Talk:Gender-critical feminism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Freedom of Speech Controversies

This section reads biased in the movements favor. The truth of the matter is "gender critical feminism" is anti-free speech. Many of its proponents organize silencing campaigns, as seen when they drive people like Graham Norton off twitter/X for the sole crime of stating their opinions that may disagree with the "gender critical" stance. source: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/anti-trans-transphobia-gender-critical-mirror-propaganda/ 2601:601:8782:C5D0:8B7:887B:3BA8:EA0E (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

This is an opinion piece which smears g-c feminists by associating them with Nazism, genocide, opposition to abortion, homophobia, misogyny……. If you want to make a change to the article, you need to provide a factual source. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It accurately points out what they do being similar to what Nazis formulated for their propaganda. All hate groups these days take some cues from them. And it is a simple fact that the "gender critical" movement is aligned with anti-abortion, homophobic, and misogynist movements. Their adherents are speaking at Heritage Foundation, conservative evangelical, and Tory party events. (sources: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66979020, https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/conservative-group-hosts-anti-transgender-panel-feminists-left-n964246, and while much like wikipedia this is not a primary source, but rathercollects a bunch of sources together https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trans-exclusionary_radical_feminist is full of citations of "gender critical" and the right wing, including the far right, choosing to associate themselves together.

You can say its a smear or an opinion but all of these document incidents and behavior that really did occur. Denying these facts is unhelpful, violates attempts at neutral or balanced viewpoints and only shows you are too biased to be allowed to handle any editing on this aarticle or other similar ones, as you would simply try to use it to be a mouthpiece to try and convert for the movement by whitewashing and covering up real events and silencing campaigns they have carriedou t. 2601:601:8782:C5D0:D837:59D1:AC5D:CE10 (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure how reliable that OpenDemocracy source is, or if one source is enough for "anti-free speech" under WP:EXTRAORDINARY.

We already cover the links between gender-critical feminism and conservative politics. If you want to expand on that part of the article, feel free. Loki (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Laura Favaro material

The addition by Void if removed mentions the ‘toxicity’ of the debate. This looks a bit non-neutral to me. Is ‘toxicity’ her word? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC) PS – I’ve just read the sources (I had previously assumed they were not accessible to me) and I suggest changing the word ‘toxicity’ to ‘climate’. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's fair, changed it, I think I just picked it up off the subheading without thinking. Void if removed (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Fringe

LokiTheLiar restored the text "Cristan Williams notes that radical feminism has historically been predominantly trans-inclusive and considers trans-exclusionary views a minority or fringe view within radical feminism." This is text in Wikivoice, albeit attributed, but the tense of "considers" is ongoing, that at any time, now and in the future, the reader may happen upon this sentence, it is correct. We don't know that. The problem firstly is that they wrote this in 2016. Loki's edit summary is "2016 is plenty recent, so all I'm hearing from this removal is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (as an aside, this is a case of WP:UPPERCASE, as IDONTLIKEIT is an "Argument to avoid in deletion discussions"). It is important that Wikipedia cull old sources making claims about the current state of affairs. What may have been true (or at least, arguable) in 2016 is ancient history wrt gender-critical feminism. The 2022 source for the previous sentence here explicitly says, and we quote it entirely now, "TERFism is typically described as an originally fringe group of Anglophone—largely American, British, and Australian—1970s cultural feminism that has grown exponentially over the past decade partially due to heightened media exposure." in other words, authors in 2022 are accepting that "TERFism" was "originally fringe" and grew "exponentially". Which, you know, is how movements start. Gotta start somewhere.

I propose the text is removed again as it fails verification. We have absolutely no idea if seven years later, after a huge culture war on this very issue, in 2023 Williams still regards it as a fringe view within radical feminism. Let's find some recent sources instead. -- Colin°^Talk 18:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Sex wars and (trans) gender panics: Identity and body politics in contemporary UK feminism Hines 2020 is already cited. They say "this is a minority feminist position, yet it is one that shows no sign of abating." They go onto cite academics who setup ‘Declaration of Women’s Sex-Based Rights’ which collects signatures, as evidence of this lack of abating.
• The Roots of Anti-Trans Feminism in the U.K. 2022. Sone Erikainen, a sociologist at the University of Aberdeen, is interviewed. They say "At large, the truth is that TERFs and gender critical feminists are a small minority within U.K. feminism. They do not represent or reflect the views of U.K.-based feminists as a whole, and most U.K. based feminists reject their ideas and arguments, and consider them outdated or harmful. This does not mean they have no influence or impact, however. The trouble is that even though they are a minority, they are a vocal one, and they often have their views platformed by the media, including mainstream media."
• Judith Butler on the culture wars, JK Rowling and living in “anti-intellectual times” We quote Butler in the article, saying ""a fringe movement that is seeking to speak in the name of the mainstream, and that our responsibility is to refuse to let that happen." But a more complete quote would be My wager is that most feminists support trans rights and oppose all forms of transphobia. So I find it worrisome that suddenly the trans-exclusionary radical feminist position is understood as commonly accepted or even mainstream. I think it is actually a fringe movement that is seeking to speak in the name of the mainstream, and that our responsibility is to refuse to let that happen." This is significant wrt Wikipedia's desire to know what the commonly accepted view is. Here Butler admits that "the trans-exclusionary radical feminist position is understood as commonly accepted or even mainstream". They argue of course that this is wrong, that it is an illusion and fantasy, but they are still arguing from a position of not being believed. Butler's "wager" is a finger in the air, not the result of some poll or scholarly review. They may well be right but this interview is very much someone fighting against what they call "commonly accepted" opinion.

What we don't have, and may not get, are neutral sources on the extent of gender-critical feminism either within the academic discipline of feminist studies and within the wider sense of people who regard themselves as feminists (which includes writers of mainstream books and journalists). Indeed, nobody seems to be looking at that aspect. If we take our article text: "Members of the gender-critical movement believe that biological sex cannot be changed. They reject the concept of transgender identities." and examine the latest UK Deltapoll survey October 2023, we find 34% oppose allowing a legal gender change (current law) and only 46% support. We find 59% would define "woman" as "an adult human female – a human being characterised by female biology" or "anyone who is capable of giving birth to children" or "anyone with a cervix", whereas only 26% would define "woman" as "a female adult and, in addition to that, trans women are women" or "anyone who chooses to identify as a woman". The majority of the UK population, do not believe you can change sex and around a third would prefer the law denied transgender identities to have any legal form at all. Both the current prime minister of the UK[1] and the leader of the opposition[2] agree on the biologically fixed nature of "man" and "woman" and that this is "common sense". Anyone claiming these are fringe views is, in 2023, either living in a cave or expressing nothing more than wishful thinking. -- Colin°^Talk 20:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

So, for one, I still disagree that a 2016 source is even particularly old here. Seven years is not that long in academics and even in relatively rapidly changing areas (which I also disagree that this is) not that much will have changed.

Other than that: You're very focused on the UK here, and I don't dispute that GCF is not fringe within the UK. The issue is that it is fringe (or at least, a very small minority which other feminists explicitly oppose) outside the UK, and we have lots of sources saying that. So for instance, this Vox piece, this NYT op-ed and this piece in The Outline all explicitly agree that American feminists are much less likely to be TERFs, their word, than UK feminists. There's also polling of American feminists that demonstrates that American feminists are way more trans-friendly than the general population. There's less information about places that are not the US or UK but I did find this pro-trans statement from a major feminist group in New Zealand and this piece about feminist resistance to TERFs (again, the piece's word) within the Republic of Ireland.

