights and promote a biological determinism-based gender definition, and that its LGBT segment had violated fundamental tenets of feminism by manipulating "seemingly feminist" language to advocate against trans rights. Stern denounced as "pure, unabated hatred, cushioned in would-be human rights and pseudo-feminist language" an opinion piece by Angela Wild, leader of lesbian activist group Get the L Out, saying that Wild's language and gender definition are identical to the Trump administration's and had "[exacerbated] the fear, marginalization and hate trans women already face". References

If you're looking at this and saying, "I don't see anything different," that is exactly the point. It renders the same, but now take a look at the wikicode, and compare to the wikicode in rev 919755910. Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot I tried out LDR on a couple articles recently. I like them, and would be fine with a change-over. They do have limitations, though: 1. you can't edit refs when doing section editing 2. any refs added with Visual Editor would have to be fixed in source 3. adding refs with ProveIt become less automated. (I don't think these are inherent problems with LDR, but rather stem from the fact that LDR isn't widely used.) WanderingWanda (talk) 11:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@WanderingWanda:, Thanks for your comments. By the numbers:

1. True.
2. Don't understand this point.
3. Sort of, but not really. One of the cool things about LDR, is that it's not an either-or thing. Anybody who wanted to add refs inline, or use Proveit, could continue to do so. So, for a while, we'd have most refs in the refs section, with some stragglers here an there inline. Eventually, somebody would come along (or not) and convert them to LDRs.

The thing I find cool about LDR, is that everything will continue to work properly, no matter where the refs are, and most importantly: whether there are "stragglers" inline or not, the rendered page looks identical. I.e., this change would be for the convenience of editors, rather than for readers. The question is, whether that convenience is worth the effort to change it over. I'm willing to do the changeover, if other editors here find that it would be a net benefit to their editing efforts. There's certainly no hurry about it, and we can just wait and see who weighs in on it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding point 2: I just meant that Visual Editor can't create new LDRs, but only inline "stragglers". Like you point out, it's not a huge deal. WanderingWanda (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Minor but crucial correction?

This article is dense, and in trying to understand it, I was a bit thrown for a loop by this sentence:

Lesbian feminist of color Sara Ahmed has said that an anti-trans stance is an anti-feminist one, and that trans feminism "recalls" earlier militant lesbian feminism.

Should that not say:

Lesbian feminist of color Sara Ahmed has said that an anti-trans stance is an anti-feminist one, and that ANTI-trans feminism "recalls" earlier militant lesbian feminism.

(CAPS just for emphasis here since I can't figure out how to highlight.)

If I were certain, I would just change it, but this page is a bit dense, describing conflicting views, so I don't want to accidentally make it worse!

Marlacparker (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

No, Ahmed argues that trans feminism has best preserved the militant spirit (which Ahmed seems to view positively) of earlier lesbian feminism, pushing for progress and such. The sentence says "recalls" because that's the verb Ahmed uses ("it is transfeminism today that most recalls the militant spirit of lesbian feminism"), but I wouldn't mind changing the wording so it's clearer. -sche (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

@Newimpartial: The FRC paragraph was added in May 2019 by @Tsumiki: in this diff The PRA portion is an overly close paraphrase of Greenesmith's comments to MSNBC; the SPLC portion is also copyvio. Added text:

The Southern Poverty Law Center issued a report in 2017 documenting American Christian right groups' attempts to "separate the T from LGB", noting a emerging trend in depicting transgender rights as being anti-feminist and hostile to minorities and lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals. The report further stated that this trend is part of a larger strategy to weaken trans rights advocates by separating them from their allies, feminists, and other LGBT rights advocates. The report quoted Meg Kilganon, leader of an anti-transgender conservative group, as saying "Trans and gender identity are a tough sell, so focus on gender identity to divide and conquer"

Source:

In 2017, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights organization that tracks extremist groups, issued a report from the conservative Values Voter Summit in Washington regarding the Christian right’s attempt to “separate the T from the LGB.” The center noted a trend emerging of transgender rights being “depicted as anti-feminist, hostile to minorities and even disrespectful to LGB individuals.” “This seems to be part of a larger strategy, meant to weaken transgender rights advocates by attempting to separate them from their allies, feminists and LGBT rights advocates,” the report continued. The law center's and several other reports quoted Meg Kilgannon, executive director of Concerned Parents and Educators of Fairfax County, a group that opposes transgender rights, as saying during the summit, “Trans and gender identity are a tough sell, so focus on gender identity to divide and conquer.”[29]

This is blatant, line-by-line close paraphrasing/copyvio. It needs to go.

