Talk:Gender-critical feminism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

I don't recognize myself

This article appears to be written by trans rights activists who do not understand gender critical views and definitions. "Transgenderism" and "gender ideology" are used by gender critical folk to refer to an approach which see subjective identity as the appropriate and salient category to use in legal and social conventions to do with gender/sex. They don't deny the existence of trans people or doubt that that they experience of subjective identification.

They simply see sex as the salient category for legal regulation. Sex is an objective category reflecting two standard patterns of biological development, which are determined normally at conception and observed at birth. It would help to clarify things if you actually define gender at the start of the article.Deepsoulstarfish (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources you want to add to the article, do feel free to do so. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 13:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

From Sex and Gender: A Contemporary Reader (DOI 10.4324/9781003286608-1)

"Gender critical beliefs are defined in UK law as the belief 'that biological sex is real, important, immutable and not to be conflated with gender identity"

[...]

"However, beyond this minimal definition of gender critical beliefs, some scholars use the term 'gender critical feminism' to signal that they are critical of gender, including both gender identity and traditional conservative views about gender roles"

This is a far clearer and more neutral definition than the current lede, which expends all its time talking about transgender issues and denigrating its subject. Void if removed (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Void if removed: What precisely in the lead do you think is non-neutral or inaccurate? — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 19:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

There are I believe seven sentences in the lede, only one of which is close to a neutral, accurate representation of a viewpoint of gender critical feminism (biological sex cannot be changed), but which still refers to a "movement", which I believe is not entirely appropriate as this is not a singular "movement".

The rest are either a negative and/or incorrect/biased representation of the views ("opposition to gender ideology/transgender rights), or focus on it as fringe, controversial or linked to conspiracism and the far right.

At no point does the lede give a neutral representation of the gender critical feminist standpoint comparable to the two sentences I just quoted.

"Gender critical feminism" is a term coined by second wave continuity/socialist/materialist radical feminists online circa 2013 in response to being called "TERFs" for expressing views that were previously uncontroversial and trivially the same as mid/late 20th century feminism, namely that sex exists and is important, and gender is a social construct to be critiqued. Void if removed (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Void if removed – the 2 sentences quoted are a neutral description of gender-critical feminism, and a version of them should be the first sentence of the lead. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Sex and Gender: A Contemporary Reader is a high-quality but non-independent source for this, so I wouldn't support leaning on it so heavily to frame the whole article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The majority of sources currently heavily leant on in this article aren't "independent". The lede is entirely built from non-independent, partisan, critical sources. Void if removed (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

"Critical" isn't really a relevant measure here. "Partisan" might be. What source would you say is the most problematically partisan? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Probably the second VICE piece. So what do you mean by "independent"? Because pretty much every piece cited in the lede is by someone invested in one particular worldview. The entire lede should not be constructed from their pov, otherwise this article simply becomes a one-sided recitation of their views not only unchallenged, but given primacy. I'm not sure what would constitute an independent source on this topic as journalistic sources rarely give an airing to the specifically feminist perspective, and sources that accurately render the "gender critical feminist" standpoint in their own words are practically non-existent outside of blogposts. I don't know why we should shy away from one of the few that actually has been published. The principal issue with the lede and the article as a whole is that it does not accurately describe gender critical feminism, but rushes to talk more widely about "gender critical movements" and then link those to the "anti-gender movement" and then the "far-right", "fascism", "conspiracism" etc.

Here's another description:

"Gender Critical Feminism: Sex is given by nature and “male” and “female” refers to the reproductive role of animals and plants. Gender is a social system of norms, roles and values which functions to oppress women on the basis of their sex. Gender is not determined by sex, because the gender system is largely a social and historical structure. However, gender roles and norms are not applied arbitrarily to men and women. The function of gender is to enact a hierarchical system of male dominance in which male people control and exploit women’s bodies and labour. Both “female” and “woman” are sex designations. Gender non-conformity is a normal part of human existence but does not change your sex. Claiming that it does reifies rather than undermines gender."

Surely the lede should start with a neutral paragraph or two paraphrasing points like these. Void if removed (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Vice News is of unclear reliability, so there may be reliability concerns. I'm not so sure about "partisan", but you may be looking at something I haven't seen. I can't agree that the lead should start with a paragraph or two paraphrasing points from non-independent sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, until the second to last sentence (the one beginning The Council of Europe has...), every sentence is supported by at least one peer-reviewed scholarly source. The first media/newsorg source in the lead is citation 10, with citations 6 and 7 being to two LGBT+ rights organisations in Canada and France respectively.

sources that accurately render the "gender critical feminist" standpoint in their own words are practically non-existent outside of blogposts Therein lies one of the main problems with your argument I'm afraid. Those blog posts are most likely not reliable sources, and those that are or are from subject-matter experts would very likely not carry the same weight as something that has been published in a reputable scholarly journal, like most of the sources in the lead. If the perspective of gender-critical feminists is a minority or wholly absent within reliable sources, then we can only document them as reliable sources do. To do otherwise would be to introduce non-neutral content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

"Critical Gender Theory"

I found a 1996-7 source using this way, here: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/hastlj48&div=48&id=&page=

Maybe it's useful, check it out :) 151.49.37.202 (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

This article, by "Critical Gender Theory" does not mean "Gender Critical Feminism", but rather its opposite.

What this is actually describing is current gender studies orthodox views on transgenderism, to whit:

"Critical gender theorists favor a "transgendered" approach to sex and gender over a transsexual approach. Their ideal is the "woman with a penis," an individual born male who chooses to live his/her life as a woman without undergoing sex reassignment surgery.' Accordingly, cross-dressers and transvestites who express their feminine side in their gender presentation, but do not desire to change their birth sex, are the darlings of critical gender theory because their gender-blending directly challenges the Western dimorphic vision of gender."

While, "Critical Gender Theorists" might agree with the "Gender Critical Feminist" viewpoint that transsexualism reifies sex-stereotypes, the former believes that gender stereotypes can be challenged by treating the expression of some stated gender identity as entirely separate from the sexed body - and the sexed body irrelevant - while the latter believes the sexed body is immutable and should be recognised but still that the social construct of gender should be challenged and dismantled.

"Gender Critical" as a term wasn't coined until about 2013. Void if removed (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

"Sex-based rights"

"Sex-based rights" is a TERF term and correctly redirects to this article. It is not a recognised concept in human rights law or outside the TERF movement itself. It's a fringe theory, as one of the sources explains. Therefore we cannot say in Wikipedia's voice that they advocate for something that doesn't really exist, something that is a fringe theory, without clarifying that this is what they (the TERFs) call it (as opposed to being a recognised concept). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Not a recognized concept in human rights? Taking just the most glaringly obvious example, the Geneva Convention specifically mentions sex (Women shall be treated with all consideration due to their sex)[1], as does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[2] TERFs did not invent sex-based rights, and it's certainly not a "fringe theory," but rather a basic tenet of feminism. --Nsophiay (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

In the past, sex and gender were often considered to be synonymous. Hence the use of those terms in older documents. Most mainstream feminism is not gender-critical. Hist9600 (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree - we could perfectly well say that they advocate for four sided triangles. The existence or validity of what they advocate for has no bearing on the fact that they do indeed advocate for it. If you have a source that critiques the concept of sex-based rights, you could add it to the criticism section. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

We should be careful to maintain NPOV and not allow Wikipedia to passively validate a certain fringe idea or framing. If an idea is fringe, it should not be presented as though it's mainstream. It's important to think about how readers who are reading about these ideas for the first time will be introduced to them. Hist9600 (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Two points:

1) Take a look at Flat Earth. Many outrageous fringe beliefs are successfully described without endorsing them. If the subject of an article believes something, we should be able to say so, even if that thing is ridiculous.

2) The concept of sex-based rights is not a fringe belief. See this speech by the UK Attorney General: [3]. You won't find the literal phrase "sex-based rights" in it, but you will find "rights defined by biological sex", which is hard to interpret as anything but a synonym, particularly in the context of everything else she says. The speech not only argues for sex-based rights, but affirms that they already exist under the UK Equality Act. It doesn't get less fringe than being written into law and affirmed by senior government figures. Whether one agrees that these rights should exist is an entirely separate matter to whether the concept of them is fringe. If it troubles readers that an argument against fringeness is supported by citing a conservative MP in a speech to a conservative organisation, fear not: as of July 2023, the UK's left-wing opposition party also recognises a distinction between sex-based and gender-based rights: [4]. I conclude that in the UK at least, "sex-based rights" is an entirely mainstream object of study. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• That article is actually a really good example of how the editors very carefully introduced the concept. The first line says it is, "archaic and scientifically disproven." I'm not sure if that validates your point. Quite the opposite. I don't think anybody is saying that there can be absolutely no mention of "sex-based rights". Rather that it's important to introduce such topics from a NPOV, using independent reliable sources, so we don't passively misrepresent WP:FRINGE beliefs as mainstream.
• The UK Attorney General mentioning something does not mean the idea is mainstream, and that would be WP:OR. There are well-known figures in the world who may have fringe or extreme views, and may use their positions to advance those views.

Hist9600 (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Here is an academic source saying that "sex-based rights" do not exist. However, it speaks specifically of a US-context, and whether such rights exist at present. That does not mean they are not a coherent, or recognised concept, only that some thinkers consider arguing for them to be "wrong" and argue against them.

By contrast, in the UK, where the Equality Act grants sex-specific exceptions that do confer positive rights - on the basis of sex - the terms of the debate are quite different. Eg. here is a respected legal scholar discussing in great detail the Scottish Gender Recognition Act reforms. Sex-based rights feature heavily in this context. They are neither uncontroversial nor fringe, not least because unlike in the US they clearly exist.

Placing scare quotes or other equivocation around them is inappropriate and not neutral.

Likewise "female sex class". That's not a "TERF term", that's bog-standard Marxist feminism, drawing from Engels, ie the first class oppression coincides with/is of the female, by the male. See "The Dialectic of Sex". Void if removed (talk) 10:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The UK Equality Act does not define any "sex based rights" as far as I am aware. As far as I know, it simply says that the prohibition of discrimination based on sex (which in UK law seems to mean sex or gender) can be overridden when actually necessary for a necessary legitimate purpose. As far as I am aware, nobody has actually said what the alleged "sex based rights" actually are, or which specific laws they derive from, and that's... interesting. If people use a phrase without saying what it means then that does lend credence to claims of it being used as a dog-whistle.

The Gender Critical Movement clearly has its preferred terminology which differs markedly from the way that many other people would use the same words. Some might say that this is intentionally obfuscatory but that's not something that we can adjudicate here. Similarly, whether it is truly their own jargon or borrowed from elsewhere is not the main issue.

The issue for us is to make the article make sense to a reader who wants to know what is going on and that requires us to explain the terminology used. For that reason I think it might make sense to have a section specifically to explain what they mean by their various terms. We should define the terms as clearly as possible without endorsing or legitimising them. If we get it right then both GC and anti-GC readers should be able to read the definitions and, whatever they may feel about the terms themselves, not feel any need to complain about our definitions of them. That's not going to be easy as some of the terms are not well defined, possibly even by intention.

That just brings us to the question of quotation marks. I think that phrases that are being used as jargon are best used in quotation marks so long as this is not done snidely as scare quotes. This is especially the case where a phrase might have a colloquial meaning which is very different from the way that the GC Movement uses it. (I would argue that "gender critical" itself would fall into that category were it not normally capitalised to distinguish it from mere criticism of the concept of gender.)

"Sex based rights" is definitely a term that can never be used in wikivoice without massive POV issues (unless we are talking about a country that explicitly does have actual sex based rights baked into its laws, such as Saudi Arabia). To do so in this article would be to legitimise the claim that such things exist in UK law, which is at best contested and at worst just incorrect. To avoid the appearance of scare quotes we should try to quote sentences, or part sentences, rather than just the phrases. DanielRigal (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Further up someone referred to the UK Attorney General. This isn't as some might think, a mighty and wise legal position. It was then none other than Suella Braverman, the anti-woke anti-trans czar of the UK Tory party, who was controversially and rather briefly given that role (they only actively served as Attorney General for a year, and were widely criticised by the legal profession for their statements). Think of the UK Attorney General as a post like "Defence minister" or "Education minister": it is a political appointment, not one that someone rises towards. Braverman is more notable for being found to have broken the law, than for being wise in it. For every case where the right wing press claim Braverman has "clarified" the law, there are actual legal experts writing that Braverman doesn't understand the actual law, vs what they wished it was.

I think one of the problems with "sex based rights" is not just whether there are any rights in UK (or other) law that are biologically sex based, but whether what people mean by the phrase actually exists. For example, the legal scholar Void cites notes that "One of the recurring arguments advanced around Self-ID laws is that they will undermine women’s sex-based rights to exclude men from single-sex spaces such as changing rooms, toilets, and women’s shelters." The toilets and changing rooms in the UK do not require a chromosome test or have a guard checking birth certificates. A trans woman can use the female toilets. One could imagine a really TERFy cafe putting up a sign that said that trans women were not permitted in the female toilets, and that would be likely be legal. It would also be unlikely and probably end with the closure of the cafe. I recall a pub that had some golliwog dolls on display at the bar along with some "humour" about lynching. Suella Braverman (yes, the former UK Attorney General) defended the pub's right be be racist. It didn't end well for the pub, after the brewing companies decided not to sell them any more beer.

So lets be careful with a vague term that is used by those who use it to describe "rights" that don't exist, in order to put fear into women that they are about to lose those rights. -- Colin°^Talk 12:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think comparing the practical operation of sex discrimination measures with racist iconography is either accurate or appropriate.

My point is about the legitimacy of terminology. Sex-based rights were discussed by US constitutional scholars at least as far back as 1971. The point being to differentiate between different approaches of recognising and addressing sex discrimination (ie: enshrine sex-based rights, or prevent recognition of sex at all). It seems the US went one way, the UK went another, but it isn't some "fringe theory" or a modern invention, or - as alleged - a "TERF term". It is just ordinary language for rights based on sex. Whether they exist in specific jurisdictions or not and whether you argue for or against them, treating the term itself as illegitimate is not neutral. Void if removed (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I compared the two as they are both good examples of how Braverman's opinions are not necessarily in step with reality both in legal terms and on the ground. Her statements are not a reliable source of UK law or general UK sentiment.

I get your argument that technically the words "sex based rights" have a certain meaning and usage that is accurate and valid. But that's not how the phrase is being used by gender critical feminists. There is a point where words, like "global warming" or "austerity" or even "gender critical feminism" come to mean what people use them to mean, rather than what some dictionary-based analysis of the words means (e.g. the earth it self, that rock we sit on, is not AFAIK getting hotter. It is the atmosphere and water around it.) So if GCF's use the word casually to refer to rights that don't actually exist... you and I cannot walk into your local Tesco and demand that trans women are barred from the customer toilets with the icon of a person wearing a skirt, or require the security guard to remove anyone who doesn't look feminine enough.... But it's that imagined right that was conjured up in the self-ID debate. -- Colin°^Talk 08:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

That is how GCFs use it. The problem rather lies in the continual misrepresentation of this, by those who are critical of the existence of and - arguments for - sex-based rights.