Wikipedia is supposed to be written from an international perspective and so we shouldn't over-focus on the status of gender-critical feminism within the UK specifically. If it's fringe internationally but relatively mainstream in the UK, we should say that, not just that it's relatively mainstream in the UK. Loki (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

TERF ideology isn't really mainstream in feminism in the UK either, it's mainly promoted by the now increasingly hard-right/far-right Tories, as well as by new groups linked to the anti-gender movement, some of which are believed to be astroturf groups, and that are singularly focused on their transphobia. People involved in traditional and mainstream feminism, and the established feminist groups, aren't the ones spouting transphobia. The TERF movement is essentially a far-right transphobic movement appropriating feminist rhetoric. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The FiLiA conference started today. This is described here as a "gender critical" conference (in response to failed attempts to get it shut down by those claiming it is "dangerously transphobic"). It is also described here as "Europe’s largest annual grassroots feminist conference.", and is currently being addressed by the UN's special rapporteur on violence against women. A trustee is quoted as saying "FiLiA is committed to ending sex-based injustices, enabling women to imagine and build a world in which we live full lives free from male violence." I find it hard to square all of that with a "fringe" position. Perhaps it is a fringe position in academia. Perhaps those who were originally called TERFs were fringe, or whatever it is that constitutes "TERFism" is fringe. But this is again the problem claiming these two are the same thing, and trying to make statements about one apply to the other. Void if removed (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

FiLiA is a well-known TERF group with significant overlaps with WDI, that has met protests in every city they have been to. They promote George Soros conspiracy theories and a whole range of other clearly extremist views, and its participants tend to harass trans people in the cities they visit[3], and there is a protest against them today. Even government bodies in the UK have protested against their anti-trans conference: [4] They are very much a fringe group in feminism. Gathering 1000 transphobes doesn't make a group non-fringe in feminism. In fact, scholars and political bodies in Europe have pointed out how the anti-gender movement receives substantial funding from dark money sources, right-wing extremist groups in the US etc. The fact that transphobes have the money to put together a conference isn't surprising. The fact that various people around the world promote transphobia – Donald Trump, the Middle Eastern woman you mention who holds a minor unpaid appointment (one of numerous such appointees) under the Human Rights Council's special procedures mechanism (the council has long been criticized for being dominated by authoritarian countries) doesn't mean a thing. Arab countries in the Middle East, like her country that got her elected, are not known for a stellar human rights record for LGBT+ people. Official UN policy very much contradicts her views, and even many of the other special rapporteurs have strongly condemned her various anti-trans statements. She is regarded in the UN community as an embarrassment to the special procedures mechanism. It is telling how FiLiA tends to receive the most vocal support from the British hard right, and how local government authorities, feminists and LGBT+ activists protest their conferences. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood, but are you raising issues with the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women because she is Middle Eastern? Void if removed (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

She is a government representative of a country with a less than stellar record on LGBT rights, and seems to represent such a position. There are/were many countries with horrible records on LGBT rights (and women's rights too) or even far-right governments (Trump etc.). Such countries and their representatives are hardly proof that transphobia is mainstream in feminism. In fact she is a fringe figure, even within the UN system. Official UN policy very clearly contradicts her, even the special rapporteur who actually holds the relevant mandate contradicted her very strongly. So the fact that a minor figure with some kind of unpaid appointment from one of the myriad bodies within the UN system holds anti-trans views doesn't confer any kind of authority on such views. Consider the Trump administration, where several appointees voiced contrarian views on a range of issues. That didn't make climate change denial a mainstream position in serious debate on climate change or in scholarship on climate change. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Gender-critical views

Is this the article about gender-critical views (both Gender critical and Gender-critical redirect here)? If not, does there currently exist such an article? If not, is it possible to create such an article in a way that aligns with our policies and guidelines? Put another way, would content on that topic best be presented in a standalone article, or would editors eventually suggest it be merged with this one? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, this definitely is the main article. XTheBedrockX (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Such an article does not exist, and I think it should - while gender-critical feminism is notable, gender-critical is a much larger topic. To the extent that this article presently conflates gender-critical views/movements and gender-critical feminism, I argue it should not.

In some ways I think that much of the TERF/gender-critical feminism disagreement would be resolved by giving gender-critical its own article. There, many of the more amorphous claims which are made about the much broader "gender-critical" subject can reside. "TERF ideology" cannot realistically mean both gender-critical feminism, and gender-critical (which can encompass antifeminist views), yet both are called "TERF" (and more besides).

Personally, I think that TERF, gender-critical feminism, gender-critical and anti-gender all need their own articles and while the interrelations, history and overlaps need to be recognised, the distinctions, disputes and contrasts are equally important. This article at present seems to serve only to conflate all four. Void if removed (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Void. I think we've ended up with a sloppy mess because of using sloppy opinion pieces as sources, sources written almost exclusively by activists who hate the article subjects, which is a rubbish way of writing an encyclopaedic article. I'd much rather we said less, much less, and sourced to a higher quality. We're a tertiary source supposed to be summarising what secondary sources have said about the topic as a whole. There's too much reliance on the cherry picked primary sourced opinions of activists. That would be bad enough if the activists were "gender critical feminists" but they are activists who hate them.

I wonder if Void would consider drafting something. They could use sub-page(s) of their user page for drafting. I would find it interesting to see what such an article might look like.

Generally speaking, our articles on gensex issues contain too much because editors find shit on the internet and then insist on including it. I think it would be better if they summarised the topic, from secondary sources, and if that stops us from saying pages and pages of stuff then fine. There's a whole internet out there for people to blog about the outrageous things transphobes have said or done or for people who disagree to shout at each other. -- Colin°^Talk 14:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

This is – and has always been – the main article on the ideology or movement known as gender-critical feminism or trans-exclusionary radical feminism (as equal titles), or any number of short forms of those names, including TERF (ideology/movement), GC, gender-critical. The article started as a section in Feminist views on transgender topics titled "Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism". There is also no evidence that gender-critical refers to any other ideology or movement than the topic of this article, it's just a short form (along with GC). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

See above. This article is barely two years old. Editors can join the discussion and question the scope and content and consensus can change. Why things happened in the past is not relevant to what Wikipedia should contain today. Stop blocking discussion as though nobody can change what you decided in the past. Please read WP:OWN. If you want to participate in a discussion on the article title, scope and content, please do and discuss that, not bang on about what you and some other editors may or may not have had in mind two years ago. -- Colin°^Talk 17:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Political alliances with conservatives and the far right

This entire section depends on reading terms such as "TERF', "gender-critical", "gender-critical feminism", "anti-gender" as equivalents, but serves to highlight the imprecise and broad usage of "TERF".

For example, the piece in der Freitag at no point says "gender-critical feminism/ist". Dave Chapelle is mentioned as "team TERF". Notable TERF protagonists are given as:

publicist Eva Engelken, author and blogger Rona Ruwe and the biology doctoral student Marie-Luise Vollbrecht

None of whom are notable feminists, radical or otherwise. They don't belong on a page about "gender-critical feminism". They belong on the page for TERF to highlight once again how indiscriminately the term TERF is applied. Void if removed (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense, this has been debated to death. This article is about an ideology or movement known under two different names, that are equal titles of the article, and any number of short forms of those names (TERF; GC; gender-critical). As long as a source refers to TERF as a movement or ideology, it's referring to the topic of the article. Gender-critical/GC is a mostly British term. The article you quoted from is German, and in Germany the term TERF is the common term. In Germany the TERF movement is also viewed as an extremist, fringe movement, that is linked to the far right and anti-LGBTIQ+ hate. The three people you mention are indeed some of the most widely known representatives of the TERF movement in Germany. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

If someone is using the term "TERF" in the sense "transphobe" you cannot then draw any inference from their claims to "gender-critical feminism". And the more broadly someone is using the term, the less evidence there is that they're referring to any specific movement or ideology they could actually explain.

You're claiming "TERF", "TERFism", "TERF ideology", "TERF movement", "trans-exclusionary radical feminist", "trans-exclusionary feminist", "gender-critical feminism", "gender critical", "gender critical ideology", "gender critical movement" and even "anti-gender movement" are all the same thing, using sources that refer to some of those interchangeably with sources that refer to other combinations, very imprecisely.

Gender critical feminism is the smallest possible overlapping subset of those who are derogatorily called TERF, and those who are called (or call themselves) gender critical. The vast majority of people called TERF are neither, and the vast majority of people called gender-critical aren't feminists, and it is pretty clear that people who throw TERF around indiscriminately don't especially care for the distinctions, in much the same way people who get vexed about "marxism" and "antifa" don't much care what they're actually talking about.

We have sources that say TERF is an empty insult, we have sources that say TERF and "gender-critical feminism" are not the same thing, and we have sources that say that "gender critical" and "gender critical feminism" are not the same thing.