Tsumiki added another sentence in that paragraph in this diff; this one is more arguable, but I'd say the added text

The SPLC detailed the anti-LGBT hate group Family Research Council's annual "Values Voter Summit", during which attendees are encouraged to rebrand their transphobic rhetoric in the language of feminism, including framing gender identities as offensive to women.

is too close to

Attendees were also told to wrap their transphobic rhetoric in the language of feminism, claiming gender identity is a concept offensive to women.[30]

Cheers, gnu57 21:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, by academic standards these are both legitimate paraphrases and in any case are not copyright violations. Why would you assert the contrary? Newimpartial (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Please see the explanatory supplement Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. gnu57 02:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

(FWIW I had a go at resummarizing the sources like so shortly after you posted this.) -sche (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Nixon & appeals

We write:

Nixon's attorneys argued there was no basis for the dismissal, citing Diana Courvant's experiences as the first publicly trans woman to work in a women-only domestic violence shelter. In 2007 the Canadian Supreme Court refused to hear Nixon's appeal, ending the case.

If the case was appealed then there must be a lower court ruling for the Supreme Court to potentially hear an appeal. Can we say something about that case, who was the lower court, and how did they rule? --causa sui (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Clarification edit 1/8/2020

RE: DIYeditor's reversion of my changes:

Doesn't matter to me whether the article uses UK or US spelling, I just tried to make it consistent. RE: missing period, my mistake - may have happened when inserting a source or changing the end of a sentence. The citation (Goldberg 2015) was removed because it seemed that the only usage was attached to a redundant sentence that was repeated earlier in the paragraph - but apparently the source also referenced the sentence immediately preceding the redundancy.

RE: other changes, there was no POV editing: -Added a relevant source re: women-only spaces (research study by the Williams Institute) -Replaced an obfuscating, non-neutral term ("gender critical") with a neutral term ("trans-exclusive") -Removed an out-of-place, irrelevant sentence: the Robin Morgan sentence has no place in the "modern history" subsection and adds nothing to it -Retitled "Differences in socialization and experience" subsection to simply "Socialization and experience" - the former title presupposes differences posited by TERFs and is in dispute. The changed title is neutral and describes the content of the subsection. -Retooled and added clarification to poorly phrased sentence that references radfem views of gendered oppression and uses phrases like "supposed innate femininity"

Given the explanation above and with your comments in mind, I'll edit again without the errors you mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.146.220 (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Leave out the "claims" and "claiming" in particular, and "allegedly". I think there were actually two cites you took out. The other was As a result, some radical feminists do not believe that trans women are women. As far as Robin Morgan I disagree, it contrasts the time periods and is relevant. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Published. "Claims" and "claiming" were left out of the new edit. RE: Robin Morgan, the sentence as it stood read as simply accepting Morgan's incorrect assertion that trans women are male. Without that sentence, the contrasts in views between different waves are already very clear from the rest of the paragraph. The reason I deleted the "As a result, some radical feminists do not believe that trans women are women" line is because the exact same idea is articulated earlier in the paragraph in the "Some feminists argue that trans women cannot be..." line.108.31.146.220 (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Few now share Robin Morgan's 1973 credo that she "will not call a male 'she'". merely repeats what Robin Morgan said. It's in quotes. I think that should go back in. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