GCFs also oppose the idea of "femininity" being in any way related to being a woman, or female, or whether any of that has any bearing on service provision. Your "doesn't look feminine enough" argument is a caricature that doesn't accurately portray their actual position.

By all means offset their pov with that of their opponents, but their actual pov does need to be present, and this should not be a venue for simply assembling their critics' strawmen. Void if removed (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I assume you meant to include a "not" in that first sentence. Ok. Here is a list of "groups defending sex-based rights. Note the use of the word "defending", which is entirely common. It isn't "opponents" who, for example, made the self ID debate apparently about a "loss" of "women's sex-based rights" and banged on about toilets, changing rooms, refuges and prisons. Go find me a major organisation in the UK whose toilets are trans exclusionary? The toilet debate: Stalling trans possibilities and defending ‘women’s protected spaces’ is a relevant paper on the topic and note how they put "women's protected spaces" in scare quotes. Because the phrase, as with 'sex-based rights' is used by GCFs to mean something that doesn't exist. That phrase came from a Sunday Times article (covered here) which misleadingly and sadly typically gave the impression that our toilets are current trans exclusionary. The self-ID argument that a man would decide to become a woman on a dull afternoon, go online, get their certificate, and thus use it to enter a female toilet. As if anyone in history had ever needed a gender recognition certificate to entre a female toilet. It isn't "opponents" who created that fiction, but this is exactly why we should be wary of mentioning such rights or protections in Wiki voice. -- Colin°^Talk 13:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

No, I said what I meant.

"Sex-based rights" means "rights afforded on the basis of sex", and in the UK this is chiefly the protection of sex, pregnancy and sexual orientation in the Equality Act, and the fact that single-sex exceptions exist to provide sex-differentiated services where it is proportionate to do so.

See eg. this new Labour Together report which uses sex-based rights without quotes throughout, the context being the single-sex exceptions in the Equality Act. Note the specific concession that Stonewall used to advocate their removal, a position they've walked back, conceding there is a legitimate conflict.

Of course the places where the single-sex exceptions actually come into play will be the concrete political battlegrounds. This has been: sport, prisons, equal representation, changing rooms, toilets, medical services, intimate care, crisis centres, statistical data, gatherings and events, and a lot of the disagreement has been the way language and policy changes in recent years have eroded services and data previously assumed to be single sex.

But while some instances hypothetically give practical concerns about on what basis the single-sex aspect is enforced day-to-day (because a visual inspection as to whether someone "looks enough like a woman" is potentially upholding gender stereotypes), that is irrelevant to the majority of cases, to the debate as to whether they are or should be permitted, and to whether the abstract concept of a right to single-sex services and data is a sex-based right. Void if removed (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The Equality Act it is about preventing people from being discriminatory, and permits some exceptions for organisations to discriminate on the basis of sex. It permits some organisations to be discriminatory but doesn't give you any rights to insist they do. You and I do not have the right to demand ASDA's female toilets bar trans women from entering. You and I do not have the right to insist a sport organisation bars trans women from competing along side cis women. Sports organisations can invent all sorts of rules, such as age or weight or nationality or employment. If such an organisation said they were totally happy with trans women competing along side cis women, there's no right for you to demand they change. Just as there's no right to insist on an under-16's football team rather than an under-18's or to complain that the under-10s team is mixed. All this talk of bathrooms and changing rooms is hypothetical and can be viewed as transphobic in a very literal sense. There are trans women in the "female estate" as they call it (women's jails). And changes to that, such as this are "guidance" and can be overruled and include non-sex-based criteria such as whether the person committed a sex offence. What almost all these things are, are conventions. An increasing number of universities have non-gendered toilets, something the Conservative government have hinted they might legislate to ban, but I suspect would itself be illegal and is just hot air. -- Colin°^Talk 18:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes - the Equality Act invariably expresses exceptions as rights that service providers can choose to exercise, and not necessarily ones that service users have a right to demand, but there other considerations such as indirect discrimination, and crucially the Public Sector Equality Duty.

Lets say, rather than Asda, we're talking about an NHS hospital.

If they don't provide single-sex facilities, and this causes distress to a member of the public who might reasonably expect them (perhaps preventing them from using the service), they can be liable for a claim of indirect sex discrimination. Similarly if the balance between male/female/unisex facilities disfavours women, who are less likely to use unisex facilities, again they could be liable.

Likewise if they indicate a service is single sex but act as if it is not and this operates to the detriment of women, they can again be liable.

So there's a difference between private companies choosing to exercise a right (or not) vs the PSED obligations not to act to the detriment of any PC.

As for sports, yes, eg. Rugby can decide to be mixed sex. Good luck getting insurance, and of course if women don't like it, they can set up women-only rugby leagues from scratch because they have the right to do so. An established sporting body choosing not to exercise the single-sex exceptions doesn't mean someone else cannot set up a rival sporting body that does. Void if removed (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

As Amanda Brant points out below, in older documents the word "sex" did not have the same strictly biological connotations, and therefore it's consistently interpreted all over the world to mean roughly "sex or gender". Which is to say, if a facility in Britain allows both cis and trans women, there is no possible claim of sex discrimination against women. The idea that "sex" means "biological sex" is, as she states, a case of pseudolaw.

(This is all separate from the factual issue of what even is the sex of trans women, which is not as settled a matter as you seem to think; see separate argument elsewhere on this page.) Loki (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not rely on original research. We cannot just automatically jump from a statement like "Women shall be treated with all consideration due to their sex" to the concept of "sex-based rights" (notice how the term encompasses much more than just the word "sex"), which is a fringe theory only advocated by TERFs, and which therefore correctly redirects to this article. For a comprehensive human rights law analysis, see Duffy (a scholar of international human rights law/CEDAW)[5], who points out that "international human rights law is not static or originalist" and that "sex-based rights" is "a fiction with the pretense of legality." In a recent article in the Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, Catharine A. MacKinnon (the world-famous radical feminist and legal scholar) notes that "the recognition [that discrimination against trans people is discrimination on the basis of sex, that is gender, the social meaning of sex] does not, contrary to allegations of anti-trans self-identified feminists, endanger women or feminism, including what some in this group call "women's sex-based rights." To begin with, women—in the United States anyway—do not have "sex-based rights" in the affirmative sense some in this group seem to think."[6] While it is a basic tenet of TERFism, it is certainly not a "basic tenet of feminism". Furthermore, the word "sex" does not, as Duffy notes, have a static/originalist meaning, and the CEDAW Committee has explicitly interpreted the CEDAW Convention to include e.g. trans women. International human rights law is dynamic and evolving, and there is no such thing as "sex-based rights" that supposedly excludes trans women. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

It is also correct that in older documents, such as international conventions, the word "sex" was used for what we today generally refer to as "gender". In the case of the CEDAW, for example, the CEDAW Committee is responsible for interpreting the convention, and has taken this into account in recent decades. The idea that this one word (sex) is used there in that decades old-document is presented by TERFs (usually non-lawyers, certainly not legal scholars) to promote the fringe idea that therefore the word must have a static, originalist meaning (which is false), and also have associated "rights" that supposedly only cis women enjoy (also false). This is really a textbook case of a fringe theory and term, and a form of pseudolaw. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

This does not make sense; contradictory juxapositioning here

"The gender-critical movement believes that biological sex cannot be changed. They therefore reject the concept of transgender identities and oppose transgender rights."

Simple question: Who believes that biological sex can be changed? How does believing that biological sex cannot be changed cause one to reject transgender identities, when transgender identities are based on the changing of gender identity, not of sex?

Additionally, (this is a genuine question) where is it outright stated that the gender-critical movement "opposes transgender rights" - not the transgender rights movement, but rights themselves?

Thanks Zilch-nada (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand the first part of this. What is the part specific that that you think is contradictory? Maybe the word "therefore" implies a greater connection between the two parts than is demonstrated? If so, I wouldn't object to "therefore" being removed in order to present the two facts as separate. Also, I would not object to reversing the order as opposition to rights seems the more fundamental matter of the two.

Your question about "Who believes that biological sex can be changed?" is irrelevant. Our job here is to report what the GC line is. They spend a lot of time loudly saying that "that biological sex cannot be changed". It is a core plank of their ideology. Discussion of whether that claim is relevant, disputed or even meaningful can also be covered in the body, subject to valid sources, but we certainly need to mention that this is what they claim in the lede.

We also need to be careful how we use the phrase "biological sex" as it is not always well defined. My preference is to only use it as part of a quotation. In this case we have it linked to sex. I don't necessarily object to that, but we do need to be careful that this is what the GCs consistently mean by the phrase and I am not sure that it always is. Sometimes it seems to be about chromosomes, sometimes about gametes and sometimes about whatever seems the most immutable at the time. (And sometimes it is just people shouting "penis" a lot but we don't need to get into that. ;-) )

Your final question is a bit odd. The body of the article makes it clear that they oppose at least some existing rights for trans people themselves and not some "movement". There is no mention of "the transgender rights movement" (or anything like it) in the body. The current text is the lede following the body, as it should. We would need very good sourcing to add "movement" as it is a claim that very closely mirrors dishonest anti-gay and antisemitic rhetoric of the form "I'm not against gay people I'm just against The Gay Agenda" and "I'm not against Jewish people I'm just against The Judeo-Bolshevik Movement". That would have to happen in the article body first, before it could go in the lede, and we would need to discuss such a claim not just uncritically repeat it in wikivoice. DanielRigal (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Your first paragraph. You're right that the term "therefore" is wrong. Believing that biological sex - not gender cannot be changed, is not rejecting of the concept of transgender identities.

Your second paragraph. "Who believes that biological sex can be changed" is clearly relevant, because everyone believes that it cannot (or rather, no one, including trans-rights activists, say that it can); and thus cannot "therefore" be a rejection of transgender identities. "It is a core plank of their ideology" - it is also a core tenet of modern biology, that notion that sex - as opposed to gender - cannot be changed.

Your third paragraph yet again dodges my enquiry. I never, not once, suggested that "transgender rights movement" should be used. I am disputing - in fact I am not even disputing, only questioning - whether gender-critical feminism opposes transgender rights outright. What sources say that GCF opposes it outright? I would be open to including them. I find it dishonest that you are comparing this debate with antisemitic conspiracy theories. You know that opposing a movement is different from opposing the rights of people. Zilch-nada (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

They want to ban a group of women from using women's toilets. That's taking people's rights away. If you don't want to add "movement" then why even ask the question?

Anyway, I'm happy to take "therefore" out. I hope everybody agrees that that is a small improvement. DanielRigal (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I asked the question because I am looking for a source that states clearly "oppose transgender rights", which is different, but clearly commonly mistaken from, opposition to the movement, for instance. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

There are enough references in the body. If anybody wants to add another then they can but we don't have a sourcing problem here. This is the lede following the body. Perfectly normal stuff. DanielRigal (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

This is only really confusing because we link to biological sex, which is mostly a page about reproductive sex and mostly in other organisms. But that's not the only way biologists (or doctors) use the word "sex". If they did, women after menopause would be sexless. (And in fact, it implies that it's pretty easy to change your biological sex and that almost no trans people are the sex they were born as.)

In humans, "sex" is much more often used in the way the American Psychiatric Association defines it on sex-gender distinction: Sex is often described as a biological construct defined on an anatomical, hormonal, or genetic basis. With this definition, it's pretty easy to see how someone might change their sex: the procedure currently most often known as "gender-affirming surgery" used to be known as a "sex change", and a large majority of trans people also take hormones to change their hormonal sex. Loki (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

"Biological sex" is literally quoted in "The gender-critical movement believes that biological sex cannot be changed". That is supported by research. Additionally, the XY-sex categorization cannot change. We are talking about biological sex here. Sex is determined by more than hormones, and is definitively determined biologically. Zilch-nada (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hormones are biological. The point here is that "biological sex" is a term that is fairly vague and one can lean on different aspects of it to make different arguments. It can refer to different things at different times, some of which are mutable and some not. We should try to avoid ambiguity, whether accidental or deliberate. DanielRigal (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Biological sex as a whole is taken as biologically determined. For instance, these criteria are provided by sociologist Dudley Poston as being the main factors;

• Based on different chromosomes.
• Based on different gonads, which produce the gametes and sex hormones.
• Based on different relative levels of sex-specific hormones.
• Based on different internal reproductive structures.
• Based on different sex-specific external genitals. This definition usually results in the assignment of sex at birth.

Zilch-nada (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Some of those factors can contradict eachother. Some are mutable and some are not. This is exactly the point I was making, without context the phrase "biological sex" is ambiguous and needs to be used with great care, preferably within a quotation where the context is made clear. DanielRigal (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Biological sex as a whole is taken as biologically determined and immutable. That should not be controversial. For instance;

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31580112/ - "...human sex, in contrast to gender, is an innate and immutable biologically binary trait that is not fundamentally determined or altered by psychosocial factors. The existence of congenital disorders of sex development, typically associated with reduced fertility, does not negate the human sexual binary as defined by the life sciences. Individuals who identify as transgender remain either biological males or females. " Zilch-nada (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

That is massively controversial and you know it. Ironically, you are making the GC argument sound particularly bad by leaning on that particular choice of definition. If your definition of "biological sex" is definitionally immutable, whether or not it is vague in other respects, then the GC claim is reduced to a tautology, nothing more than a meaningless catchphrase. We want to steelman their position here. If it has any substance beyond tautology then we should focus on that. DanielRigal (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

"you are making the GC argument sound particularly bad" - so what? Are you accusing me of being an activist on its behalf because I dispute the current wording? "nothing more than a meaningless catchphrase" - I fundamentally agree that it is a meaningless catchphrase because everyone (except, strangely, for you and another editor here), including professionals, acknowledge biological sex as a biologically determined, immutable characteristic of humans. I must question why you are disputing that scientific consensus. Why are you? Zilch-nada (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

If the overall claim is a meaningless tautology then why do they make it such a core plank of their ideology? They certainly seem to think that they are saying something significant, beyond mere tautology, and it is for us to cover what that claim is in terms that our readers can understand. DanielRigal (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It being "meaningless" does not make it wrong, regardless of how it is weaponized. They perhaps think it is significant because "sex matters" or whatever slogans they are coming up with. But the fact is, the belief that biological sex cannot be changed isn't even a belief; it is scientific consensus. Believing that climate change is fake, for instance, is not a belief; these are instances of pseudoscience. I respect the removal of the word "therefore" but the mention of the belief in the immutability of sex in the first place seems completely irrelevant. If we could find sources of GCFs weaponizing the immutability of sex against the trans rights movement, then I would be open to that, because the concept of it being weaponized is - as you have opined above - notable in their activism. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

That is just not true, bordering levels of pseudoscience. See below, the five points that are described as criteria for biological sex. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, see below; "The existence of congenital disorders of sex development, typically associated with reduced fertility, does not negate the human sexual binary as defined by the life sciences. Individuals who identify as transgender remain either biological males or females." "An innate and immutable biological binary trait." Zilch-nada (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

That one source is not the canonical definition. Also, can we please stop using demeaning language to describe intersex people? That is not a can of worms we need to open here. Also, again, reducing the claim to an empty tautology is not helpful. DanielRigal (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

That is not my language. It is published in a medical journal. Please provide reliable sources of the claim that biological sex is not immutable. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It is an opinion in a medical journal. It is not the only opinion in medical journals. Anyway, I'm not even sure what we are arguing about insofar as it affects the article now. I am not trying to take your preferred definition of "biological sex" away from you. I am just pointing out that there are multiple meanings of the phrase, even within that one definition you gave, and the article should be careful to ensure that readers understand how it is being used in any given context. DanielRigal (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• A lot has been said here, but there’s really only one question that matters: Does the article accurately reflect what reliable sources say about gender-critical feminism? –dlthewave ☎ 01:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  My opinion is twofold:

  1) The fact they GCFs oppose the idea that biological sex can be changed is irrelevant. This is scientific consensus, and, while it may be weaponized, is not an incorrect opinion (it is not a "belief that biological sex cannot be changed", but a scientific fact), nor does it suggest an opposition to transgender identities (although the term "therefore" has since been removed.)