By contrast we have supposedly reliable sources justifying this enmeshment that are of such poor quality they say such thing as that gender-critical feminists "do not subscribe to the belief of gender as a social construct" which is so laughably wrong that they should not be taken seriously. Akin to claiming that capitalists don't subscribe to the belief in market economies. Void if removed (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit is straying too much into WP:OWN territory. Amanda, you can't make an article called "Gender-critical feminism" include the views of anyone who happens to have been ever called a TERF. This is a continuation of the problematic and tendentious behaviour surrounding the page move that now conflates the hate-word TERF with a branch of feminism. Void has cited many solid sources including the Oxford English dictionary to demonstrate the word "TERF" is widely used about people who are not followers of gender-critical feminism or feminist at all.

Above I cited a hateful post calling Hanna Barnes a TERF. Do you think they are a TERF? Do you think they are a gender-critical feminist, or a trans-exclusionary radical feminist? According to Willoughby, "Hannah Barnes -as all trans will tell you - is a terf." I'm beginning to think "widely known representative of the TERF movement" is most likely to be "not actually a feminist" or even "gender critical" but just "we think they are transphobic because they don't agree with us on absolutely everything". Do you think JK Rowling, the person most frequently labelled TERF in the UK, is a feminist? An author of a book series about a boy/young-man hero who goes to an elite private school to learn about his entitlement over the proles. The school is run by a wise old man. They boy is helped by a friendly giant who is a man. The powerful baddy is of course a man. Her detective series features a handsome army hero detective, who is of course a man, and a young beautiful secretary who helps him, who is of course a woman. The secretary is entirely defined by the two (useless) men in her life, her husband and her boss. Both books written under a name that could be or actually is a male name. Does that sound like a notable writer or activist of feminist thought? -- Colin°^Talk 12:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

If there's this much contention about this page being associated with feminism, maybe the page should be retitled to just "Gender critical"; alternatively, we can call this page "Anti-transgender feminism", since many gender critical people say, or at least claim, that their anti-transgender views are motivated by a desire to defend womanhood. (Weather or not they truly are feminists is another matter, but I digress) XTheBedrockX (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

We have debated all this ad nauseam, and this issue has been settled for years. This has never been an article on a specific term (used primarily in the UK context). Regarding the name, we already established that some variant of TERF is the more widely used name, all things considered, but we opted for the current title (as one of two equal titles) in the spirit of compromise. But we can always move it to TERF ideology (or trans-exclusionary radical feminism) because that is indeed the most common name, from a global perspective. Gender-critical movement is another possibility. Most self-identified GCs tend to use just GC or gender-critical, without the need for spelling out the full term "gender-critical feminism" on a regular basis. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Amanda, could you perhaps sprinkle some of your assertions with sources or diffs to back them up. Because you say a lot of things and many of them are dubious. This article is barely two years old. Also, could you avoid saying things like "we have debated all this ad nauseum". If you are tired of the debate, go do something else. Otherwise it just looks like WP:OWN blocking when you assert, as though you are the authority, what this article is or is not about and consensus can change.

We have here an article titled "Gender-critical feminism". I think it is most fair if editors question that the material and sources used don't actually deal with gender critical feminism, but are instead rants like Why oh Why is the British Media So Transphobic, and stuff like that. Amanda you seem to want an article on "Hateful things people who have been accused of hating trans people have ever said or think". Colin°^Talk 17:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with Colin here. I don't understand how it can all have been "Settled for years" if we created a new article, this one, less than 2 years ago. At a minimum something changed enough in our consensus that we felt we needed this article when we didn't before. It's not so surprising then if things have changed enough with the creation of this article less than 2 years ago, that we feel we need to change whatever else was "settled for years". Nil Einne (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Would also add that this article only moved to mainspace 4 months ago, almost half of which has been spent arguing that it isn't an appropriate redirect target for TERF. Void if removed (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

TERF redirect

I have just seen a discussion took place entirely on the page for TERF to rename that page to "TERF (acronym)" and redirect TERF here.

Should that not have been discussed here too? Void if removed (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion regarding what to do with TERF (after that article was moved to TERF (acronym)) took place on Talk:TERF, which was entirely appropriate. There were only two possible outcomes when TERF was moved to TERF (acronym): redirecting it here or making it into a disambiguation page (redirecting it to TERF (acronym) is not an option for the reasons explained by Red Slash in the discussion there: "The reason TERF can't redirect to TERF (acronym) is WP:MISPLACED--basically, we never ever redirect from X to X (thing). A move from X to X (thing) is implicitly (or explicitly) with the goal to redirect X elsewhere"). However, this article already includes a hatnote, and the discussion found that the ideology itself is the primary topic. I don't really see what could be gained by making TERF into a disambiguation page. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

You don't think that redirecting a highly contentious term of abuse away from the page describing that term of abuse to the page for the people who strongly object to that term of abuse isn't maybe something that deserves wider discussion? Surely there should have been notification at the target page also. The page rename is self-contained, but the redirect should be reverted and raised at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.

Of course, the fact that some have since started arguing this page should be renamed "TERF" makes sense in light of this move. Void if removed (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

A notice here would have been nice for sure. An RfD is a reasonable next step for those that object to the redirect's target. It's not really worth it to discuss it more here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that the move itself needs review as it was clearly only done with the intent to redirect TERF here, with no discussion on this page. Void if removed (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of that at all, but you could certainly start a discussion with the closer of the RM. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I did that yesterday.

And from the TERF move discussion: "The primary meaning of TERF is the ideology or movement itself, which is covered by the article Gender-critical feminism ". This is hotly disputed, and should have been raised here. Void if removed (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I would say either an MRV or an RfD would be a sensible next step. I do think it would be better to let it lie. I'm convinced the primary topic for "TERF" is this article, on the concept/movement, and not the acronym/term itself. Reasonable minds could disagree, but I doubt another discussion will change the outcome. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the opinion that this should be the primary topic, since when people talk about "TERF", most of the time it's referring to the movement/ideology associated with it, not the acronym itself.

With that said, I understand if a RfC is put forth (whether it changes the redirect or not), since I know this is a controversial topic, and I'll admit there weren't a whole lot of people responding to the move request when it was made, even if I agree with it. XTheBedrockX (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

"A move from X to X (thing) is implicitly (or explicitly) with the goal to redirect X elsewhere"

In that case the move itself should be reviewed, because the target of this new redirect was never involved in this discussion. Void if removed (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The redirect was decided by consensus on the relevant talk page as a result of a requested move, so it cannot be unilaterally reverted in violation of that consensus. This comes very close to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass territory at this point; the move has been debated to death very recently, and all editors had the opportunity to weigh in. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Eh, a move discussion that only lasted a week and only had four votes is not really much of a consensus. (And I'm saying this as someone who supports the move.) Loki (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I count seven participants in the move discussion, which is likely a bit above average for an RM. When a requested move has concluded with a clear result it is by definition a consensus, since establishing a consensus (for a move) is the whole point of the RM process. Talk:TERF is a much more high profile talk page than this talk page anyway (being the older article, with a very long talk page history and active arbitration remedies), so anyone interested in the topic had a reasonable opportunity to weigh in. I can't think of a single editor active here on this newer talk page who isn't also a participant on Talk:TERF. Anyway, the correct talk page for determining the fate of TERF was Talk:TERF. One week is the standard length for an RM. (I neither started nor closed the RM, but I fully support the result.) --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The stated reason for the move in the move request was to create a redirect from TERF to this page. This is the page most affected by the change and should have been notified, and given that this is one of the most controversial political issues of the current era a discussion at Wikipedia:RFDGO would not have gone amiss. This was more than just an isolated page rename. Void if removed (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

It was in accordance with the normal procedure and took place on the appropriate talk page. Given that Talk:TERF is a much more high profile talk page than Talk:Gender-critical feminism (very long talk page history, arbitration remedies, far more contributors), it's reasonable to assume that those who had an interest in discussing the title of the article on the acronym and the fate of TERF after that move (disambiguation vs redirect elsewhere) had a reasonable opportunity to weigh in. As for this article, it has always been about the ideology known as both gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism (TERF ideology); this has been made clear from the very start, so redirecting the term TERF here doesn't change this article in any way. It's just a matter of easier navigation. The only other valid option would be to turn TERF into a disambiguation page, which I don't think is the best solution. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the move discussion there seems to be quite a lot of confusion, as well as a confused "what should we fix" discussion after. I don't think Amanda's description of "four votes" among confused comments (including confusion by the person who closed it: the closer asked 'Do we need to update all the current links that lead to "TERF" to "TERF (acronym)"') can be described as "debated to death". I can't think of a similar example where an article on X is just a redirect to Y and what was at X is now at "X (variant)". The reason to have "X (variant)" article titles is because X is either a disambiguation page or X is an article on a more primary topic than the variant. That's very clearly not the case here. Perhaps someone can point me at some examples where this has been done before.