Wow, this article seems to have a lot of WP:NPOV issues. It opens with the following claim: 'Second-wave feminist views on transgender people were often hostile,[1]', citing this source. Can someone find 'second wave' in that article? The only occurrence of 'hostile' is 'What it means to be a “real man” may involve relating to women in hostile, destructive ways'.Maneesh (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Maneesh: There are five occurrences of the terms hostile or hostility, notably two variations of the phrase "early (non-trans) feminist perspectives on trans issues were marked by hostility". As the source is not talking about 19th century feminism(s), I'd say WP:BLUE applies to the inference of "early" to "2nd wave". EvergreenFir (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I missed 'hostility' but the source till doesn't support the claim. The article claims the second-wave feminist views on transgender *people* were *often* hostile...while the source says that feminist perspectives on trans *issues* were *marked by* hostility. The really seems like a rather dubious equivocation.Maneesh (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Reads like an opinion piece written by transgender activists

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The section on "TERF" is laughably bad. Contrast it with the facts presented herein: https://feministwiki.org/wiki/TERF Whoever wrote it was obviously hell-bent on carving out conspiracy theories about radical feminists being secretly right-wing, while completely ignoring the fact that "TERF" is an extreme misnomer and mostly used to incite hatred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DungaroosAreCool (talk • contribs) 01:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@DungaroosAreCool: welcome to Wikipedia. Do you have a concrete proposal about how to improve what you see as defects in the article? Because that's what a talk page is for. This Talk page is not a place to simply explain your personal views on the topic itself, and this section may be collapsed or removed per WP:NOTFORUM if it is. Please follow and read the links in the Welcome message I left on your User talk page, including the links about neutral point of view, and the links at the civility section on the "five pillars" page, including the part about Assume good faith. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: is there any point in making proposals to improve the page when extremely biased editors will bulldoze over the discussion and not let anyone who disagree with them speak or make a point? (Which is very uncivil behavior if you ask me.) And if I had to make a concrete proposal it would be rewrite the whole section from scratch. I don't understand why Wikipedia lets activists write one-sided pages in the first place. The feministwiki doesn't even try to be unbiased and it's still less biased than here. DungaroosAreCool (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@DungaroosAreCool: I'm going to respond to the one thing you said that was about improving the article, namely to rewrite the section from scratch. You could try that, but I would strongly urge you to use either a subpage of this Talk page to write your proposed rewritten section, or your WP:USERSANDBOX, and then open it up for discussion here as a proposed new version, rather than just rewriting it in the live article. You have to understand that this article is about a topic that is in a controversial area of Wikipedia, and that the language you currently see has been hammered out, sometimes with great difficulty, over years, through many hundreds of versions, by 260 editors. Numerous discussions have been carried out on this Talk page or on the Talk page of the TERF article trying to establish a consensus on what language to use in the articles. Sometimes there are long discussions about even a single word; I'm thinking about one discussion about whether to use the word "some" before the word "feminists". The reason I'm mentioning this, is that although you're perfectly within your rights to try to offer a rewritten version of the section here, I think the chances that it would be accepted are close to zero, and I don't want you to be setting yourself up for frustration: you would be stepping on the contributions of dozens of editors who have compromised and discussed this language for a long time, sometimes hashing it out word by word. I'm not saying don't even try, but I am trying to give you a reality check, so you can judge whether that is the best way forward for you, if you wish to influence the content of this article. Incremental change, and discussion here, has a far better likelihood of success, and even then, you might have to try to achieve change in this section one word at a time, through long discussion here. So please be prepared for that: if you are serious about wishing to change this content.

Your other comments about biased editing, uncivil behavior, and what Wikipedia's rules are, are not appropriate to discuss here, but I'd be happy to take up those questions at your Talk page ifyou wish. Same thing regarding any help you might need with using subpages or your sandbox. Feel free to {{ping}} me from your Talk page, or ask a question and include {{Help me}} in your message. If you wish to reply here, please stay on track about specifically how to improve this article; questions or comments about the behavior of other editors doesn't belong here. If you have a specific editor or editors in mind, you could address them on their User talk page; if it's about editor behavior in general at this article, you could try raising a topic at the Talk page of one of the relevant WikiProjects listed in the Talk header at the top of this Talk page. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@DungaroosAreCool:, you left another response here, which is now no longer visible, because it was removed per talk page guidelines, and the WP:CIVILITY guideline of no personal attacks. This is precisely what I was alluding to in my comment above: all of your comments on this page must be restricted to how to improve this article; anything else may be (and was) removed. It keeps running off the rails, and that can't go on here. As I think you have some things to say, that are not article related, let's adjourn here, and move this to your Talk page. I'm going to close this discussion, now; let's continue elsewhere. Mathglot (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:DungaroosAreCool § Editing issues on Transgender topics