  2) I do not outright oppose the wording "oppose transgender rights", but I am not sure if this is sourced in any of the articles. I do not have access to the articles fully, and I am skeptical of the idea that they say this outright (again, I am not making a bold claim here; I am only skeptical.) Would it be possible for someone to provide quotational evidence for the claim? The sentence that follows is "These views have been described as transphobic by other feminists and some scholars", and, because the "transphobic" label is set alongside "some", I am even more skeptical of sources universally describing them as outright opposing transgender rights, which the current wording implies. Zilch-nada (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

An example of a notable person claiming sex can be changed. This is what the GCFs are responding to with the phrase “biological sex”. They are essentially saying that “sex” is the ambiguous term and “biological sex” is closer to a useful meaning. Whether those two words achieve full disambiguation is another matter. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

You cannot be serious. a) This person is not a scientist, b) this is not a scholarly study or journal, c) The writer cites none of said scholarly studies, d) the author, in backing up her unsourced claims that sex can be changed, refers to it only in this:

"There is a kind of conservative feminist position that argues that sex is set in stone, is assigned at birth. And I don’t agree with that. Most scientists I’ve spoken to seem pretty comfortable with the idea that sex, like any other biological category, is not a cast-iron law, but rather a sort of set of contingencies that can be played with and culturally reinforced or not culturally reinforced."

The fact that sex is not set in stone - e.g., with regard to the chromosonal variations, or it not being a binary, has got nothing - absolutely nothing to do with whether biological sex can actually change. "Not a cast-iron law" - a quote purely anecdotal - has got nothing to do with biological change - as opposed to "culturally reinforced" contingencies. e) It is clear that this author, is, partly because of being an activist, and not a scientist nor quoting science, is not reputable whatsoever. I cannot believe I just had to write out a refutation of pseudoscientific nonsense that no one can back up scientifically.

"“biological sex” is closer to a useful meaning" - the mention of GCFs here refers to the belief that biological sex cannot change; it is an unambiguously futile mention, because it isn't even a belief but of scientific validity. Zilch-nada (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that some people do make the claim that "sex" can change. And here's an example of someone claiming that "biological sex" can change. We have reliable sources telling us that GCFs believe the opposite. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

That article does not state that biological sex can outright change - only components of it:

"Without these players [certain genes] constantly active, certain components of your biological sex can change."

Which is an argument I disputed from @DanielRigal earlier:

"Some [characteristics of biological sex] are mutable and some are not. "

The change of some components suggests no where in the article of a change in biological sex. It describes "potential for change" in specific characteristics; that is hardly "an example of someone claiming that "biological sex" can change." Zilch-nada (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Irrespective that there are those who argue that sex can be changed, the use of "biological sex" in the lede serves to distinguish this from any legal fiction that permits "legal sex" to be changed in law, and the legal rights in question that are "opposed" are territory-specific.

The basic gender critical feminist position is this: sex is real, binary, immutable, and sometimes important. Gender is the sociocultural expectations projected onto sexed bodies, and those expectations should be critiqued. That is it.

To explain why this is a conflict, here's Stephen Whittle, arguably the single most influential figure in establishing how trans rights were laid out in UK law in the 2004 Gender Recognition Act, writing in 2007: https://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/1/whittle.html

"for the purposes of the gender recognition act, changing sex was never about changing biology but about changing legal definitions of what gender recognition/legal sex was"

"Moreover, there is no recourse to the sexed body which suggests that the body's sex as a taxonomical tool has in some way become redundant. Legal sex then, corresponds with one's acquired gender, and the theorisation of sex is no longer necessary."

"As the Gender Recognition Act states that one's acquired gender becomes one's legal sex then there is little difference between sex and gender. Indeed sex is preceded and exceeded by gender by the terms of the Gender Recognition Act. Sex in this sense is determined by gender identity - the social role that one chooses to take. This reverses the original gender attribution at birth which as based on the genitals (and strictly speaking not based on other known identifiers of biological sex such as chromosomes). For the Gender Recognition Act, the body is irrelevant, as neither bodily modification, nor the presence or lack of a penis is determinative. Moreover, the Gender Recognition Act is performative (see Butler 1990), in that as a form of speech-act, what it does is makes gender into sex in law. "

So the problem is, when sex is supplanted - legally or societally - by gender identity, self-declared or otherwise, then the basis of a certain materialist feminist analysis and conceptions of rights are undermined.

In the UK Equality Act, sex is a protected characteristic, as is gender reassignment. Sexual orientation is also protected, and based on sex.

Whether change of legal sex - by obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate - entitled someone to be treated as the opposite sex to their birth sex in the Equality Act has proved to be a matter of some debate over the last decade or more however. What was also unclear was the operation of certain exceptions that allowed services to be single-sex, where reasonable and proportionate, and how this related to someone with a GRC. But since both the GRA and the EA contained specific exceptions for cases like Sport, it was clear a distinction existed between "legal" sex and "biological" sex.

The 2004 GRA still required a certain level of medical gatekeeping - gender dysphoria diagnosis, two years "living in role", that sort of thing. In 2015 - when the UK was considered the number 1 place in the EU for LGBT rights - the Conservative government opened a consultation on changes to the Gender Recognition Act to allow change of legal sex solely by self-declaration. Dramatically lowering the barrier - essentially removing it entirely - to make ones sex an act of self-declaration would completely undermine the single-sex exceptions in the EA, and confound protections for same-sex/both-sex attraction.

In response campaign groups such as Women's Place and Fair Play For Women sprang up arguing that sex is real, immutable, important and should not be superseded by self-declared gender identity.

See: Sex and Gender: A Contemporary Reader, Chapter 8: Sex In Law pp 131-132

"The government's 2018 consultation on proposed reforms to the GRA was expected to be relatively non- controversial, with an estimate of 700 expected responses. But more than 100,000 responses were submitted, thanks to information sharing and campaigning from grassroots organisations concerned about women's and/ or trans rights and the resulting significant media attention. The most contested proposal was one that would allow individuals to obtain a GRC simply by self-identifying their legal sex, without any further requirements. Discussions about self-identification brought to the fore the conflict of rights between the GRA and the EA and the failure of courts and policymakers to clarify the exemptions for single-sex spaces under the EA. The public became more aware that trans rights activists and organisations such as Stonewall had been advising organisations that maintained single-sex spaces - such as the National Health Service, schools, the Girl Guides, prisons and sports teams - that they must include any person who self-identified as women or men whether or not they held a GRC. This is legally incorrect. The EA specifically allows for these exceptions to the terms of the GRA, and self-identification is not yet recognised in law. There had also been legally incorrect advice given that a GRC always allows a holder to access single-sex spaces."

So the rights that were initially opposed by GCFs in the UK were principally the reforms that would have enabled change of legal sex by self-declaration and the threat this posed to existing protections for (biological) sex in law, not "transgender rights" as a whole. There is now currently an active political debate about whether - and how - to clarify that "sex" in the Equality Act means "biological sex".

All of this is markedly different than the US where neither women nor trans people had a comparable level of protections in law to begin with. Void if removed (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

"the use of "biological sex" in the lede serves to distinguish this from any legal fiction that permits "legal sex" to be changed in law"; I don't disagree. The "belief" that specific biological sex cannot be changed is a supported and universally agreed upon statement, regardless of the fluidity of gender or "legal sex", considering there is a difference between legal sex and biological.

There is thus no necessity in the mention of their "belief" in said immutability, because the wording is explicitly in relation to biological sex. You'd be lying if you said you believed that the wording is clear; that the belief in the immutability of biological sex is what the GCFs are proposing. That is outright ambiguous; sure, the immutability has been weaponized, in saying that "sex matters", and the like. But that is not clear. The article dismissively mentions the term as if its immutability was a belief indicting of their ideology. Zilch-nada (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Is it the word "belief" that troubles you? You seem to be under the impression that it's wrong to describe someone as believing something if that thing is supported by scientific consensus. This isn't how we usually use the word "belief". We can believe in things that are false, we can believe in things that are incredibly obvious and manifestly true, and we can believe in things that a majority of scientists believe are true. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

A belief or "opinion" it is not; it is scientific consensus, and thus a futile observation to mention, unless we refer specifically how it has been weaponized. My initial intent was removing it outright as I can't find any source that elaborates on how believing in said immutability is important or relevant. Zilch-nada (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I have changed my opinion here, as it appears clear that scientific consensus is still a "belief". But beliefs do not mean "not factual"; climate change as being caused by humans is a belief backed up by scientific reasoning - as factual as we can get. Same with the scientific consensus about biological sex. The term "belief", in the context of the article, however, seeks to dismissively write off "immutability" as a mere belief - which in common English usage often refers to an unscientific claim. Thus, I still believe the term "belief", while not necessarily wrong, per se, should be changed. It is scientific consensus, and, as I have said many times here, we should either drop the meaningless statement itself (that they believe in immutability), or elaborate on how they have used a scientific claim in their activism, e.g., as weaponization. I.e., "belief" is a misleading, and fundamentally unspecific term. Zilch-nada (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I.e., there is no such thing as a "fact" in the human mind which is not a belief, as in order to see the world (of representation), we must interpret or "believe" in what we see, either by scientific reasoning (which is still belief through a logical process) or dogmatic religion. There is no such thing as pure reason, or pure "facts" in the human mind, because we cannot truly know the thing-in-itself, only its representation. So we should probably stop debating about Kantian metaphysics as the "reality" and semantics about the word, "belief", because everything is a belief. Zilch-nada (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion on belief, fact, etc is irrelevant here. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not the opinions of editors such as ourselves - If reliable sources call something a belief, we do the same even if it doesn't wuite make sense to us. It is inappropriate to use an article talk page to argue extensively about definitions like this. –dlthewave ☎ 15:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

"Your opinion on belief, fact, etc is irrelevant here";

Then why are we debating this? Sources, like things-in-themselves, cannot exist alone, and must be interpreted. I am interpreting the sources, in fact; we all are (or should be). Zilch-nada (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, the "legal" form of anything can only be a social construct - as law itself is - and so reference to "legal sex" is something much more similar to "gender" than "biological sex", especially if gender-transitioning is a term used continuously alongside sex-transitioning / sex change. It is all a social construct, regardless of the biological construct of the sex we're talking about here. Zilch-nada (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

All of this is markedly different than the US where neither women nor trans people had a comparable level of protections in law to begin with.

What? The US Civil Rights Act of 1964 gives quite a lot of protections to women, most of which are phrased in terms of "sex". That hasn't meant that the US Supreme Court has said they don't apply to trans people; in fact, quite the opposite, even a very conservative court has ruled that discrimination against trans people is "discrimination on the basis of sex". Loki (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

That's sort of the point - US legal theory has intertwined sex, sexual orientation, gender etc for decades. There are arguments to be made about why that is, but a likely reason is the US history of racial segregation leading to a rejection of anything that seems like "separate but equal".

UK law has followed a different line and - as codified in the 2010 Equality Act which consolidated a lot of existing legislation - sex, sexual orientation and gender reassignment are separate protected strands. Much of the debate today is whether a change of legal sex under the GRA makes someone one sex or the other for the purposes of the equality act, and to what extent the single-sex exceptions apply in that situation. There are differences of opinion and contradictory rulings here.

What is clear is that in UK law, a male person without a Gender Recognition Certificate, who identifies as transgender, is male for the purposes of the Equality Act, but will be - by self-declaration - protected from discrimination under the gender reassignment characteristic. As such they will have just as much protection as anyone else against discrimination, simply for being trans. What they do not automatically get is the right to be considered the opposite sex under the Equality Act.

A GRC changes that picture, possibly, though there is disagreement over whether that is the intent. That is, a GRC makes someone the opposite sex for most purposes in law - but even then the operation of the single-sex exceptions is interpreted as that someone can be excluded on gender reassignment grounds where it is legitimate or proportionate. Most debate there is whether this is a blanket right or case-by-case.

Most feminist activism in this space, certainly initially, was:

- Preserve the single-sex exceptions, which pro-transgender groups had lobbied for the removal of

- Don't allow a GRC to be obtained by simple self-declaration, as that lowers the bar for access to sex protections and (possibly) single-sex exceptions, or renders them unworkable

Since the US has had no comparable legal framework that permits sex-specific positive actions like this, the debate has been radically different. The demand "trans women are women" in the US means in large part that a transwoman gains protection from discrimination as a woman, because that is essentially the route to gaining protection from discrimination at all. Denying a transwoman in the US the right to be considered a woman is in effect a denial of what basic rights and protections exist. In the UK, it isn't.

This history in the US is reflected in the debate over the drafting of the US Equality Act (From Sex & Gender - a Contemporary reader, chapter 9 pp 146 & 147:

"The EA would extend federal nondiscrimination protections to LGB and T groups not by creating two new protected classes (i.e., sexual orientation and gender identity) alongside sex and other protected classifications (e.g., race, age, religion), but by redefining 'sex' in civil rights law to 'include sexual orientation and gender identity' (see statutory redefinition in Figure 9.1). Additionally, where 'sex' appears as a protected category in the CRA, the EA changes sex to 'sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity)'. The bill would also add 'sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity)' where previously sex was not a protected characteristic (as in public accommodations)."

[...]

"In sum, by defining sex to include gender identity and defining gender identity as something 'gender-related' that exists, 'regardless of sex', the EA eliminates the legal distinction between (biological) sex and gender identity. (Although the EA defines gender identity as 'sex', here and throughout I employ the commonly accepted definition of sex as biological sex, observed at birth [correctly >99% of the time] and immutable.) Consequently, the EA eliminates sex-based provisions. That is, currently de facto sex-separated provisions would become de jure gender identity-separated provisions, such that access to formerly opposite-sex spaces is granted through simple self-declaration about one's gender identity—no sincerity or presentation style required. There are expectable negative consequences."