All definitions of TERF state that it means "Trans-exclusionary radical feminist". While occasionally you might read about "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" or "TERF ideology", the former doesn't itself use the acronym and latter is clearly using F as "feminist" rather than "feminism". We have Christian and Christianity. We have Muslims and Islam. We have Tory and Traditionalist conservatism.

That discussion did not even attempt to demonstrate with examples that most uses of TERF on Wikipedia refer to an ideology rather than as a label for a person or as a term itself. Looking at the usages, it seems strongly to me that most uses of TERF that are written as "TERF" are commenting on the one-word term itself or on someone using that term to refer pejoratively to someone. There are cases where someone has written trans-exclusionary radical feminism and used TERF as the wikilink rather than trans-exclusionary radical feminism and that to me is a clear signal that you guys have made a mistake. You know you are on the right track when one gets a chance to clean up wikilinks like that so that what is written is what is linked.

I think a mistake was made and also it was a mistake not to advertise the discussion here. Four votes is meh. -- Colin°^Talk 12:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no reason to relitigate that here. There was ample opportunity to weigh in during the RM on the relevant (and frequently edited, high-profile) talk page. There were seven participants in the move discussion, which is above average. The only other option was a disambiguation page, and no convincing arguments have been made for that. Now is the time to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

"All definitions of TERF state that it means "Trans-exclusionary radical feminist".": Not true and no evidence has been presented for that, on the contrary, see reference # 1: "What was once termed TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminism/feminist) is now more often referred to as gender critical feminism/feminist". Anyway, it doesn't really matter, since the term can also refer to TERF ideology and similar expressions, which are quite common. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems clear that some editors from here who have opinions on the move were not aware of the proposal so whatever people expected was wrong, clearly a bunch of editors who are naturally interested never learnt of the RM until it was too late. While clearly no one meant any harm, a mistake was made and at a minimum editors would do well to learn from this mistake so it isn't repeated. Whether it's worth taking this further, I don't know. The RM was 5 to 2 in support of the move, Colin and Loki missed the opener of the RM who supported the move. Nil Einne (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Amanda, please stop citing STICK. That was my very first post on the matter so it just looks like you got your way and want to stifle debate. As noted, I didn't see the RM, nor did loki and nor did void. Two of your so-called "participants" just asked a question or said they saw no reason for the change. The closer was so confused they thought we needed to edit all uses of TERF to point at the TERF (acronym) which very very much shouts loudly that it was wrong, as wikilinks should be natural.

It was repeatedly, incorrectly, without any attempt at offering evidence, stated in that discussion that TERF is a movement or ideology and so should direct to our article on the ideology/movement. It isn't. It is a label given to a feminist by people who think that a feminist is transphobic, or sometimes even to anyone perceived as transphobic. And our uses of the word TERF on wikipedia very very much conform to this. I don't have time right now, but if void has, then What links here: TERF is a good source of usage. It is fairly easy to go through these and find either:

• TERF text links that are describing the term itself or labelling a feminist the writer believes is transphobic.
• trans-exclusionary radical feminism article text that was using the TERF wikilink for historical reasons but needs to just link direct to trans-exclusionary radical feminism

Whereas I don't think you'll find many cases on Wikipedia of anyong using the word "TERF" to refer to an ideology or branch of feminism, because that's not what our sources do. But it's now what our redirect does.

I think there is a good case for Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and for this I strongly recommend the opener demonstrates their case using evidence, rather than their misguided opinions. Wrt Stick, Amanda, you've said your bit already and it has been unhelpfully incorrect. "The only other option was a disambiguation page" is entirely incorrect. The glaring option would be to keep it was it was with TERF having the content that currently resides at TERF (acronym) and to examine all links to TERF to see if some of them should instead link to trans-exclusionary radical feminism (clue: because the text says "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" rather than "TERF"). -- Colin°^Talk 14:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The consensus was that the ideology itself is the primary topic, not an article about an acronym. I can't think of many articles where the acronym article would be the better target, compared to the actual main article on the topic, i.e. the article on the ideology/movement itself. When sources are discussing TERFs and TERF ideology they usually have the actual movement and ideology in mind, rather than the history of the acronym as a word. Also note that TERF in the sense of an adherent of this ideology is also a facet of the topic covered by this article in the same way that radical feminist is a facet of (and redirects to) radical feminism (the same goes for pretty much every political ideology). The only reason we have a separate article on the acronym today (with a summary here per Wikipedia:Summary style) is the length of the article. Hence, redirecting it here can never be wrong. Treating the article with a very narrow focus on the history of the acronym as the primary topic would only be appropriate if it could be demonstrated that the majority (by far) of all sources using the term TERF were explicitly discussing the history of the term as a word rather than the actual movement or ideology itself, which seems very implausible to me. The vast majority of sources that I have seen are either talking about TERF ideology, the TERF movement or about TERFs as adherents of the ideology/members of the movement; for example they may describe an organization or event as a TERF organization or event. They are not discussing the word as such, which is the focus of the acronym article. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Why are you claiming there is one primary topic. We have two articles. They can each have a primary topic. Please stop going on about "consensus" as though that ends the discussion. Your so-called consensus was a discussion where false claims were made and where even the closer was confused about what was being asked of them. Four people, Amanda, is not writing in stone. We are discussing right now whether there is enough disagreement to reopen that discussion and instead present the case with actual facts rather than people claiming incorrect things that are in their heads.

As I already noted, we are quite comfortable having different articles for those who follow an ideology vs the ideology itself. Coupled with that, the word TERF has a life of its own quite separate from any ideology, as very much evidenced by the content currently at TERF (acronym). Please don't rewrite history with your comment about summary style. The terf content predates this article. Summary style was not the reason people wrote about TERF. Amanda, please can you give evidence for your claims. I'm tired of arguing about claims that are factually incorrect. Go look at the links to TERF above. You'll find you are wrong and I am right. When people called Rowling a TERF they were not having a discussion about feminist ideology. They were labelling a feminist they regarded as transphobic. So when our article on Rowling uses the word TERF ("she has been referred to as a TERF") they mean the hate-term, not the ideology. When writing about Judy Blume, "she has said she is not a "TERF." i.e. she's not a hateful transphobic feminist, not "she's not an ideology" or even "she's not gender critical". Our article is explicitly noting her rejection of that hate-label. Not an ideology. Our link at Judith Butler is really to trans-exclusionary radical feminism and should be fixed to be that. Our link at LGBT slang is about the word. I could go on. Really, Amanda, it is trivially easy to demonstrate that the claims in that discussion are false. TERF is a label about a person. Whereas this article is an ideology. Btw, I note you have made 23 edits to this section. Perhaps you should let someone else comment, per, em, STICK. -- Colin°^Talk 15:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not claiming anything; it was determined in the recent RM that the ideology/movement is the primary topic, and for that reason TERF was moved to TERF (acronym) and TERF was redirected to the article on the ideology/movement. We have a main article on the actual TERF (or GC) ideology and movement (i.e. this article), and we have an article on what is essentially a sub topic focusing on a rather narrow facet of the former (the history of the acronym as a word). They are by no means completely separate topics, and they are not "equal" in a hierarchy of articles: one is clearly a sub topic of the other. They are more like the articles Donald Trump (the main article on Trump as a topic) and Public image of Donald Trump (a more narrow sub topic of the former). It can be represented like this in a hierarchy:

• Feminist views on transgender topics
  • TERF/GC as a movement/ideology (= the article gender-critical feminism). Per Wikipedia:Summary style it also summarizes the terminology history as covered in more detail in the article on the following sub topic:
    • TERF (acronym), the history of this particular acronym as a word