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"TERF" section

As some other editors have said here this reads more like an activist blog than an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganBlade (talk • contribs) 10:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Requesting some help

Hi,

Recently initiated a new Draft:Sexual politics and looking for proactive help in updating and expanding the article. Please do see if contributing to Draft:Sexual politics would interest you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

"TERF" section pretty bonkers

The extreme focus on the alleged cooperation between feminist groups and conservatives is a clear breach of Wikipedia's neutrality principles. Anyone who spent some time with this debate would know that it's a common trope used by people who slur others as "TERFs". It's used like a stick to beat feminists with, and is an instance of the association fallacy: "My opponent for office just received an endorsement from the Puppy Haters Association. Is that the sort of person you would want to vote for?" The vast majority of feminists holding views critical of the transgender movement are liberal/left-wing, with no consensus as to how much cooperation with conservative/right-wing groups or individuals should be tolerated.

The section should be edited so as not to over-emphasize these fallacies used to undermine the position of feminists critical of the transgender movement. A brief summary of what the term means, what its history is, and what the clashing positions on it are, should be sufficient. There's a main page on it after all, which can contain various elaborations. This page is not about that term anyway, it's about feminist views on transgender topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaway0720 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I have for now simply removed a lot of the content. There are serious issues with the citations even in the remaining content (many seem cherry-picked opinion pieces) but I'd like to see what others think before I invest more time in this. Thaway0720 (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's retain the stable version while we discuss, please. Newimpartial (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing many "opinion pieces". And I don't think your assertion that the term is used as a "common trope used by people who slur others as "TERFs"" EvergreenFir (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe this article actually has some pretty serious WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE issues in the other direction. In theory, I don't think TERFs palling up with conservatives fits very well in an article about views specifically; however until we finally make an article about TERFs specifically, this article is the best place to put that information. Loki (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thaway0720 looks like EvergreenFir already left you a welcome message for joining Wikipedia, so I'll just say "Welcome!" here. For someone who joined four hours ago, you certainly have found your way to an interesting article. It's also one that is in a controversial area of the encyclopedia, thus has a specific set of (stricter) rules that apply. I'll leave you a standardized message about this on your Talk page, so you won't be blind-sided. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I only created an account with the hopes of fixing this egregious issue. This part of Wikipedia has become the laughing stock of some feminist circles but since "anyone can edit it" I thought I'd give it a try. It seems though that people here can liberally call people "TERF" even though it's clear that we see this as a slur and are targeted with hatred non-stop? Does that mean Wikipedia has given up all pretense of neutrality and I should give up before even trying? I can expect to just face abuse and be hoisted out I suppose? Literally every single citation in that "[6][7][8][9][11][63]" citation horror is a highly biased opinion piece by people who clearly agree with one side of the debate. The one-sidedness is clear as day, yet the person above who liberally uses the hate term "TERF" to describe others says it's biased in the other direction. Unbelievable. Thaway0720 (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Thaway0720: Again, welcome to Wikipedia. The standards of Wikipedia can be confusing to those unfamiliar with them, but we reflect what reliable sources say about a particular topic even if to us individual editors that source might appear "highly biased opinion piece by people who clearly agree with one side of the debate". What matters more is that multiple reliable sources say the same thing on the topic. In this way, Wikipedia generally reflects the "middle" view which, to people on the fringes can appear "biased" or "one sided". That you view the term TERF as "a slur and [we] are targeted with hatred non-stop" shows your own point of view and that might not match the general consensus on the topic. Last, please read "righting great wrongs", which talks about having a strong POV and coming to Wikipedia to "fix" something. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)