Void if removed (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

There are several statements here that are either inaccurate or more contentious than you suggest.

What is clear is that in UK law, a male person without a Gender Recognition Certificate, who identifies as transgender, is male for the purposes of the Equality Act, … What they do not automatically get is the right to be considered the opposite sex under the Equality Act.

No, that is not clear. Anti-trans activists, including "gender critical feminists try to claim that, but there is no requirement in the text of the Equality Act for a GRC to enable one to be protected from sex-discrimination on the basis of their "acquired gender". Until recent court cases, this was not considered controversial.

Incidentally, it would widely be considered transphobic to describe that hypothetical someone as “a male person … who identifies as transgender”. Can I suggest, if you don't want to use the term “trans woman”, that you might hedge better with something like “someone who grew up as male and now identifies as transgender”.

A GRC changes that picture, possibly, though there is disagreement over whether that is the intent.

No, there is no disagreement over whether that is the intent. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 is very clear. Section 9(1) reads:

Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

The act includes an exception for hereditary peerages, for the specific terms "mother" and "father", for sport (repealed by the Equality Act 2010), gender-specific legal offences.

but even then the operation of the single-sex exceptions is interpreted as that someone can be excluded on gender reassignment grounds where it is legitimate or proportionate. Most debate there is whether this is a blanket right or case-by-case.

I have heard of very little such debate and I have never heard of any blanket right for single-sex spaces to exclude trans people; very few single-sex spaces have much interest in doing so, indeed.

Most feminist activism in this space

It is worth reminding readers that most feminists are trans-inclusive in their feminism. Gender-critical feminism is a minority viewpoint within feminism and most women are trans-inclusive, at least in the United Kingdom.

Don't allow a GRC to be obtained by simple self-declaration, as that lowers the bar for access to sex protections and (possibly) single-sex exceptions, or renders them unworkable

Highlighted jurisdictions recognise legal gender change by self-identification (by, for example, a legal affidavit) rather than a medicalised process

It is also worth reminding readers that there is plenty of evidence (from the many jurisdictions that have gender self-determination as their means of legal gender change) that single-sex exceptions and "sex protections" are not harmed by "simple self-declaration".

I note you quote from a specifically gender-critical book, edited by 2 notable transphobes and with chapters from several others. You and others might also be interested to read the monograph edition of The Sociological Review from 2020, which takes an evidence-based trans-inclusive sociological view of the topic. The introductory article is Pearce, Ruth; Sonja Erikainen; Ben Vincent (2020). "TERF wars: An introduction". The Sociological Review. 68 (4): 677–698. doi:10.1177/0038026120934713. S2CID 221097475.

— OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 21:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I note you quote from a specifically gender-critical book

Well yes, this is a page on gender critical feminism, and this discussion is about articulating what their position actually is as neutrally as possible in the lede, ie what is meant by "biological sex cannot be changed" and whether a blanket opposition to "transgender rights" is an accurate summation of their position. To that end I have explained the different approach taken by the UK and the US, and this is a high quality source. While I disagree with much of your interpretation here, I don't think digressing further into the merits of the various positions is productive. Void if removed (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

There are arguments for and against allowing groups to define their position in their own terms. Sometimes groups vigorously opposed to another group will misstate the other group's position (for example, we wouldn't cite right wing climate change deniers for a sentence about what scientists believe wrt man made climate change. But sometimes groups use language when describing their position, in a way that misleads, and we can't just repeat that in wiki voice. The above argument shows that the phrase "biological sex" can actually mean different things to different people and we shouldn't assume the wiki-linked argument is the right one for what they mean. Terms like "single-sex spaces" and "sex-based rights" are thrown around as if they actually exist. Let's be clear. There are no toilets or changing rooms in the UK where one's biological sex, immutable as they say, is the gatekeeper towards entry. There aren't even any where one's legal sex, changeable with a GRC, has any role in gatekeeping entry. These "single-sex spaces" exist as hypotheticals in law, should an organisation (not an individual) be systematically transphobic enough to demand one. The UK, as far as I know, has not gone that far. For example, the NHS prioritises a person's declared gender identity wrt what ward they end up on. It does permit, on a case-by-case-basis, staff to, as they put it "exclude a trans person from a single sex ward of their preferred gender" but that's very much an extreme option rather than a default. The default is that our wards in the NHS are gender based, not chromosome based. They are not "single-sex spaces" but the law occasionally may permit a sex-based override. A cis female patient could not, for example, turn up at such a ward, and demand they throw any trans women out, purely by asserting their protected GC beliefs. What is far more likely, is that the law permits NHS staff to make a judgement call about a drunk man taking the piss.

Let's examine void's claim that self declaration Dramatically lowering the barrier - essentially removing it entirely - to make ones sex an act of self-declaration would completely undermine the single-sex exceptions in the EA. This is the problem for GCF. The legal sex-change is described as a "fiction". It is something they accept exists in law, but makes as much sense as Christianity does to Richard Dawkins. A GRC is felt tolerable provided it was largely unused and hard to reach. But the proposed change didn't "remove entirely" the barrier. It is still a big legal deal and still a big deal for a human being to consider. We can't make such claims in wikivoice because that isn't true. We could only put such in quotes and it is widely open to mocking (that a man would, of an afternoon, decide to become a woman and fill in an online form so they could go visit the toilets next door to his usual). If no such toilets or changing rooms having biological or legal gatekeeping exist, then no law can undermine their lack of existence. But if one campaigns to make such places exist, by writing repeatedly as though they do exist and are under threat, then one could change the law so that such places really are out of bounds to trans people. And ensuring a GRC is so hard and unpleasant that few actually go through the process, means that even if this "legal fiction" remained permitting such to gain entry, it would apply to only a handful of people, who wouldn't carry their GRC on themselves anyway. The net effect is to make something that is possible (for trans people to use the bathroom or changing facilities they are comfortable in) to become impossible.

The consequence of GCF belief around sex (real, immutable) and gender (imaginary, harmful concept) is to conclude trans women cannot exist (they are either men with a mental illness or perverts), and the pretence of their existence is harmful to society. We can't separate academic beliefs from activism because neither do they. If GCF was merely a set of beliefs, as void describes them, they we could all agree to disagree and be grateful that not everyone thinks the same ways. But they come with activism, not to strengthen existing rights for 50% of the population, but to remove them for a few percent. Wikipedia is not here to pander to the myths that suddenly women's bathrooms will be filled with men and that it will be hard to get changed after swimming, for all the penises waving about. We need to be very careful about using terms like "single-sex spaces" and "sex-based rights" and even it seems "biological sex". There aren't "single-sex spaces" in the UK, all such spaces can and do permit trans people. -- Colin°^Talk 09:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

"There aren't "single-sex spaces" in the UK, all such spaces can and do permit trans people. "

Women's Aid disagree.

Members routinely use exceptions within the Equality Act 2010 to provide single sex services.

[...]

The provision of single-sex domestic abuse services is a founding principle of Women’s Aid, and we will defend it

[...]

We therefore support the principle of providing single sex domestic abuse services which is lawful under the Equality Act. Some members conclude that it is not appropriate to include trans women (including those with a Gender Recognition Certificate) in women-only shared spaces. We support their right to make this assessment, as long as they do so lawfully.

Void if removed (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Well maybe I was a little quick with the "aren't any". But you cite one organisation who have, it appears, taken this stance only since March 2022. It is hardly surprising in the current climate to find such a claim, but be aware that they only go as far as saying "some members", and they only support them if they do so "lawfully". They aren't the only woman's refuge organisation.

The problem is the assertion that a woman's refuge, bathroom, changing room, hospital wards etc, are single sex spaces. The owners providing that service can choose to restrict individuals, on very limited legal grounds, but mostly they don't and for many they never would. Void, the problem is the language. A permit for someone providing a service, is not the same as a right for people using that service and it doesn't turn a service into a space. Our NHS wards accept transgender people. Our public bathrooms accept transgender people. Our changing rooms accept transgender people. The idea that these are currently "single-sex", with the latter being based either in legal sex or biological sex, is a myth. But writing as though it is a fact, and thus something under threat, is nothing more than propaganda. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Colin°^Talk 10:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I should add, Void, that the phrase "Members routinely use exceptions within the Equality Act 2010 to provide single sex services." is far more commonly manifest as "We tell any men who turn up at our women's refuges where they can fuck off to" and not "We routinely ask to see inside the underwear of any 'women' who turn up that don't look sufficiently feminine" or whatever. Turning away the violent husbands is "routine". Turning away trans women is not. -- Colin°^Talk 13:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I have made an edit which expands the Equality Act bullet point slightly. Perhaps this could be debated. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Outside the public sector it is largely up to the will of organisations themselves to exercise this right.

However individuals can theoretically make a discrimination claim against a public body - or an org carrying out a public service and in receipt of public funds - on the grounds of not operating a single-sex service, because they are bound by the Public Sector Equality Duty and thus have to consider detriments to any of the protected characteristics. This would require absence of the service demonstrably resulting in sex-based discrimination. I'm not aware of this point having been litigated in practice though. I'm aware of oat least one claimant attempting to make this case but it won't be heard for another year at best.

So I think once you account for the PSED its not quite so straightforward as "a service provider can do this if they like" but I'm not sure that can really be captured without getting into the weeds on the detail, and its one for legal scholars to argue about. Personally I'd split the difference between the two edits, eg.:

"Existing exceptions defined in the UK Equality Act 2010 which allow the provision of single-sex services if they are “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.

Void if removed (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

As I said earlier: I have never heard of any blanket right for single-sex spaces to exclude trans people; very few single-sex spaces have much interest in doing so.

And plenty of single-sex spaces — including women's refuges and rape crisis centres — are trans-inclusive. (I would suggest most single-sex spaces are, but I can't evidence that off-hand.) Indeed, looking at the support for the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, both Rape Crisis Scotland and Scotland Women’s Aid agreed with the widespread support for amending Scots Law to allow gender self-determination:

Sandy Brindley, chief executive of Rape Crisis Scotland, added: “It’s never been the case that any single sex services as far as I'm aware in Scotland...has ever required a gender recognition certificate so as somebody to provide proof of their gender.”
— The Herald, 31 May 2022

SWA reiterates its support for the principles of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) bill and its aim to simplify the process for trans people to obtain legal gender recognition in Scotland. We support the removal of the requirement of a medical diagnosis and the introduction of a process based on self-identification by the applicant with a shorter waiting time. ... It is our understanding that the changes proposed in the bill will help better uphold the rights of trans people while making no changes to the reserved Equality Act 2010 which provides for single sex services. ...

As we have said previously, Women’s Aid already works on the basis of self-identification in its service provision. Women’s Aid services do not require sight of women’s, children’s and young people’s birth certificates to provide services. We consider that the changes to the process for legal gender recognition contained in this bill will not impact current practice in service delivery since they relate to changing an individual’s sex on their birth certificate.
— Scottish Women’s Aid submission to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee on the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, May 2022

You're welcome, @Void if removed, to disagree with much of [my] interpretation here, but your suggestions above are contradicted by plenty of reliable sources. I will assume good faith for now, but your description of the UK situation above is misleading at best. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 12:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I think this is getting quite off topic in relation to why I started this discussion; as I said above, my opinions were:

1) The fact they GCFs oppose the idea that biological sex can be changed is irrelevant. This is scientific consensus, and, while it may be weaponized, is not an incorrect opinion (it is not a "belief that biological sex cannot be changed", but a scientific fact), nor does it suggest an opposition to transgender identities (although the term "therefore" has since been removed.)

2) I do not outright oppose the wording "oppose transgender rights", but I am not sure if this is sourced in any of the articles. I do not have access to the articles fully, and I am skeptical of the idea that they say this outright (again, I am not making a bold claim here; I am only skeptical.) Would it be possible for someone to provide quotational evidence for the claim? The sentence that follows is "These views have been described as transphobic by other feminists and some scholars", and, because the "transphobic" label is set alongside "some", I am even more skeptical of sources universally describing them as outright opposing transgender rights, which the current wording implies.

I have removed the mention in the belief of biological sex's immutability in the article, for reasons expressed above. (Would be open to including again if there was reference to how that is relevant, e.g., weaponized by the movement.)

Again, I have expressed skepticism in any of the articles saying outright that GCFs "oppose transgender rights". Not, for instance, "some" oppose them, or that they oppose "some". Could someone please cite a quotation for this? Again, I am not denying it; I am only skeptical. Zilch-nada (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th What is your opinion on my edit that you reverted - regardless of your opinion on absence of a consensus - and opinion of my two opinions expressed above? Thanks. Zilch-nada (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The short version, what you're advocating for goes against what reliable sources say gender-critical feminists believe. Those sources are already cited later in the article.

The longer version, taking your points in order:

1. That gender-criticals oppose the idea that biological sex cannot be changed is relevant, as it is a core tenant of their ideology, along with the quippy soundbites and slogans about trans and non-binary people not being who they say they are. There is a semantic trap that I'm afraid you seem to be falling into, that when gender-criticals are using "biological sex" terminology, they are referring solely to a medical or scientific definition. The reality is that when they use this term, as alluded to by Colin above, it is often used in a philosophical, sociological, or political sense.
2. I do not outright oppose the wording "oppose transgender rights", but I am not sure if this is sourced in any of the articles. This is well sourced in the article, and addressed by other editors above. I don't see any pressing need to repeat what has been said in an already overly lengthy and meandering discussion. If you are having trouble accessing sources, I'd recommend trying the Wikipedia Library and the Resource Request noticeboard.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe – please direct me to what & where the article linked in your point 1 says that ‘biological sex’ is often used in a philosophical, sociological, or political sense’ by g-c feminists. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

To understand fully, you'd need to read the full paper as this is interspaced throughout and not neatly categorised into distinct section. But if you insist on sections/quotes.

• For political Gender-critical feminists tend to draw a sharp distinction between sex, as a biological reality, and gender, as the social construction of sex. In response, feminist critics of gender-critical feminism insist that we have no unmediated access to biological realities: they too become cognitively significant to us through discourse, including the discourse of biology, which is itself (like any other discursive domain) structured by political values.
• For philosophical, see the section titled "Why Trans-Inclusive Practices Do Not Threaten the Concept of 'Female,' 'Male,' 'Lesbian,' and 'Gay'", which quotes and discusses extensively Kathleen Stock's writings on this.
• For sociological, see the section titled "Overemphasizing Sex-Based Subordination".

But really, I'd recommend reading the full paper. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe – what you’ve just quoted says that it is non-g-c feminists who use the term ‘biological sex’ in a philosophical and political sense. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't really substantiate the initial claim. GCFs refer to biological sex, and their critics critique that position through their own philosophical perspective.