Also, it has already been demonstrated that the claim "TERF is a label about a person" is completely false. TERF can describe an organization, event, movement, political ideology; there are many sources discussing TERF ideology, describing TERF groups as TERF groups, and so on. Much like "Nazi" doesn't only refer to a person, but can just as well refer to the movement or ideology, or to organizations or events. And where does Nazi redirect? That's right: Nazism. We are not turning it into an article with a artificial focus on the history of the word and complaints about it being used as a supposed "slur", probably because the vast majority of sources describing someone or something as Nazi have the actual ideology and movement in mind. Even if we had an article on Nazi (term), it would be appropriate for Nazi to redirect to the main article on the ideology/movement. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

There’s something to the idea that a term can, in Colin’s words, take on a life of its own. One could make a case that “Nazi” shouldn’t redirect to “Nazism”, given how it has acquired a modern usage as a generic slur (relatedly, I wouldn’t be surprised if every GC feminist mentioned in this article has been called a Nazi at some point). I’m not here to make that case, but another example is Bitch (slang). Should that redirect to Woman because people who use that term are typically referring to a woman? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Bitch (slang) specifically clarifies that is it about the slang term, so no, it shouldn't redirect anywhere else. If we didn't have a separate article on the slang term, it wouldn't be a plausible search term either. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Colin I think your arguments here are transparently bad. Yes, TERF is a term for a person, not an ideology, but that doesn't stop us in any other case. Do we have feminist not redirect to feminism? Do we have vegetarian not redirect to vegetarianism?

There is an article about the term which complicates this, but frankly, that article was made before this one and maybe should be merged into this one. I'm not convinced it has independent notability. Finding any sort of academic sources for it was a pain: the majority of sources there are just trans-exclusionary feminists complaining about the term. (What academic sources we do have are pretty firmly against it being a "hate-term", for the record.)

The idea that "TERF" is so pejorative that it needs to be separate is frankly silly, IMO. We also have racist redirect to racism and misogynist redirect to misogyny. And just to make the point ad nauseum, cultist redirects to cult, homophobe redirects to homophobia, transphobe redirects to transphobia, fascist redirects to fascism, extremist redirects to extremism, terrorist redirects to terrorism, etc etc etc. Loki (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with my argument, Loki. That there are examples where the proponent/follower is a redirect to the ideology does not change the fact, and my actual claim, that "we are quite comfortable having different articles for those who follow an ideology vs the ideology itself". We do so for some extremely big topics. Logically, all you have done is take my "Today it rained" and say "No you are totally wrong. I rained yesterday". Well, it rained both days. These are not helpful arguments.

Amanda is stuck referencing a discussion that involved false claims and was far far shorter than this discussion and I wish you should stop referring to it as though "it was determined" is some kind of "end of". I can read the discussion and see why the move happened. I can read. None of that makes it good or permanent. Examples of other slur words like "Nazi" only take us so far. So, let's examine how Wikipedia is linking to TERF. You'll need to hover over the links to see that all these links are using TERF as the link, even if the blue wiki text says something else.

• Feminism. "An ideology variously known as trans-exclusionary radical feminism (or its acronym, TERF)". Here the article should link to trans-exclusionary radical feminism. The source btw says 'The term TERF - "trans exclusionary radical feminist' does not support the article claim that the -ism has the acronym TERF.
• J. K. Rowling. "she has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist)". Here the article should link to what's currently at TERF (acronym) and our article naming rules would support that link being via TERF. She is being labelled, usually on Twitter, by those who hate her, as transphobic. She got that label, not because of some feminist manifesto, but for her mocking tweets and support of others labelled TERFs. Her long response here "‘TERF’ is an acronym coined by trans activists, which stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. In practice, a huge and diverse cross-section of women are currently being called TERFs and the vast majority have never been radical feminists. Examples of so-called TERFs range from ..." Clearly Rowling objects to the term they are being labelled with, and not with the ideology, which they appear to support.
• Judy Blume 'on political controversies surrounding the transgender community and the transgender rights movement, she has said she is not a "TERF."' Again, the link should be to what is currently at TERF (acronym). Blume is objecting to the label, not the movement. The source here is an interview where she is asked "Do you keep up with the terminology of feminism and the latest political definitions?" and replies "Do I think about the terminology of feminism? I don't know that I think about the terminology. Lately I've had to think about TERFs — that’s trans-exclusionary radical feminists." That's a discussion about terminology and people, not an ideology.
• Modern paganism "This belief and the way it is expressed is often denounced as transphobia and trans-exclusionary radical feminism." Here the article should link to trans-exclusionary radical feminism. Having the wrong link is because this article is newish and previously we only had the TERF article. The source talks about trans exclusionary beliefs, and doesn't mention the TERF word.
• Alice Walker "Walker was criticized on social media for taking this position with many referring to her as a TERF." Again, the link should be to what's currently at TERF (acronym). The source is all about name calling on Twitter.
• University of Bristol '(Bristol SU) adopted a motion that banned trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs) from appearing as speakers at Bristol SU events and that called upon the university to adopt the same policy. The motion said the TERF ban was necessary because TERF activity on the university campus "put[s] trans students' safety at risk'. The link could go either way (or even have both links). Clearly the text and the sources are all talking about people being banned because they are labelled "TERFs" or "transphobic" and neither text or source is having any meaningful discussion about ideologies.
• Transphobia 'Feminists who oppose the inclusion of trans women in women's spaces have been labeled "TERFs", short for "trans-exclusionary radical feminists". Those at whom the term is directed, in turn, have perceived their labeling as "TERF" to be a slur. Feminist journalist Sarah Ditum, who writes for The Guardian and the New Statesman, said that the term is used to silence feminists through guilt by association. Meghan Murphy, founder of Canadian feminist website Feminist Current, opined that "TERF" should be considered hate speech after a woman was physically assaulted and several people defended or celebrated the assault on the grounds that the woman was a "TERF" and as such deserving of violence.' We're very very much talking about the label here. The link should be to what's currently at TERF (acronym).
• Judith Butler 'Butler said in 2020 that trans-exclusionary radical feminism is "a fringe movement that is ..' Here the article should link to trans-exclusionary radical feminism. The article goes on to say "The Guardian was then accused of censoring Judith Butler for having compared TERFs to fascists." There's no link here but we could link to what's currently at TERF (acronym) because we are talking about a hate-label.
• Anti-LGBT rhetoric "Those that hold these positions are known as trans-exclusionary radical feminists, or "TERF" for short. This term was coined by feminist blogger Viv Smythe in ..." We currently have both wiki links pointing at the same article The second link should be to what is currently at TERF (acronym). It is talking about the acronym.
• GC "* Gender critical, alternate term for Trans-exclusionary radical feminism". Here the article could have linked to trans-exclusionary radical feminism but there's no need as we already link Gender critical.
• Shemale "This is often considered to be part of trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) ideology." Everything after "part of" should be "trans-exclusionary radical feminism".
• TERF (acronym) "TERF – acronym for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist"; a feminist whose advocacy excludes or opposes the rights of trans women; more generally, anyone hostile to transgender people." The link should be to what's currently at TERF (acronym) and clearly explains this is a label that extends beyond those following one ideology, but to anyone transphobic.
• Jenny Jones, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb "In the same year, Jones claims that her crowdfunder leaflets were defaced with "TERF" at the Green Party conference". The link should be to what's currently at TERF (acronym)
• List of political ideologies "** Trans-exclusionary radical feminism" The link should be a plain one to trans-exclusionary radical feminism.
• List of Internet phenomena 'Shut the fuck up, TERF - A crudely photoshopped image featuring Zombie Land Saga character Lily Hoshikawa, a trans girl, holding a gun with the caption "Shut the fuck up, TERF"'. The link should be to what's currently at TERF (acronym).
• Catharine A. MacKinnon "MacKinnon continued to express her support for transfeminism and transgender sex equality, and criticized the postmodernism, liberalist anti-stereotyping approach, and anti-trans feminism" The link should be to trans-exclusionary radical feminism. The source here says "I also don’t use the term TERF, not because those who are labeled with it are not trans-exclusive; they are. But because I see nothing radical in their feminism and am baffled by their unwillingness to recognize trans feminism as the contribution that it is, and by their willingness to engage in the transmisogyny that they do." They are very much dealing with the ideology, and rejecting use of that label.
• Sod. "Not to be confused with TERF." The link should be to what's currently at TERF (acronym). (I think the "confusion" is wrt "turf", not "sod").
• Turf (disambiguation) "TERF, the acronym for trans-exclusionary radical feminist" The link should be to what's currently at TERF (acronym).
• Nazi analogies. "Some advocates of trans-exclusionary radical feminism have compared transgender medical care to Nazi human experimentation or transsexuality to Nazism." The link should be to trans-exclusionary radical feminism.