For example, the first quote continues:

Thus, defining the concepts of “women” or “females” (as gender-critical feminists do) by reference to biological sex is itself a political choice rather than one that can claim to neutrally reflect what the world is “really” like

This is arguing that biology itself is discursively constructed in a political domain, and thus that all claims about biological sex are inherently political. This is based on, per the citation at that point, the:

reconceptualization of biological sex as socially and culturally contingent

None of this means that when GCFs make a claim about biological sex they don't "really" mean biological sex. Void if removed (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

"Biological sex" is a medical or scientific definition. If they are using such a term - which is scientific, e.g., by weaponizing it, in social, philosophical or political contexts, then the detail of said weaponization should be referred to immediately after we state that they believe in this immutability: because it is not sufficient to dismiss immutability as a "belief" (because it is scientific consensus) without describing its social implications, e.g., again, of weaponization.

One question: What sources outright say that GCFs "oppose transgender rights"? Zilch-nada (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Please look at the sources cited in the article before asking these questions. Vox, Parliamentary Assembly, CTV News and TSQ are just a few. The Wikipedia Library provides access to many paywalled sources if you're having trouble with access. –dlthewave ☎ 15:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Vox writes that GCF "at its core, opposes the self-definition of trans people", and also refers to "so-called “radical feminist” groups with long records of opposing the rights of transgender people." Never outright saying that GCFs "oppose transgender rights."

Parliamentary Assembly does not refer at all to "oppose transgender rights" in relation specifically to GCFs. The article is about "rising hate against LGBTI people in Europe" in general.

CTV News does not say anything about gender-critical feminism - not even a mention.

TSQ does not mention gender-critical opposition to transgender rights. Zilch-nada (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Additional edit: Vox does not equate "so-called "radical feminist" groups" with gender-critical feminism; that is not mentioned alongside it at all. Zilch-nada (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Please take the time to read the sources through - It is not the responsibility of your fellow editors to hand-feed this to you, and our patience is not an infinite resource.

Vox: "And joining the Trump administration and conservatives in the fight over sex-based discrimination and stereotypes are several somewhat unexpected allies: so-called “radical feminist” groups with long records of opposing the rights of transgender people."

Parliamentary Assembly: "The Assembly condemns the highly prejudicial anti-gender, gender-critical and anti-trans narratives which reduce the struggle for the equality of LGBTI people to what these movements deliberately mis-characterise as “gender ideology” or “LGBTI ideology”. Such narratives deny the very existence of LGBTI people, dehumanise them and often falsely portray their rights as being in conflict with women’s and children’s rights, or societal and family values in general. All of these are deeply damaging to LGBTI people, while also harming women’s and children’s rights and social cohesion."

TSQ: "As Kuhar and Paternotte (2017b) explain, since the late 1990s, the right-wing self-described “anti-gender” movement has been organizing across Europe and parts of Latin America (Careaga-Pérez 2016) against transgender people's rights and against a number of queer and feminist political projects including reproductive rights, legislation against gender violence, and anti-LGBT+ bullying initiatives, to name just a few." "n example of how fascist imaginations and neoliberal dispositifs may intersect can be found in routinely deployed arguments about trans rights and the supposed attack on women's safety. Think, for example, of the transphobic point mentioned above that transgender identities allegedly offer an excuse for “predators” to infiltrate women's spaces. In this instance, gender critical discourse attempts to juxtapose a vulnerable and silenced homogenous mass of “real women” to pathological individuals who are neither authentically female nor male. Importantly, both trans and cis womanhood are here rendered in highly ideological ways: the former as an example of individual behavior that is perverted and deviant and the latter as an ontological state whose normativity derives from its putative naturalness. " ... "As a fascist trend, the anti-gender movement supports ever strengthening forms of authoritarianism. Its tactics encourage state powers to intervene in university programs, to censor art and television programming, to forbid trans people in their legal rights, to ban LGBTQI people from public spaces, to undermine reproductive freedom and the struggle against violence directed at women, children, and LGBTQI people." –dlthewave ☎ 15:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

My friend, I just read those articles and pointed out potentially ambiguous areas. None of those sources say unambiguously that "Gender critical feminists oppose transgender rights". Zilch-nada (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Also from Vox: "Online roots of the term TERF originated in the late 2000s but grew out of 1970s radical feminist circles after it became apparent that there needed to be a term to separate radical feminists who support trans women and those who don’t. Many anti-trans feminists today claim it’s a slur, despite what many see as an accurate description of their beliefs. They now prefer to call themselves “gender critical,” a euphemism akin to white supremacists calling themselves “race realists.” They're talking about the same thing. The topic of the article is feminists who oppose what they refer to as "gender ideology"; we can use any source covering the topic even if it does not use those exact words. –dlthewave ☎ 15:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

That does not unambiguously refer to gender-critical opposition to transgender rights. "They're talking about the same thing"; the term "transgender rights" isn't even mentioned here. I am genuinely trying to be as direct and simple as I can in explaining myself here, avoiding "walls of text". But it is so clear that this example does not address the term directly. Zilch-nada (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

To say that opposition to "gender ideology" is equivalent to "opposition to transgender rights" is, as it is not addressed directly within that source, a form of synthesis and original research. Zilch-nada (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Zilch-nada, here are two sources, arguably pro-GC, that are fully comfortable, indeed they rely on, the statement "biological sex is immutable" being a "belief" and not a "fact". Belief that biological sex is immutable is protected under the Equality Act and Employment Tribunal rulings on gender-critical beliefs in the workplace. Under the equality act, this must count as a "philosophical belief". And Distinguishing Fact, Opinion, Belief, and Prejudice tells us "A fact is verifiable... An opinion is a judgment based on facts....Unlike an opinion, a belief is a conviction based on cultural or personal faith, morality, or values" and "Since beliefs are inarguable, they cannot serve as the thesis of a formal argument". Our sources describe this as a belief, so should we. -- Colin°^Talk 13:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Colin – unless the court has referred to the article you have linked, there is no reason to believe that they are using the word ‘belief’ in the same sense as in the article. But it is a fact that the statement ‘biological sex is binary and immutable’ is a statement of belief in the current conclusions of scientists, as much as ‘climate change is caused/not caused by human actions’ is a belief. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The conclusion of scientists would not be a "belief". That climate change is caused by human actions is an opinion, a judgement based on facts. An example of belief, in the context of science, would be that the scientific method is superior to all forms of enquiry about the world and entirely sufficient and therefore humanity has no need for religion. One ultimately has to respect other people's beliefs because they cannot be simply argued on the basis of facts. I think you are on a losing argument if you are claiming lawyers and the House of Commons library are using the word "belief" to mean "accepted scientific fact" or that it differs from how this article uses the word. -- Colin°^Talk 15:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

See @Void if removed's comment below, emphasis mine:

"And perhaps relevant that man-made climate change - which I personally regard as about as close to a fact as science gets - is specifically given as an example of a protected "belief" by the EHRC"

The conclusion of scientists, which is probably as factual and reasonable as humans can be, is still a belief. And belief does not mean "not a fact". Zilch-nada (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

This is SYNTHESIS in that you write of some sources describing the immutability as a protected belief, and then use another source to define that "belief" cannot be a fact.

Where directly, do any sources say, emphasis mine, that "the statement "biological sex is immutable" being a "belief" and not a "fact""? Where is it said that this is not a fact? Perhaps I take too much issue with the word "belief"; indeed there is a "belief" in climate change being caused by humans, a belief that is backed up by scientific reasoning. To show that "belief" is not even as simple as you have claimed, here is the [7]Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (because we are talking about philosophical beliefs here):

"...[n]or does the term “belief”, in standard philosophical usage, imply any uncertainty or any extended reflection about the matter in question (as it sometimes does in ordinary English usage). Many of the things we believe, in the relevant sense, are quite mundane: that we have heads, that it’s the 21st century, that a coffee mug is on the desk. "

Here is Oxford Languages:

"an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.";

i.e., not necessarily without proof.

It is an extraordinary claim that it (immutability) is "not a fact"; that has not been backed up at all in this discussion. Zilch-nada (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

And perhaps relevant that man-made climate change - which I personally regard as about as close to a fact as science gets - is specifically given as an example of a protected "belief" by the EHRC. Void if removed (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. A "belief" does not inherently negate facts, nor scientific reasoning. Zilch-nada (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I'm interested that some sources consider that "man-made climate change" is a belief. I suspect that has arisen largely due to the amount of grief that scientists and people who accept the science are facing, rather than that this widely accepted scientific opinion is on the same level as "water is made of hydrogen and oxygen atoms". The components of water are not contested by rational people. The simplicity of a binary immutable biological sex in humans is contested by rational sane people, as is man made climate change (one cannot declare half of America insane, much as one might be frustrated to do so: (About half (49%) of Americans believe climate change is mostly caused by human activity).

When arguing this "binary immutable biological sex" thing, trying to shift it from being a "belief" to being a "fact" is essentially declaring anyone who disagrees to be as unreasonable as someone thinking they are the Prime Minister and arguing to get into 10 Downing street. Our sources call it a "belief" and you'll have to live with that. -- Colin°^Talk 15:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hold on, when did I say anything about a "binary" in relation to sex? Sex is not an absolute binary, for instance, with chromosomal conditions, intersex people, etc. That is not what I am arguing about. I am talking solely about "immutability" here, which is both scientific consensus and a belief; the two do not negate each other. The idea that biological sex can be changed is not a supported belief.

But likewise, as I said above:

The term "belief", in the context of the article, however, seeks to dismissively write off "immutability" as a mere belief - which in common English usage often refers to an unscientific claim. Thus, I still believe the term "belief", while not necessarily wrong, per se, should be changed. It is also scientific consensus, and, as I have said many times here, we should either drop the meaningless statement itself (that they believe in immutability), or elaborate on how they have used a scientific claim in their activism, e.g., as weaponization. I.e., "belief" is a misleading, and fundamentally unspecific term. Zilch-nada (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Well I'm not interested in your beliefs but GC beliefs, and the binary and immutable nature of sex is dogma. For example LGBA say "Fact: Sex is binary". Sex matters say "Reality: There are two sexes: female and male. People shouldn’t be afraid to say this." I could go on.

I don't think we are arguing that Wikipedia should declare it a "mere belief". But nor can we state in Wikipedia voice that it is a fact.

But in addition, the implication of the assertion that these things are "facts" or "reality" is that the other things are not facts or reality. Otherwise you wouldn't claim them. Similarly the claim that sex is important leaves open to interpretation. Skin colour is important but if I was to argue it is important because it often leads to discrimination, I'd be on safe ground, but if I claim it is important as white people are more intelligent, I would be going to a bad place. This is soundbite language that appeals to the already converted but sounds frankly weird to those outside. Colin°^Talk 15:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I know that GCFs believe that there are two sexes, but I am disputing, as I have been from the start, the phrase "...believe that biological sex cannot be changed." That is a different question. Zilch-nada (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

" I suspect that has arisen largely due to the amount of grief that scientists and people who accept the science are facing"

I think it is simply because - in this context - "belief" is the technical term used in the Equality Act, and it is interpreted broadly.

Religion is a belief. GC feminism is a belief. Ethical veganism is a belief. That man-made climate change is a real and pressing issue is a belief.

What's required is that a belief must be genuinely held, more than an opinion, cogent, serious and apply to an important aspect of human life or behaviour, and worthy of respect in a democratic society. That last wording - which was a quote from the Grainger test - has become synonymous with the Forstater ruling, but it is part of the baseline test for what constitutes a belief.

Worth noting that lack of belief is also protected, and that the existence and importance of gender identity is also a "belief", and one which you cannot be discriminated against for either holding, or not holding. That is, it is not just GC views that are protected, it is also their mirror image, or the absence of either.

I think some of this discussion is akin to getting the colloquial meaning of "theory" mixed up with its scientific sense and thus thinking evolution is "just a theory". Void if removed (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, they are using the words "worthy of respect" to imply tolerance, an agree-to-disagree attitude that is necessary in a workplace, and acceptance of those who might hold outrageous, offensive and hateful beliefs. The ruling says "it is only those beliefs that would be an affront to Convention principles in a manner akin to that of pursuing totalitarianism, or advocating Nazism, or espousing violence and hatred in the gravest of forms, that should be capable of being not worthy of respect in a democratic society. Beliefs that are offensive, shocking or even disturbing to others, and which fall into the less grave forms of hate speech would not be excluded from the protection. It's an extremely low bar, this "worthy of respect". -- Colin°^Talk 16:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Zilch, be aware that SYNTHESIS applies to articles, not to talk page discussions. It is perfectly reasonable for editors to link to dictionary definitions or other sites to argue what words mean as part of a talk page discussion. This is all part of working out what words mean and being open to the idea that one's beliefs about meanings could be wrong. --15:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC) Colin°^Talk 15:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

You are using synthesis between different articles in a general way (fine, perhaps not against policy, but a logical fallacy). No sources outright state, "not a fact". You had one source saying that immutability was a belief, and another source saying that beliefs aren't facts. Combining the two is a clearly fallacious reasoning. Zilch-nada (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

SYTHNESIS, as a thing to be avoided, is a Wikipedia article concept, entirely due to us not permitting editors to rise above their sources when making claims in article space. It is entirely valid for our sources to synthesise their arguments from multiple sources. It is not a logical fallacy. We are all here trying to understand what words to use and sometimes get it right and sometimes get it wrong. Criticising editors for breaking an article-space rule is an example of you getting it wrong. Please don't accuse editors of SYNTHESIS on article talk pages. -- Colin°^Talk 16:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

See WP:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not directly applicable to talk pages. -- Colin°^Talk 16:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The justification for the current state of the article is made by synthesis-style reasoning in the talk page. Yes, the sources you referred to about the semantics of "belief" are not addressed in the article, and so I apologize that I had misconstrued the policy.