Is 20 of the first pages that link to TERF (in article text) enough of an example. We have exactly two kinds of link. We have ones that clearly were made before or in ignorance of our Gender-critical feminism article but that could link to that or trans-exclusionary radical feminism. They are talking about the ideology. They have a hidden link to TERF because that's all we had or all the editor knew of. And secondly, we have loads, and I mean loads, of articles that are talking about the term TERF as a label, an insult, a pejorative grouping of feminists or perceived transphobes and are now linking to the wrong article because that page move was a mistake and made our articles worse. The overwhelming evidence of actual Wikipedia usage is that when people write TERF they are labelling people they hate, or discussing the term itself and we should link naturally to what is currently at TERF (acronym). -- Colin°^Talk 09:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

You and @Void if removed are the only people making any sense in this discussion.

While I'm here, the list under "The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future" is remarkably one-sided, suggesting that the whole article is thinly veiled POV.

What is the process for revisiting the References in that list? I have tried to find out but could not locate the guidance. Msmousette (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Our job isn't to avoid one-sidedness for the sake of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Those references are from high-quality academic journals and news publications. If you can demonstrate that they aren't, or provide your own reliable sources on the "other side", go right ahead. PBZE (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Colin, I disagree with almost all those assessments. All the cases of someone being called a TERF should redirect to this article, because they're accusing the people of being the subject of this article. The only cases where it should redirect to TERF (acronym) is where they're directly talking about the term, like at Anti-LGBT rhetoric or the disambiguation from sod. Loki (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Loki, you do realise that your words "accusing the people of" explicitly states that the person didn't claim it for themselves but were called it by another, as a very much negative comment on that person (nobody is accused of being good, except in jest). Which is exactly the topic currently at TERF (acronym). I would think all the people in the above list (do you need more?) that were called a TERF accept the beliefs described in this article (perhaps there is the odd person who misspoke on Twitter and regrets their ignorant remarks after getting a torrent of TERF abuse). You've just demonstrated in your own words that TERF is an accusatory term and actually quite separate from the contents of this article. You would never need to write the word "accused" if "TERF", the four letter word, was neutrally equivalent to the contents of this article.

Here's an example. P**i does not redirect to Pakistanis. If someone has that four letter word daubed on their door along with a request to "Go Home", and our article mentions this, we don't direct them to an article on "the citizens and nationals of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan". Look at the actual usages of "TERF" on Wikipedia when flung at people. Where is it flung? On Twitter, which is the internet equivalent of a brick through your window. Who is it flug by? People writing in hate about "others". We have a whole list of Ethnic slurs all of which stand alone from the article on the ethnic group. By your measure, "because they're accusing the people of being the subject of this article", would mean that being called an ethnic slur is equivalent to being called that ethnic group in polite language. It very much isn't, for TERF, and the fact that it isn't is very much demonstrated by our usage in articles and their sources. The subjects fully identify with "the subject", as you put it, but not with the four letter word, which is written in hate. -- Colin°^Talk 07:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Certainly they were called it by other people, and certainly it was an accusation. For the same reason and to the same degree racist, transphobe, homophobe, sexist, misogynist, ableist, anti-semite, Islamophobe, white nationalist, white supremacist, etc etc etc are all accusations. Those, as you can clearly see, are all redirects.

There are lots of people out there, including nearly all LGBT rights activists, who regard the subjects of this article as bigots of the worst kind. So it's no surprise that the term gets used as an accusation. And to be clear, I don't just mean TERF; "GC", "gender crit", and the like also get used as accusations from the same people who call them "TERFs", albeit usually less frequently. For that matter, I've also heard the term "FART" (= feminism appropriating radical transphobes) from the same people to indicate even stronger distaste (and a denial of their claim to feminism). It is not the term that has the negative implication here, it's the meaning behind the term.

You're taking at face value the idea that "TERF is a slur", but we say explicitly in that article that linguists are skeptical of the idea that it's a slur, and back it up with several academic sources. "TERF is a slur" is, frankly, a myth that's mostly been perpetuated by TERFs themselves. Like, the very fact you felt the need to censor the slur "Paki" but did not feel the need to censor several mentions of "TERF" proves to me that even you don't think they're the same thing. Loki (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The OED gives this two meanings: a specific one and a general one.

"A feminist whose advocacy of women’s rights excludes (or is thought to exclude) the rights of transgender women. Also more generally: a person whose views on gender identity are (or are considered) hostile to transgender people, or who opposes social and political policies designed to be inclusive of transgender people."

While also noting it "is now typically regarded as derogatory", and as anyone with eyes and ears and access to Twitter can attest, not without good reason. This is far broader, and the most appropriate page is the original one for "TERF" which explained what it meant and how it was used. We know who it was coined for, we know some academics still insist on using it as if it were neutral despite objections from other academics, and we know what it has overwhelmingly become in wider society. The general usage has eclipsed the supposedly neutral origins of the term, and at this point directing "TERF" here is not a million miles away from directing "feminazi" at "feminism".

This is a bit like trying to maintain that "decimate" means strictly and only "to reduce by one tenth", and while that sort of pedantry is close to my heart, at some stage you just have to admit that the majority of people don't use it that way at all. Void if removed (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I am a lot more sympathetic to this argument than one based around a naked "TERF is a slur" claim which is clearly not borne out by that article itself.

However, I still disagree somewhat: while it's definitely the case that many of the people that get called "TERFs" are not by a strict reading of the term radical feminists, by-and-large "gender-critical feminists" aren't either. In fact, they're largely the same group of people that get called "TERFs". J.K. Rowling is definitely not a radical feminist: to the extent she's a feminist at all she's firmly a liberal feminist. But she both gets called a "TERF" frequently and self-identifies as "gender-critical".

Furthermore, nobody is calling Jerry Falwell a TERF. Openly right-wing transphobes are not getting targeted with this label, they just get called "transphobes". There definitely is some discernment being made with the term "TERF" and by-and-large it cuts along the same lines that "gender-critical feminist" does. Loki (talk) 04:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

"Openly right-wing transphobes are not getting targeted with this label"

I mean, one source above did mention in passing Jeremy Clarkson getting added to a list of TERFs so it perhaps isn't as discerning as you think, but:

"There definitely is some discernment being made with the term "TERF" and by-and-large it cuts along the same lines that "gender-critical feminist" does."

The main discernment is that overwhelmingly it is women who are called this. The ones that attract the most press are the ones in the public eye and not noted feminists: Jenni Murray, Bette Midler, Macy Gray, JK Rowling. Whether that subsequently overlaps with terms like "gender critical" or "gender critical feminist" largely depends on whether they recant.

All of this has been covered anyway. The one who want to use it claim that it isn't offensive and is a specific description of an ideology. The ones on the receiving end say it is a stigmatising and demonising label applied mostly to women.

TERF was supposedly coined for a tiny subset (a few dozens) of continuity 2nd wave radical feminists holding to a material analysis that differentiates sex from gender but now mostly means anyone (but overwhelmingly women) who doesn't accept a trans woman is a woman. The latter is obviously a far larger group and pretending that TERF only ever means the former is just not true. By now, the strict, "radical feminist" sense is so far in the minority as to be a historical curiosity and is a bit like insisting "cultural marxism" means the Frankfurt School, and only that. That ship sailed years ago, and the same with TERF. When a prominent campaigner tells a cheering crowd "if you see a TERF, punch her in the f***ing face", they are not talking with any specificity about a tiny number of materialist radical feminists, as if Janice Raymond might wander past. Someone seeing that in the news and putting "TERF" in wikipedia would be completely baffled upon being taken to this page.