In addressing whether biological immutability was a "fact", you had one source saying that immutability was a belief, and another source saying that beliefs aren't facts. The latter source is not relevant to backing up the statement "biological immutability is not a fact". That's all I'm saying. Zilch-nada (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

You are the one objecting to the "believes that.." language. But GCFs do mention it, repeatedly, and it is one of their core beliefs. For example sex matters: 'If you believe that there are two sexes, that people can't change sex and that sex matters then you are “gender-critical”. Gender critical people do not believe that “trans women are women” and “trans men are men”'. These are beliefs. --- Colin°^Talk 09:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

References

TERF as an -ism

There are countless results for "TERF ideology" and similar phrases, where TERF clearly refers to the ideology (the -ism), so the acronym isn't used exclusively for the ideology's adherents. The lead also needs to mention this prominent term and provide the link to the closely related article on it, especially given the recent consensus that TERF should redirect here. This is also how the article was conceptualized and it has been in the article from the start, so it shouldn't be removed without discussion. Note that this is the article specifically on the -ism, so this use of the term is more relevant here. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 05:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Why would we think “TERF ideology” should expand to “trans-exclusionary radical feminism ideology” rather than “trans-exclusionary radical feminist ideology”? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no need for us to speculate on that. Many sources use the term when referring to the ideology. The term redirects here per a previous consensus, and is a key term that we need to mention. The whole feminist vs feminism discussion is artificial in the context of this article which is specifically about TERF as an ideology, and where also "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" can be a normal grammatical form of that term (i.e. not even "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" has to refer to an individual). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The point being that hardly anyone calls the ideology “TERF”. They call it “TERF ideology”. And hence the current phrasing of Gender-critical feminism, known […] as […] TERF is both awkward and not supported by sources. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

See reference #1: "What was once termed TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminism/feminist) is now more often referred to as gender critical feminism/feminist". There are many sources that use the term also when referring to the ideology. Some sources may use phrases such as "TERF ideology", but that doesn't change the fact that the term is used in the sense of the ideology, which is the context of this article. It seems superfluous to me to add "ideology" after TERF in this article, since the exact phrases that sources use vary and since TERF is the key term that we need to mention, for the reasons mentioned above. But the wording wasn't always ideal, so we can discuss how we phrase it. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Gender-critical feminists are well within the scope of an article about gender-critical feminism. The acronym TERF is far more commonly used to refer to the people, not the ideas, so our phrasing should reflect that. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the ideology or movement known variously as gender-critical feminism/trans-exclusionary radical feminism, so obviously all things related to that are well within its scope. "Feminism" or "feminist" are, in this context, different grammatical forms that may both refer to this ideology or movement. However, this article is different from the article on the acronym in the sense that the ideology or movement itself is the topic of the article, rather than a particular word. Per summary style, we have a short summary of the material covered in the in-depth article on the acronym. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I’m just trying to wordsmith a better introductory sentence than the current one, which deploys the acronym in a way that is outside its usual usage. Case in point: TERF (acronym) opens with TERF (/tɜːrf/) is an acronym for trans-exclusionary radical feminist. The mainstream usage is -ist, not -ism. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the context of these two articles is different, because the context here is the ideology or movement, where feminism is the primary grammatical form, and there are sources supporting the use of the abbreviation in this sense. We can elaborate, preferably below (in the terminology section), on how the term is often used in the sense of (trans-exclusionary radical) "feminist" and how the term is sometimes used in phrases such as "TERF ideology" when referring to the ideology. Perhaps we can just mention the acronym in a parenthesis in the lead (instead of "or"). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I second what Barnards says here. Hardly anyone calls the ideology "TERF". "TERF" in almost all cases stands for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" and cannot stand for "trans-exclusionary radical feminism". Thus you can have a TERF or many TERFs but not a believer in TERF. (I've sometimes seen references to "TERFism" but that's kinda the exception that proves the rule.) Loki (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Which sources do you have for that? We have sources that directly contradict it[8], and there are numerous other sources using the term when referring to the ideology. Furthermore, TERF is one of the alternative titles of this article (and redirects here), and needs to be mentioned. We also need to provide the link to the closely related article on the acronym. Also, do not remove this without consensus, for the reasons explained above. We cannot have a lead section that doesn't mention the term TERF (and the acronym article). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I was really hoping that this would be quite uncontroversial and we wouldn't have to get into a source analysis, but a quick google search for "TERF" returns results all of which expand the acronym to -ist. The existence of a source that does something different doesn't overturn the weight of common usage in other sources. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion - could you change the opening words to "gender critical feminists" instead of "ism" and rephrase the introduction in that light? Void if removed (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The articles on feminism, radical feminism, socialism, liberalism, communism etc. are all about the -ism. The -ist in this context is a facet of the broader topic, but not the way we title or frame articles on political movements. Leaving out the best known term that has been an alternative title since the article was conceived and that redirects here is obviously not an uncontroversial matter. I haven't really seen any sources that support the claim that the term cannot refer to the ideology/be an abbreviation of trans-exclusionary radical feminism, but we can discuss alternative ways to phrase this, to take into account how the term is often used in the -ist sense. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

(Adding a word after the acronym, such as "ideology" (used by many sources), seems like the simplest way to address this concern in a reasonably concise manner in the first sentence. In theory it can mean TERF both in the -ist and -ism sense. The key issue here is that we need to mention this familiar term and include the link to the other article.) --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The article title is -ism, not -ist, so the lead needs to follow. Perhaps the problem is introducing the TERF acronym in the lead sentence. I think we can all agree that although some sources do talk about "trans-exclusionary radical feminism", the original term was coined to refer to feminists, and that's largely what the TERF acronym is used for.

The lead already has a problem with "They reject the concept of transgender identities and oppose transgender rights" -- the word "they" can't apply to an -ism (and transgender rights is already wikilinked earlier). How about revising that sentence into "Gender-critical feminists reject the concept of transgender identities and oppose transgender rights, and are often described by opponents as trans-exclusionary radical feminists or TERFs."

I don't really think we need to get over-concerned to have "trans-exclusionary radical feminism or TERF" in the lead sentence. I much much prefer a lead sentence to avoid parentheticals and just get on with a definition and explanation. -- Colin°^Talk 12:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

When the article was conceived, the idea was to have gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism/TERF as equal titles, especially given how gender-critical feminism is a somewhat UK-centric title, whereas trans-exclusionary radical feminism and TERF are more widely used terms in the US and elsewhere. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Colin, your suggestion seems perfectly fine and a sensible improvement. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I prefer having the alternate name ("trans-exclusionary radical feminism") right up front. I also think in the context of the lead as written it'd be awkward to drop the alternate names where Colin suggests; it'd seem arbitrary. But I don't really see a need to introduce the acronym so early, especially considering how awkward it is to phrase it properly in an article about the -ism. Loki (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

My prefered phrasing: Gender-critical feminism is an ideology or movement that opposes what it refers to as "gender ideology": the concept of gender identity and transgender rights, especially gender self-determination. It is also known as trans-exclusionary radical feminism and its proponents as TERFs, especially by opponents. Gender-critical feminists believe that biological sex cannot be changed, reject the concept of transgender identities and oppose transgender rights. These views have been described as transphobic by other feminists and some scholars, and are opposed by many feminist and LGBT rights organizations. Loki (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

That works for me. I think Wikipedia often tries to fit too much into the lead sentence (alternatives, pronunciation), and this doesn't help our reader. We had a particular problem here where the "alternative" was actually mainly a term about the proponents, not the ideology. Add in the baggage about it being considered a slur by some (we wouldn't put "bible bashers" and "god botherers" in the lead sentence of Christianity), and somewhat over-precise (the GCFs are not necessary "radical feminists" or even have a clue what that means). I suspect TERF will remain as long as we have Twitter, where hating and labelling each other is more important that understanding each other or seeking common ground and compromise. -- Colin°^Talk 08:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

IMO TERF is inseparable from the history of gender critical feminism, because the very name "gender critical feminism" was coined in response to continuity second wave/radical feminists having their beliefs framed as "trans-exclusionary".

I would argue that placing opposition to "gender ideology" as the very first and most important part of the description of their beliefs is not neutral, and should not be in wikivoice, especially given that this is an interpretation of a source that says "increasingly":

" Increasingly, they argue that such developments result from what they call ‘gender ideology’ (see e.g. 4thWaveNow, 2019)."

ie this is not a foundational part of their philosophy, but a later shift in language usage by some part of related political campaigns. On top of this, the author then goes on to describe a reactionary, right-wing interpretation of the term "gender ideology", making it clear this is a highly loaded usage. The citation for this claim is from the website 4thwavenow, but it is actually from an interview with a third party who does not describe themselves as a gender critical feminist.

"Justine Kreher is a 50-year old bisexual woman who is happily married to the woman she has been with for the last 21 years. She believes, from personal experience, that one’s feelings about gender and sexuality can change drastically from the tweens to young adulthood. This reflects her own experience as someone who didn’t understand her own same-sex attraction until age 22, as well as the experiences of people in the LGBT population she has been around for years. Her personal philosophy is influenced by stoicism, Taoism, Enlightenment values, and most importantly, skepticism. This 4thWaveNow interview with Justine was conducted via email"

Even if it were the views of 4thwavenow, despite the assertions of the author of the cited piece, this also does not describe itself as a gender critical feminist website:

"I created this site because mine is a viewpoint that is seldom publicly heard: that of a left-leaning parent who is critical of the dominant paradigm regarding transgender politics and treatment. My primary concern is children, teens, and people in their early 20s, particularly girls who are contemplating medical transition."

In fact, the original citation goes on to note:

"the first appearance of ‘gender ideology’ in a ‘gender critical’ context: a comment responding to a 2016 blog post on trans-exclusionary feminist website 4thWaveNow"

So the basis of the politically loaded, principal claim in the first sentence is ultimately derived from a random anonymous comment on a blog that doesn't even say it is a gender-critical feminist one, at least 3 years after the term "gender-critical" was first coined? The source nowhere says this is a foundational belief, it is describing an evolution of linguistic and political context and a seeming developing overlap in terminology between radical feminists and conservatives. This is at best a "critics argue" type of situation, not a neutral presentation of their views.

By contrast, "Sex and Gender - A Contemporary Reader" doesn't use the term "gender ideology" at all, and as Holly Lawford-Smith makes clear:

"gender critical feminism is not a single-issue movement. It is not ‘about’ trans, it is about sex, specifically about being female, and what that means socially, politically, legally, and economically, in societies emerging from histories of male dominance. Having sex as the caste criterion makes membership and constituency straightforward: the members of the caste are all the female people; the theory has these people as its subject, and the liberation movement has these people as its constituency. We think it makes sense to reclaim the so-called ‘gender terms’, giving ‘woman’ back to the female people who are actually subject to this caste hierarchy, giving ‘feminism’ back to their theory, and giving ‘the women’s movement’ back to their politics."

Elsewhere in that piece, Holly Lawford-Smith does say:

"But because it is about sex, it clashes with gender identity ideology, which is at the heart of trans activism. "

Here, the more precise gender identity ideology, not "gender ideology" - and not described as opposition but observing that since they believe sex should never be overridden with gender identity, a clash is inevitable with anyone who believes the opposite.

I think this term "gender ideology" should be nowhere near the lede, and a more balanced form could be something like:

Gender-critical feminism is an ideology or movement which maintains that biological sex is immutable and important to a feminist critique of both gender and gender identity. Gender-critical feminist insistence that biological sex not be conflated with gender identity has led to clashes with transgender rights advocacy, notably the protection of transgender women as women. As a result, its proponents are sometimes referred to as trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs), especially by critics, and their views are considered transphobic by many feminists, scholars and LGBT rights organizations.

So: what they believe, why it conflicts, and why they are thus criticised and called "TERFs", and without the vagueness about what "rights" specifically are opposed (or indeed the repetition of this point). Void if removed (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

This sounds to me like you are trying to cherry-pick a source's sources. That's not what we do on Wikipedia: a reliable source may have reasons for saying something that we don't have access to.

In particular here, 4thwavenow is unambiguously a gender-critical/TERF website, and just because we can't use a blog comment as a source doesn't mean our sources can't. (Otherwise how could we ever have a source about internet culture?) Loki (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

In what way is it unambiguously a gender-critical feminist website please?

It is a website created by - and principally for - parents concerned about and resistant to their own childrens' trans identification, and was the main source of the cohort that was the basis of the Littman ROGD study.

Those are quite distinct things, and perhaps this says more about the widespread misuse of "TERF" as an epithet for things that have nothing to do with radical feminism.

And my point is the assertion in the lede is very strong, and not actually supported by the source cited, either directly or indirectly. Void if removed (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Y'know, you actually do have a point. It's unambiguously true that 4thwavenow is an anti-trans website, but less clear that it's specifically a gender-critical one. Loki (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The only issue with feminist critique of both gender and gender identity is that we are still missing a section of the article that covers the GCF critique of gender and gender identity, so in this respect the lead doesn’t follow the body - but that should be rectified by adding the section. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I quite like Void's lead proposal (provided we can source and/or tweak it). Like I said before, our lead sentence should be strong and simple. I didn't like the parenthetical about TERF and I agree that defining a movement with a phrase like 'what it refers to as "gender ideology"' isn't high quality stuff. It's verging on Baldrick's "Cat: not a dog". We should be defining it clearly using words we are happy to have in wiki voice and that mean something to new readers vs people steeped in this culture war. I think, though, the "gender ideology" term is important enough to enough loud-mouth GCFs that even if it did originate among right-wing activists, it's been adopted by many GCFs and it needs to be in the lead section. Can we explain this term, and the controversy of why we don't write it without scare quotes? Of course, the lead should summarise the body, so this needs a good foundation in the body. -- Colin°^Talk 17:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure - the language of "gender ideology" has different meanings to different people. The source currently used in the lede says:

The language of ‘gender ideology’ originates in anti-feminist and anti-trans discourses among right-wing Christians, with the Catholic Church acting as a major nucleating agent (Careaga-Pérez, 2016; Kuhar & Paternotte, 2017). In the last decade the concept has been increasingly adopted by far-right organisations and politicians in numerous American, European and African states. They position gender egalitarianism, sexual liberation and LGBTQ+ rights as an attack on traditional values by ‘global elites’, as represented by multinational corporations and international bodies such as the United Nations (Korolczuk & Graff, 2018). In this context, ‘gender’ is made to stand in for identity politics and notions of social malleability: ‘Gender provides the theatre for the struggle for hegemony . . . a contest for redefining liberal democracy where “gender ideology” embodies numerous deficits of the so-called progressive actors’ (Kováts, 2018, p. 535, emphasis in original).

From this standpoint, "gender ideology" is a kind of catch-all term for basically all progressive politics relating to gender - feminism, LGBT rights etc .

However, one of the sources cited by this article also says:

There is actually also a pre-existing feminist sociological use of Gender Ideology which this runs the risk of being conflated with; that being the coinage to describe the prevailing cultural ideological environment regarding gender (which is to say gender stereotyping in general) in a way which does not particularly concern itself with trans people

So here, "gender ideology" means essentially "sociocultural attitudes to/naturalisation of gender stereotypes". This has been the target of feminist critique for decades.

In 2013 a letter signed by several radical feminists around the time "gender critical" was coined was critical of "gender studies":

“Gender Studies” has displaced the grassroots women’s liberation analysis of the late 1960s and early 1970s. An early embrace of the neutral idea of “sex roles” as a major cause of women’s oppression by some segments of the women’s liberation movement has morphed into the new language—but the same neutrality—of “gender roles” and “gender oppression.” With a huge boost from the “new” academic theory coming out of those programs, heavily influenced by postmodernism, “gender identity” has overwhelmed—when not denying completely— the theory that biological women are oppressed and exploited as a class by men and by capitalists due to their reproductive capacity.

So here what they are critical of is the ideological reconceptualisation of feminism away from sex and towards gender identity, and it is understandable that someone could mean this by the phrase "gender ideology", ie Butler et al. It is specifically this that is being criticised eg. here.