Given the length of this discussion, the effect it has had on this page in derailing what I thought were actual productive talks about the lede, and the entrenched and polarised positions, I think it should be clear that the original move request was inadequately discussed. Void if removed (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding another source for this, from Finn Mackay's "Female Masculinities and the Gender Wars"

That term, well-used today, is, of course, TERF - trans-exclusionary radical feminist. The acronym has become so widely shared in social media activism and mainstream journalism that it has become almost a void, as it is applied to anyone expressing transphobic, prejudiced, bigoted or otherwise exclusionary views about trans men, trans women and all transgender and trans people. It is applied to those who are not feminist activists and would never identify themselves as feminists; it is put onto those who may be feminists but are certainly not Radical Feminists; it has become a shorthand for transphobic, and mostly applied to women, although I have seen the related adjective terfy applied to men also.

And later:

Unless someone takes on the label of TERF for themselves, as an accurate descriptor of their feminist and trans-exclusive politics, we should stop using it.

Void if removed (talk) 10:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to mention that I find the "TERF is a slur"/"TERF is used as a slur" argument irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether or not people sometimes call those who aren't TERFs "TERFs". It also doesn't matter what the exact semantics are behind every wikilink to the title "TERF". The only thing that actually matters here is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Does "TERF" primarily refer to the term itself, or to the movement behind it?

I'd say the latter. Simple searches on Google Scholar and Google show the majority of articles being about the movement, and very few articles dedicated to the specific acronym "TERF" and whether or not it's a slur.

There is other precedent for this, like fascist (insult) being parenthesized, since it's not the primary topic for "fascist". It doesn't matter if some people don't mean it completely literally when they say it. Fascist ideology and its impact on the world is a more relevant topic than a discussion of the term "fascist" and how it's used. Same applies to TERFs. PBZE (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, that is a very good example: Fascist redirects to fascism (rather than fascist (insult)), since "fascist" most commonly refers to the ideology itself rather than the term or use of the term as an insult. The same is true here: The vast majority of sources mentioning TERF are about the ideology/movement itself (as in a TERF group, a TERF event, TERF ideology, or TERFs in the sense of adherents of the ideology), not the term itself. There are a few sources discussing TERF as a term/acronym, but this is not the primary usage. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem with your "very good" example is that fascist and fascism, racist and racism are entirely natural forms of how we construct a word for an ideology/belief and its followers. The same is not true for TERF (acronym) (it is true for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" and "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" which both direct to the same article). PBZE is mistaken in citing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. We are not troubled by deciding the primary topic of an article title. There is no world where "TERF" means something else, like a computer language. TERF really is the acronym for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" and only that. And nobody is debating that trans-exclusionary radical feminist should direct to this article (though some may feel it should be this article, with gender-critical feminism the redirect).

The decision whether to have what is currently at TERF (acronym) at its new home or at TERF is covered by Wikipedia:Article titles. This says "Adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name is Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title" in other words, this is a choice of last resort.

If there was nothing to say at TERF (acronym) that is distinct from the ideology, then clearly having TERF direct to here would be fine. If general usage of TERF was merely as a shorthand for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" then again, it would direct here. But is clearly the case, with ample evidence, that TERF is a word that stands on is own, and has come to mean generally a transphobe, and not mean what it's letters stand for. That is very much why we have its own article on the word.

On Wikipedia, we encourage strongly that when people write TERF in an article and make it a natural wikilink, that it links to what the article text is talking about. Those who campaigned for this move or insist it was right, have not actually offered any evidence that this is the case. On the other hand, I've examined in detail 20 usages and found it very much not to be the case. You have broken Wikipedia. JK Rowling being called and rejecting the title TERF on Twitter is the topic of what is currently at TERF (acronym). And so on for all the other examples. You guys freely admit Rowling is not a radical feminist, nor did she get accused because she wrote a feminist book. She gets called it because people on Twitter thinks she's a transphobe, and you can call someone a TERF and not be sued to oblivion whereas calling Rowling a transphobe could be a quick way to bankruptcy. All usage of the word TERF about Rowling should link to our article talking about that hate-word. It is entirely misleading to our readers to link to the ideology for exactly the same reason we don't link racial slurs to their nationality article.

That you can find examples of words like racist or homophobe that direct to an ideology demonstrates not only that those are the natural neutral words for followers of the ideology but also that our society has accepted fully that these are entirely negative beliefs. Whereas this ideology does not yet have a natural word for followers and very much the belief that such followers are "bigots of the worst kind" is so so far from being accepted by society that you guys really need to expand your reading material. According to UK YouGov poll, 40% agree a "transgender woman is a woman" and 36% disagree. The results are similar for trans men being men. Interestingly more women agree than men, suggesting that any impression that hostility to this is a "feminist" matter is misplaced. So, the UK is pretty evenly divided on those who accept this and those that don't. And before someone shouts "TERF Island", the results are no better in the US. Pew Research has only 38% thinking that gender can differ from sex assigned at birth and a whopping 60% saying you are stuck with it. There's a strong political element to the variation. But essentially both the UK and US are entirely split on this matter and if anything the direction of travel is not one where transgender people are accepted more. While you and I personally may have strong views on this topic, comparing it to racism and sexism, which are essentially "argument over" in our cultures, this one is not and Wikipedia can't pretend it is just because you want it to be. -- Colin°^Talk 12:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

If there was nothing to say at TERF (acronym) that is distinct from the ideology, then clearly having TERF direct to here would be fine. If general usage of TERF was merely as a shorthand for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" then again, it would direct here. But is clearly the case, with ample evidence, that TERF is a word that stands on is own, and has come to mean generally a transphobe, and not mean what it's letters stand for. That is very much why we have its own article on the word.

Like I've stated above, I disagree with all of this. I think that there's a strong argument for merging that article into this one, and I think the reason that it's its own article is mostly because for some reason there was resistance to this article's creation a while ago, so that article was created as a part of the topic that clearly didn't belong on feminist views on transgender topics.

That you can find examples of words like racist or homophobe that direct to an ideology demonstrates not only that those are the natural neutral words for followers of the ideology but also that our society has accepted fully that these are entirely negative beliefs.

The obvious and glaring flaw in your argument is, what about "transphobe"? Loki (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that there's a strong argument for merging that article into this one

So the problem is that you don't actually want a page on "gender critical feminism" then, you only want a page on TERF. So why the rename/redirect? Why not improve the old page and leave this one alone? Void if removed (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

So the problem is that you don't actually want a page on "gender critical feminism" then, you only want a page on TERF.

I deny that there's a difference. "TERF", "trans-exclusionary radical feminist", and "gender critical feminist" all mean the same thing with different connotations, same as "pro-life" and "anti-abortion".

I don't think that the term "TERF" really has independent notability. There are some sources about the term separately, but not a lot, and a lot of the ones we do have are frankly not very good. Loki (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

"The obvious and glaring flaw in your argument is, what about "transphobe"?" Not seeing a flaw nor am I seeing how this is relevant. Can we try to stick to the discussion rather than going off on some tangent. -- Colin°^Talk 18:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

All your arguments for "TERF" being an exception to the pattern also apply to "transphobe", which follows the pattern. Loki (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

PBZE is mistaken in citing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. We are not troubled by deciding the primary topic of an article title. There is no world where "TERF" means something else, like a computer language. TERF really is the acronym for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" and only that. And nobody is debating that trans-exclusionary radical feminist should direct to this article (though some may feel it should be this article, with gender-critical feminism the redirect).

There's nothing in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that suggests that it only applies when there is no overlap between topics. There are two topics here: the acronym, and the movement that the acronym refers to as used by reliable sources. I see no reason why WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't apply.

The problem with your "very good" example is that fascist and fascism, racist and racism are entirely natural forms of how we construct a word for an ideology/belief and its followers. The same is not true for TERF (acronym) (it is true for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" and "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" which both direct to the same article).