We must seek to rebalance power to prevent harm. That involves, among many other things, abolishing both masculinity and femininity - no progressive cause should support or perpetuate a social system in which dominance is encouraged in one group, while social submissiveness is promoted in others. It is absolutely contrary to all ideas of human dignity and liberation. How could any liberatory movement adopt a position that posits an innate, inescapable hierarchical system at the heart of human nature, with close to 50% of humanity born inescapably into a submissive role? But in today’s gender debate, the position of queer theory-inspired trans activists is exactly that. For them, to be a ‘woman’ is not to be female, but to be ‘feminine’- in other words, to be a ‘woman’ is to be submissive. It is here that we begin to see the true social regressiveness of this supposedly liberatory movement.

Meanwhile, as with the Holly Lawford-Smith quote above, in both Helen Joyce's "Trans" and in "Sex and Gender - A Contemporary Reader" the term "gender identity ideology" is used exclusively, which is defined in the latter book thus:

Gender-identity theorists sometimes disavow any role for biology, arguing that both sex and gender are culturally or linguistically constructed. They disagree with our understanding of sex as biological and gender as social. The most prominent advocate of gender-identity theory is American philosopher Judith Butler, whose seminal work Gender Trouble (1990) has informed subsequent studies on both sides of the Atlantic. Although Butler and her followers argue that both sex and gender are constructs, in recent years many gender-identity theorists have also claimed that gender is an innate, 'natural' identity. They believe that biological sex is 'assigned' to a person at birth, not determined at conception as gender-critical scholars believe. Many gender-identity theorists view trans people as those whose gender identity differs from their biological sex. Others argue that people can freely choose their gender identity and change it at will over their lifetimes. It is not clear how gender can be both a linguistic construction and an innate identity. Because of its contradictions, some of our authors prefer to refer to this school of thought as `gender-identity ideology' rather than as a theory.

and:

The present movement is distinguished by a belief system we will call here 'gender identity ideology' or 'trans ideology,' the core claim of which is that being a man or a woman is a matter of gender identity rather than biological sex.

Still others, like the Christian Institute and the IEA, talk of "transgender ideology". The Christian Institute offers a description which sounds somewhat similar and neutral:

Transgender ideology claims that each person has a ‘gender identity’ (an internal sense of gender) which may or may not align with their biological sex. The ‘real you’ is what you feel it to be on the inside.

But then concludes that the solution is:

ultimately pointing them to life-changing repentance

Which is more in line with opposition to the very concept of transition than an ideological critique. Meanwhile the IEA calls it:

A new threat to liberal values

Which is a little more like the anti-gender movement's positioning of an "attack on traditional values".

And, many insist that such things as "transgender ideology" are myths and scaremongering, a lurid fantasy of a threatening ideological movement which simply doesn't exist:

The narratives are saying that these people are trying to “corrupt children” and impose a “transgender ideology” on the majority. These narratives invert the relations of power, portraying the transgender people as a force that oppresses the “ordinary man”

So the issue is, there are at least four semi-related terms (gender ideology/gender identity ideology/transgender ideology/trans ideology) that have somewhat different but contested meanings, and a lot of this has been smeared across headlines and social media platforms with limited characters and even less forethought for the last decade.

I think the use and meaning of "gender ideology" is highly contested and any presentation of it has to account for the fact that their critics want it to mean the worst possible thing (ie, an empty placeholder for everything the christian right despise), but still some feminists are actually trying to convey a critique targeted at mainstream gender studies, and Butler in particular, and sources in their own words seem to use "gender identity ideology" in this case.

Perhaps an explanation in the body should start something like that they say they object to "gender identity ideology", which they describe as the belief "that being a man or a woman is a matter of gender identity rather than biological sex". That sometimes the term "gender ideology" is used instead, and then reference the critiques of this term, its origin and expansion onto this space. Void if removed (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding to this another good source on the different usages of terms like "gender ideology" and "gender critical" and distinction between the way different political groups mean them, from Finn MacKay's "Female Masculinities".

These terms and similar language are also used by some GC and feminist groups; indeed, this terminology may have influenced the term 'gender critical' in the first place, or arguably at least popularized its use. However, many trans-exclusionary Radical Feminists and GC feminists point out that they use this term very differently from how the Christian right and right-wing states will utilize it. Writing for Woman's Place UK on Viktor Orban's transphobic, misogynistic and homophobic decrees in Hungary, the socialist feminist Jayne Egerton asserts that 'our respective analyses have so little in common' (2020). Egerton highlights that for GC feminists, the term `gender-critical' (GC) means to critique any approach that serves to 'conflate sex with gender and deny the material reality of sex-based oppression. This is a far cry from the definitions shared by the growing "anti gender" movements in Central and Eastern Europe' (Egerton, 2020).

Void if removed (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Reading more carefully now that I'm at a computer: I'm not a big fan of Void's proposed wording because it's not just that gender-critical feminists believe that biological sex should not be conflated with gender identity, it's that they believe sex is the reality of gender and gender identity is not real or not important.

I also, unlike Colin, don't have a problem with defining them by what they're not, because they are in large part defined by their opposition to transgender rights. Loki (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The lead is fine as it is. TERF ideology is primarily an ideology that opposes transgender rights (as commonly understood) and the lead needs to reflect that. We cannot use TERF dogwhistle language that doesn't really convey any meaning to those not initiated in the first sentence ("important" etc.). Also, trans-exclusionary radical feminism needs to be in the first sentence due to being an equal title of the article, in the same way that it is an equal section title in Feminist views on transgender topics. Gender-critical is mostly a UK-specific term. Trans-exclusionary radical feminism and TERF are more widely used terms in the US and elsewhere. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about your argument that TERF is global and GF is UK. Are the majority of serious proponents of this, globally, really writing "As a trans-exclusionary radical feminist, I believe..." or "Us TERFs believe that" or "As a proud TERF, ..." Like in academic writing or serious books?

Amanda, I think you have to let go of the origin story of this article. We're here to educate the reader, not to get hung up on where the article started. The article title is "Gender-critical feminism" and that really should be what it concentrates on, and especially so in the lead and lead sentence. It is very very much an aside that there is another term, which was defined by an opponent and is used largely by opponents.

I'm not clear what you are regarding as "TERF dogwhistle language". The idea that "sex" (biological) is "important" or "matters" does seem to be a fundamental. The claim, that they reject, that trans women are women, is very much a claim that in this regard, the biological sex does not matter or is not important. So I think this is a pretty clear statement of their belief and no secret codes or whatever.

Loki, perhaps my Baldrick example didn't help. I wasn't saying they are being defined by what they are not. I'm saying they are being defined by a term that we need to put in scare quotes because whether it exist or what it is is highly contested. That's a very sub-optimal way of defining something. We can define GCF using words that don't need to be in scare quotes. In fact, if Amanda is opposed to "TERF dogwhistle language" then we need to rip "Gender ideology" right out of that lead sentence now. -- Colin°^Talk 07:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Amanda that we need to mention the term "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" in the lead, because at least in some circles it's by far the more common term, and readers may be confused if they don't have it clarified that gender critical feminism and trans-exclusionary feminism are the same thing.

I also agree that it's important to say that they reject trans rights and the claim that trans people are the gender they say they are. Even though GCFs usually claim to be just pro-women's rights, in practice their activism is overwhemingly trans-hostile, in some cases to the point of supporting conservative political candidates that are strongly opposed by other feminists. This is their main source of notability, and so it's gotta be prominent in the lead.

I'm a lot more skeptical of the claim that "gender critical" is wholly a UK term. My perception as an American is that "gender critical" is used by supporters and "trans-exclusionary" is used by opponents, and the alleged UK effect is just because the UK is overall more supportive of gender critical feminism / hostile towards trans rights. Loki (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

they reject trans rights - needs care in the lead as they clearly do not reject all trans rights, just the ones they feel conflict with their conception of sex-based rights. E.g. look at the Yogyakarta principles [9] - GCF is compatible with most of these, and indeed it’s a key differentiator between GCF and right-wing anti-gender people who look at rights like the “right to life” and maybe aren’t so sure if they do support that. Sources that accurately state GCF views are very clear on this.

they reject … the claim that trans people are the gender they say they are - this one seems flawed as GCFs go to great lengths to distinguish sex from gender, and thus it would be more accurate to say they reject the claim that trans people are the sex they say they are (if indeed a trans person does claim to be the opposite sex, which is far from universal), but even better would be to explain their foundational belief that sex is a more important characteristic than gender in various settings. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

TERFs don't necessarily call themselves TERFs or GCs. Often they just claim to be "feminist" or "pro-women" etc., but we obviously don't call this article "the feminist movement". They are referred to by third party sources as TERFs or GCs. Some of them may use those terms themselves, especially GC. GC is clearly the more prominent term in the UK context, and this has also been commented on by many sources. In the US context, which I'm most familiar with as far as feminist activism is concerned, many people and especially feminists know what TERF refers to, but the term GC may be less familiar even to feminists there. We previously discussed the titles of the article, and found that TERF is by far the most commonly used term. We opted for "gender-critical feminism" primarily because it is less contentious, and also because some sources (particularly in the UK) seem to be moving in that direction. But we still clearly need to mention trans-exclusionary radical feminism to identity the topic. It is normal for a topic to have more than one widely recognized name, and it is also normal for a Wikipedia article to have an alternative title that redirects to the article and that is mentioned as an alternative title in the first sentence. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you supply some diffs to support your claims, Amanda. I get the impression that you are well read in critical sources that have no problem using the word TERF to describe an ideology they openly hate. What do these people outside the UK refer to themselves as? I don't for a moment think they use the TERF word. Perhaps all we are seeing is that editors here have ready access to TERF-hostile sources/writings outside the UK and ready access to pro gender-critical writings inside the UK, but that demonstrates more where attitudes lie pro/con among publishers and journalists, rather than that this is some kind of split in terminology. -- Colin°^Talk 09:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Loki, there is a different between us all agreeing it needs to be in the lead, and insisting it needs to be in the lead sentence. Forcing it into the lead sentence has clear problems wrt one term being an ideology and another term being proponents of that ideology. They aren't the same thing grammatically. One term is adopted by proponents, and another, it seems to me, has only ever really been used by opponents. It is like saying "social conservative" and "bigot" are the same, just because we can find lots of sources where those with socially conservative views on LGBT issues, say, are described as "bigots". -- Colin°^Talk 09:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I too think it's unusual to be using "TERF" to mean "TERFism" (indeed the reason the term "TERFism" exists is because "TERF" by itself does not normally refer to the -ism, but to the -ists), and appreciate that the article has been tweaked to not do so anymore. I'm not sure yet how we could best reword the lead to be more fluent overall; I like aspects of both Loki's and Void's suggestions, although neither one is ready for prime time yet; this will require more thought. -sche (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

There are other articles about ideologies and movements whose lead sentences/titles start from a term referring to the people involved. For example, our articles on incels, pickup artists, and Groypers. We can look at those articles' lead sentences for inspiration. For the incel article in particular, there seem to have been multiple variations of the lead sentence over time as people debated similar questions on the lead sentence phrasing as over here, such as in this edit. PBZE (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I think there is a mistake here in assuming the key factor is what the proponents of the movement/ideology like to call themselves. What should be most important is analysis of secondary sources, and if you look at scholarly sources there is no doubt that "Terf" and "Gender critical" largely refer to the same thing—and the former is widely used in the academic literature. (t · c) buidhe 16:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I do think "TERF", "trans-exclusionary radical feminism", or "trans-exclusionary feminism" would be better names for this article. What I was intending to say is that the lead sentence could use the noun form in a way similar to the articles I linked, if that would make it less awkward. PBZE (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to calling the article "trans-exclusionary feminism". But it's ultimately an issue for the sources. The reason we went with gender-critical, to the best of my recollection, is that it didn't seem like there was a clear winner and "TERF" is slightly pejorative. Loki (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The first result on your Google Scholar results is the book Gender-Critical Feminism by Holly Lawford-Smith. Google Books lets me see a little inside where they comment "trans-exclusionary radical feminists (a name made up by our opponents) would have to be a euphemism for what we really are" and "trans-exclusionary radical feminist is partly correct. Gender-critical feminists are not exclusionary of trans people per se, but they include in their constituency transmen rather than transwomen, and female nonbinary people". I think the word choice in that latter sentence sums up my feelings about using names about people that are chosen by and only ever used by hateful opponents. We don't use "transmen" and "transwomen" to describe trans men and trans women. I don't think many editors here would be impressed if someone insisted Wikipedia could use that language based on counting Google Scholar search results (FWIW, 'transman' gets 5,840 results vs 'trans man' gets 14,300, and the 'transwoman'/'trans woman' ratio is similar. A 2:1 ratio would certainly not convince the MOS folk that a word should be discouraged. We ban it for other reasons).

I also think they have a fair point that gender-critical feminists believe both trans men and non-binary AFAB are "women" and thus included, though I think it would also be fair to say that they aren't very nice about such, regarding them as deluded by the patriarchy and gullible followers of a social contagion.

I don't think there is disagreement here that they largely refer to the same thing. I think there are reasonable arguments that the TERF terminology is inaccurate and that it is problematic as it is only ever used by critical writers writing about other people they hate or at least strongly disapprove of. We should include it for sure as it is a widely used term, but it needs to be signposted that this is a term only used by opponents (and rejected by proponents). -- Colin°^Talk 09:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because the search is "gender critical" which is the term used by proponents and less commonly by opponents. There is also criticism of whether "gender critical" is accurate given that many "gender critical" individuals are not particularly critical of gender expectations and roles, which was the original meaning of the term. If you searched "TERF" you would get a slightly different but overlapping set of sources many of which note that "gender critical" is a synonym. IMO neither term is "neutral". (t · c) buidhe 15:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not making an observation based on what your query searched for, that just just a by-the-way remark about it being the first result. Only that it is evidence that those authors identifying with these beliefs use the GC label and some authors writing surprisingly hostile articles in supposedly "academic" sources use the TERF label. As an observer, I see much of the writing using the TERF label as little better frankly than a Twitter attack or opinion political commentary in a newspaper. That kind of writing can be appealing: I love scathing attacks on the stupider members of the Tory cabinet (i.e. all of them) or portions of the US electorate in my daily newspaper, but it doesn't strike me as quality stuff to be honest. I'm sure I'd absolutely hate reading the equivalent articles in the Telegraph or Daily Mail about my group, and consider them hateful trash.

Do you have any sources for your claim that "gender critical" individuals are not critical of gender stereotypes? What I've read suggests that's not true at all, and that harmful gender stereotypes, expectations and roles are blamed by GC writers for the "contagion" of girls turning trans. And wrt your claim about the "original meaning", that's an etymological fallacy. What someone used a word or term to mean in the past is irrelevant outside of a "history" section. I think criticism of "gender critical" seems very weak to me and what they don't want to admit is they dislike the term because it doesn't shout "you are a transphobic bigot" quite as loudly as TERF does.

See Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent. How would you feel if editors insisted on emphasising (making the article title, even) a hateful label about your group? The label exists, is used, and thus we must note it exists and is used by a very specific portion of writers. That doesn't mean we adopt it for our own voice. No matter how strongly we may feel about this ideology, Wikipedia should not be a place where hate wins. Colin°^Talk 07:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

While I agree that TERF is used mostly by opponents, "gender critical" is used mostly by proponents. There's no truly neutral term here, unfortunately, so we ought to use whatever is the WP:COMMONNAME.

And, like, Google Trends says that's pretty clearly TERF. Loki (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Google trends is useless for this, since "TERF" is used far beyond a "neutral descriptor for a subset of radical feminists with specific views on sex and gender". That precise usage is arguably a tiny minority by now.

From Finn Mackay's "Female Masculinities":

The popular term TERF, standing for trans-exclusionary radical feminist, is used to describe any anti-trans or anti-trans-inclusion viewpoint or campaign, whether it is from someone who describes themselves as a feminist of any kind or not, let alone whether they actually are a Radical Feminist.

In the google trends searches for "TERF", 5 of them are asking what a TERF is, 3 are about JK Rowling (not a radical feminist and definitely not one of the tiny subset of feminists this term was originally supposedly referring to), and one is about "TERF bangs" (!). This is superficial stuff, and TERF by this point is being widely used in popular culture in much the same way as "Karen". Void if removed (talk) 08:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Void that Google Trends does not reliably answer COMMONNAME queries. It is typically more complex than that. Go stick "n****r" or "c**t" or "p**i" in the search box and all you find is people look up offensive words on google. I mean, I remember in primary school, when teacher left the classroom, looking for some rude words in their dictionary. The main complaint about "gender critical" is that the group chose that for themselves, it doesn't contain the word "trans", and that many feminists have some criticism of "gender". But analysis of what individual words mean is fairly rubbish way to work out what a term involving several words means. It would be like criticising the UK term "washing up liquid" vs the US term "dish soap" because the former doesn't say what you are washing up (we only use that term for detergent used to hand wash dishes and pots, never for washing clothes or washing ourselves). You can't pull apart terms and pick at them like that. They are what they are.

• TERF wars: An introduction "Trans people and allies often describe proponents of this approach as ‘TERFs’ because they tend to support trans women’s/girls’ exclusion from spaces such as women’s toilets, changing rooms, rape crisis centres, shelters and feminist groups." and "Notably, while many (but not all) trans people and allies describe trans-exclusionary feminist campaigners as ‘TERFs’, the campaigners themselves generally object to this acronym. In recent years, many have preferred to call themselves ‘gender critical’ – a term that denotes, less a critical approach to gender, and more an emphasis on claiming ‘biologically defined’ notions of femaleness and womanhood over gender identity and social concepts of gender" and "TERF (like ‘cis’) is often used in angry commentaries online by both cis and trans feminists, either as an accusation (e.g. ‘you’re a TERF’) or an insult (e.g. ‘fuck off TERF’)." and "Recent years have increasingly seen ‘TERF’ used to refer to transphobia or transphobic individuals in general, losing sight of its original meaning (trans-exclusionary radical feminism).
• 'TERF' war "For some, using the word “TERF” means calling out transphobia where they see it. For others, the word is a slur that has no place in academic discourse." and extensive discussion of this disagreement.
• TERF Merriam-Webster "often disparaging". Note also that all the examples they give are attributed to opponents.
• How British Feminism Became Anti-Trans "With time, the term TERF has become a catchall for all anti-trans feminists, radical or not.)" This article notes also that the US and UK are not split on what terminology to use, but split on the fact that GCF is mainstream and dominates media and politics in UK whereas commentary in the US in the media is largely hostile to GCF.
• Why the words we use matter when describing anti-trans activists isn't happy with either GCF or TERF and prefers just to call out anti-trans activism using those words.
• What makes a word a slur? "If TERF’s meaning has started to shift [towards just meaning "a transphobic person"] that’s actually a sign of its success (words evolve as they spread to new users and contexts). But it makes the argument that TERF is just a neutral descriptive label for a specific group of people less convincing." and "I’m not aware of any who publicly define themselves as TERFs, and it’s common for those who are called TERFs by others to reject the label." and "Many individuals who have been described as TERFs have called it a slur, protested against its use ... and explicitly said that it offends them." and "In summary: TERF does not meet all the criteria that have been proposed for defining a word as a slur, but it does meet most of them at least partially. My personal judgment on the slur question has been particularly influenced by the evidence that TERF is now being used in a kind of discourse which has clear similarities with hate-speech directed at other groups (it makes threats of violence, it includes other slur-terms, it uses metaphors of pollution). Granted, this isn’t the only kind of discourse TERF is used in, and it may not be the main kind. But if a term features in that kind of discourse at all, it seems to me impossible to maintain that it is ‘just a neutral description’."

Some of these articles are I think worth reading. They aren't 100% conclusive: there is a debate and the matter isn't totally settled with a consensus. But it is 100% clear that TERF is only used by opponents and the majority of uses online are, as the dictionary says, "disparaging". Amanda's claim below that "TERF is not a slur" is not accepted 100% and these articles show analysis of the word is complex. But I don't see any reasonable linguist writer above claiming it is today in any way a neutral term. It simply can't be, if it is only used by one side about the other side, in articles about how the other side are not just wrong but people we should hate and reject. And I reject Amanda's repeated claim that the word is used differently in the UK from the US. It is used differently depending on who is doing the writing, and in the UK, it is the GCF who get the media stage, and in the US it is those who attack them who get the stage. That's the difference: it isn't a terminology difference but a cultural difference about which group currently has media dominance. -- Colin°^Talk 09:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding to this, a more in-depth response to usage of "TERF" - and the various ways in which it is potentially a slur, derogatory or corrosive to political debate - as seen from the perspective of "gender critical feminists" can be found here (full PDF in draft here)

Geoff Nunberg gives the strong view of a slur as ‘a kind of verbalized thought-crime: it perpetuates social inequities, infects even innocent minds, and undermines the conduct of public discourse’ (Nunberg 2017, p. 4). We think the case can be made that ‘TERF’ does all of these things. It gives those who hear it an excuse to pigeonhole and dismiss the political concerns of female persons, who have a long history of having their political concerns dismissed and trivialized, and in this way perpetuates social inequity between male persons and female persons. It infects ‘innocent minds’ by associating transphobia (obviously unacceptable) with political concerns about female interests (obviously acceptable). And it undermines the conduct of public discourse by classifying a multitude of divergent views as one homogenous group (i.e. ‘transphobic’), and by encouraging those views to be treated as pure bigotry. This is stultifying for intellectual discourse and the negotiation of our shared political lives.

Void if removed (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm as deeply unimpressed by that paper as I am by the weak attempts to argue against "gender critical" by pulling apart the words. The argument that such feminists aren't trans exclusionary is especially embarrassing. The argument that "trans men" are included (even if they don't regard themselves as female) is something I noted earlier but rather weak in the sense that one doesn't need to exclude every possible case to be exclusionary, and none of that group feel included by so called feminists who regard them as deluded by the patriarchy. It's a kind of "We'll accept you as long as you let us insult you and reject all your beliefs". For example: the Braun advert which GCF Forstater says is "shockingly immoral" and "promoting social contagion". You can't examine the words and say "look we are inclusionary" when in fact none of them are remotely inclusionary of trans men or non-binary AFAB. And then they say that "trans women" are not excluded because, well, there's no such thing as a trans women... those people are men. I gave up reading after that. As more intelligent writers have discussed (and I cite above) we determine words are a slur or offensive or non-neutral or whatever, by their usage, not by examining their component parts. As one writer noted the term "P**i", which is the second most offensive word in UK English, is merely an abbreviation of "Pakistani". Such flawed analysis is hopelessly naïve and fallacious. -- Colin°^Talk 13:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not claiming that "TERF" is a neutral descriptor. I agree it's pejorative. What I am claiming is:

• The vast majority of references to this group of people are pejorative.
• In such a case, even WP:NPOV obligates us to use the pejorative term, because we have to follow the sources. (Admittedly Google Trends is not great for establishing use in reliable sources specifically, so here's Google Ngrams.)

There's no neutral analogy here so excuse this one, but: white nationalists usually don't call themselves that. Instead they retreat into any of an array of euphemisms. But on Wikipedia, if someone is a white nationalist, we don't call them "identitarian" because everyone who is not a white nationalist uses the pejorative term. Loki (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Given that TERF in this sense was coined in 2008, that Ngram graph is absurd.

And a trivial search of google books for "TERF" brings up the following results on the first page:

• TERF Wars - A Jinx Ballou Novel ("Bounty hunter Jinx Ballou is hot on the trail of Blair Marshall, a fugitive who brutally murdered a transgender woman in a public restroom. As a trans woman herself, Jinx is more determined than ever to bring this bigoted killer to justice. But at every turn, Jinx's attempts to apprehend Marshall are thwarted by the ruthless transphobic hate group her fugitive controls...")
• West Coast Basing of the MV-22: Environmental Impact Statement ("TERF CASE SINGS UH - 60UH60A TERF DELUZ AH - 1 TERF AH - 1G TERF DELUZ AH - 1 TERF AH - 1G TERF DELUZ UH - 1 TERF UH - 1N TERF DELUZ UH - 1 TERF UH - 1N TERF DELUZ CH - 46 TERF CH - 46E TERF DELUZ CH - 46 TERF CH - 46E TERF DELUZ CH - 53 ...")
• Expression and Purification of the TerF Protein from the Tellurite Resistance Operon
• The Annals of the Terf Wars and Other Writing (By Jane Clare-Jones, a radical feminist, and this book does not suuport your viewpoint)
• #TERF/Bigot/Transphobe - We Found the Witch, Burn Her ("A Contextual Constructionist Account of the Silencing of Feminist Discourse on the Proposed Changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and the Policy Capture of Transgender Ideology, Focusing on the Potential Impacts and Consequences for Female-only Spaces for Victims of Male Violence") which again doesn't support your viewpoint

About half the legitimate sources I saw on the first three pages are using the term in order to criticise it, as per those last two.

In any case, TERF is so widely used as an insult synonymous with "transphobe" and not simply a neutral descriptor for a specific radical feminist tendency that any numerical usage count is completely futile. Void if removed (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I personally think editors from banned from using google search result counts, ngrams or trends (other than to perhaps show a term is not just totally made up) and such tools left for the linguists to use and we can cite the intelligent ones. I've really never seen anyone use them wisely and results like the above, where both "gender critical" and "TERF" are extremely recent terms wrt what we mean by them, shows how rubbish these tools can be. They don't tell you why someone is using a term. Even Scholarly sources discuss swear words, for example. A scholarly article about "whether TERF is a slur", for example, will contain the word TERF multiple times, but Google Scholar or Trends or Ngrams doesn't know the author isn't actually using the word themselves. We see this problem a lot when one term is replaced by another. The media is full right now with "wrote on X (formerly known as Twitter)" which clearly demonstrates that X is the term the journalist is now using, but gives equal weight wrt search result counts, ngrams or trends to both terms.

I understand your analogy with white nationalists but it fails on the grounds that "white nationalists" isn't pejorative. Nobody shouts "Fuck of you white nationalists". They say "Fuck off Nazis". Which is exactly what people do with the TERF word. -- Colin°^Talk 08:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

It is a bit like if deontologists were to start calling utilitarians DERPS or "duty-exclusionary radical philosophers", and then because "DERP" turns up thousands of hits on Twitter deciding that's an appropriate name for the page on "utilitarianism".

Thinking about it, probably the best comparator is "SWERF".

SWERF hasn't taken off in quite the same way as TERF, but it serves much the same purpose, was coined at the same time, and is regularly directed at proponents of the Nordic Model. So an analysis of prostitution that focuses on criminalizing "johns" is considered "sex-worker exclusionary" by those with a different analysis of the "best" way to protect sex workers.

But to call proponents of the Nordic Model "sex-worker exclusionary radical feminists" is incoherent - they just centre different things, but a value judgement is placed in the label that serves to undermine that viewpoint. Despite frequent efforts opponents have been unsuccessful in making that label stick to the same extent as TERF though. So what we actually have is a page enumerating the different feminist positions on the sex industry, but presented in a balanced way with decent sources and without resorting to pejoratives. The real issue is that - just like with the opposing views on sex & gender - a feminist analysis that sex work is exploitative is at odds with one that sees it as liberatory, and the use of a pejorative label by one side of that dispute is not neutral. I think if you were to try and take the "radical feminist" subsection of that page and spin it out as-is into an article titled "SWERF" it would represent a POV fork.

We already have article on the history and usage of "TERF" and it is clear from that treating it as a straight synonym for "gender critical feminism" is not neutral. That "TERF" was redirecting here instead of there is also not neutral. Void if removed (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

It is also fairly clear that "TERF" is more problematic than "Trans-exclusionary radical feminist". Nobody shouts the latter in hate. Words gather their own baggage and end up separated from their origins, whether that's an acronym like TERF or when someone shortens "Pakistani". We can't however hide the fact that opponents call GCFs TERFs and currently do so in mainstream publications. So mention of this belongs in the lead. I'd rather it wasn't in the lead sentence, because I think the lead sentence should be a straightforward explanation of this set of beliefs, without distractions. You know the writing technique "Show, don't tell". Well, if we accurately explain what GC beliefs are, then we show the reader how terrible/wonderful they are. But if we name the article after a pejorative term, or use that in wikivoice throughout the article, a term that is flung about on social media as an insult, then we are "telling" the reader what we think and what they should think. -- Colin°^Talk 13:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Does use of TERF in lede bias the article?

The article notes that the use of TERF has become derogatory, it has, in effect, been weaponised, and may be considered a slur. Given that this is an article about GCF and gender critical theory, does not the use of TERF in the lede have the potential to create an emotional bias in the reader right at the beginning? If the potential for this bias may be created right from the start, would it not be prudent to remove this potentially prejudicial language from the lede? Ipsoquery (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDALTNAMES states that we should include (and embolden) significant alternative names. Given that "terf" is a term that was one of the predecessors to what is considered now (by some) as the "gender critical" movement, it seems important to include it in the opening sentence.

Whether or not "terf" is a slur is still under discussion; to quote the article itself:

Though it was created as a deliberately neutral descriptor, TERF is now typically considered derogatory. In academic discourse, there is no clear consensus on whether TERF constitutes a slur.

I don't think we spend a lot of time concerned about whether people will think neutral descriptions of other controversial ideologies (such as white supremacy or Flat Eartherism, for example) create an emotional bias. I would suggest that the text known to its opponents as combined with the section Terminology > Trans-exclusionary radical feminism makes it pretty clear that (some) people who align with GC beliefs no longer prefer the term "terf". — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 16:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

TERF is not a slur, and only TERFs themselves claim that. It's used by media and academic sources in a descriptive way. This is the article about the TERF movement and ideology, also known as "gender-critical" mainly in the UK. It's not exclusively about the UK. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 07:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)