WP:RNEUTRAL states that redirects to the subject of a non-neutral term are allowed. The only exception stated is that non-neutral redirects should be removed if the non-neutral term is not an "established term". Given how "TERF" is used to refer to the movement by several reliable sources, "TERF" is definitely an established term. With that, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, in mind, IMO it's completely irrelevant whether or not "TERF" is natural and neutral. PBZE (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with PBZE. I just have some additional comments for now: The TERF movement and radical feminism are not the same. The TERF movement is a distinct movement, albeit with roots in radical feminism. It doesn't matter if Rowling was involved with radical feminism before she became part of the TERF movement. She wasn't any kind of feminist before, she was not involved with any feminist organizations or activism, she was just a person who earned a lot of money by writing books based on the same formula over and over, and who happened to be well-known, but that didn't automatically make her a "feminist". Also, TERF is an abbreviation of "trans-exclusionary radical feminism/feminist" as reference # 1 points out[5]. But even when it is used in the sense of an adherent of TERF ideology, this article would usually be the more suitable target. TERF (acronym) is an in-depth article on TERF as a word, while this article covers the entire topic, from a broader perspective. When sources refer to someone being a TERF, they are usually describing that person as an adherent of the ideology, rather than discussing the history of the acronym. When an article is specifically discussing the word, for example in connection with the debates over whether it is a "slur" (something only TERFs themselves believe, and only in a half-hearted way, considering how quite a few TERFs use the term themselves), then TERF (acronym) would be the appropriate target. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Mostly agreed with this addition except that:

1. I think, like I've said above, you do have to have at least some identification with feminism or women's rights to be a TERF/gender-critical feminist. I don't think it has to be a ton, because e.g. I'd definitely say Posie Parker is part of the movement even though she explicitly doesn't identify as a feminist. But I do think that you need to at least claim to be motivated by women's rights to be whatever this article is about.

2. Rowling definitely at least had very feminist-typical political beliefs before her anti-trans activism started, such as being strongly pro-choice and opposing societal beauty standards. Loki (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

What is now abundantly clear is that a few people here didn't like the fact that when Wikipedia mentions the word TERF and had a link using those four letters, it took readers to a page that explains what this word means and that it is a hate word. So you have, with a brief discussion involving a handful of people, some of whom didn't actually know what was being asked, and closed by someone who didn't understand it either, decided that over 400 articles where editors linked to what is now at TERF (acronym) have had their link changed to a page on Gender-critical feminism.

Amanda's claim "When sources refer to someone being a TERF, they are usually describing that person as an adherent of the ideology, rather than discussing the history of the acronym" has several flaws. Firstly of course it is tautologous. When I refer to someone being X I am, em, referring to someone being X. If I was discussing the history of an acronym I'd be, em, discussing the history of an acronym. This doesn't help us. But more importantly very few "sources" describe someone being a TERF. Perhaps some of Amanda's reading material does but they aren't sources used throughout Wikipedia that mention that someone was labelled a TERF. Instead, those sources refer to someone being "called a TERF". You will not find the BBC saying "JK Rowling, best selling author and TERF, today tweeted..." Instead they will comment on her being accused of that and rejecting it, or on an Oxfam cartoon that had a figure wearing a TERF badge that some claimed looked a bit like Rowling. None of those things are talking about an ideology. They are talking about a person being labelled with a hate word. And the article you refer to is far more than just a history of an acronym.

This move/redirect change has greatly disrupted hundreds of articles on Wikipedia and it is now clear that those who support(ed) it actually want to bury the content at TERF (acronym) and normalise a hate word. Amanda, the academic papers cited in this article represent an almost irrelevantly tiny portion of the material, in reliable sources, that uses the word TERF. Those reliable sources, just like hundreds of Wikipedia articles, do not use the word TERF in their own words, because it is a hate word, and instead distance themselves by talking about the haters and the hated. -- Colin°^Talk 18:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

it took readers to a page that explains what this word means and that it is a hate word

As we've explained several times, whether or not you personally believe that, that's not what that article says. If it did, it'd be a WP:POVFORK and we should send it over to AfD. The article in fact says that Linguists and philosophers of language, while acknowledging that it is often pejorative, are skeptical of the idea that TERF is a slur.

I'm harping on this argument to the exclusion of others because I think it's the core mistake you're making. "TERF" means the same thing as "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" which means the same thing as "gender-critical feminist". It's not "a hate word" any more than "transphobe" is. Loki (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Loki you are wrong for the very reason that neither you nor Amanda have actually cited any Wikipedia article text about someone labelled TERF where it is used exactly as though someone was claiming X was a "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". You aren't seriously telling me anyone on Twitter thinks Rowling is a radical feminist? They very very much are not. Have you read their books? I can sum them up as "The 1950s called and want all their -isms back". I see now you are trying to alter TERF (acronym) to conform with your view. -- Colin°^Talk 07:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that "TERF" means that someone is necessarily a radical feminist. The term definitely has shifted meaning, but so has "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" and so has "gender-critical feminist". The very first thing to get dropped from the shared definition of all these terms was the insistence that adherents to the ideology have to be radical feminists specifically. Indeed, many people who use these terms deny that the people they refer to are truly feminists at all, even though there's still clearly a difference between whatever we're calling them and openly right-wing transphobes like Ron Desantis or Jerry Falwell.

Also, it's not surprising that we don't use it much in article text because it essentially refers to a type of transphobe, with that same connotation, and we'd very much shy away from calling someone a transphobe in article text as well. (Or a racist, or a sexist, or yadda yadda yadda you've heard this argument from me before.) But it being pejorative doesn't mean that its denotative meaning is different or that that redirect shouldn't point to this article. Redirects don't have to be neutral.

Also, for what it's worth, my edit to TERF was in keeping with the sources we already had. The lead was falsely portraying a situation of "academics say it's not a slur but a bunch of opinion columnists say it is" as even, which is practically the definition of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Loki (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

We can discuss the lead and text in that article over there. I've already dumped an explanation of how your new text is wrong (but the old text was wrong too). You seem to be arguing entirely in agreement with me that the term "TERF" is used to mean something other than "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". Hence why we had an article called TERF that explained as much. Now we don't.

While you may be right that redirects don't have to be neutral, they also shouldn't claim Wikipedia thinks TERF and "gender critical feminist" are equivalent. There is a reason we don't have ethnic slurs redirecting to an ethnicity. What you need to accept, Loki, is that it is not a settled matter that TERF is not a slur. If anything, the direction of travel is going away from it and reliable sources dropping this term the same way they don't write about "poofs" and "wankers" on the BBC news. Enough people consider it offensive, a slur, enough neutral people consider it a word to avoid in grown up professional writing, that Wikipedia mustn't normalise it by turning what was an article with a title that met all our policies into a redirect that is only supported by editors who agree the targets of the phrase are "bigots of the worst kind", a word that is only considered valid and "neutral" by activists who think the target of the term are "bigots of the worst kind". It's pretty indefensible and our lack of progress on that suggests we need to move this debate into a wider domain and get outside views. -- Colin°^Talk 09:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

"…we had an article called TERF that explained as much. Now we don't."

Just to be clear, that article still exists at TERF (acronym), is linked directly in the hatnote at the top, and is linked in the very first section after the lead. Readers can still easily go to that article if they’re curious about the debate surrounding it. Also, please refrain from personal attacks. Remember that this is WP:NOTAFORUM. XTheBedrockX (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

But we had an article for TERF, that linked this page in the hatnote. Readers could still easily go here if they were interested in the technical, historic usage of the term than its overwhelmingly more common usage which "has since broadened to include reference to people with trans-exclusionary views who are not necessarily involved with radical feminism.".

Where was the personal attack? Void if removed (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia mustn't normalise it by turning what was an article with a title that met all our policies into a redirect that is only supported by editors who agree the targets of the phrase are "bigots of the worst kind"."

Supporting a page move does not automatically mean they "agree the targets of the phrase are 'bigots of the worst kind'". This is not a helpful way of framing what is supposed to be a discussion about improving Wikipedia pages. XTheBedrockX (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, when I said that I wasn't talking about other editors. The point was that a lot of the people who use the term "TERF" regard the people it refers to as "bigots of the worst kind". So any usage of any term to refer to them is going to be pejorative, the same way "racist", "sexist", "transphobe" and any euphemisms for these concepts are still always going to be pejorative. It's not anything about the term itself that makes it pejorative, it's the meaning of the term that makes it pejorative.

Therefore, Colin's examples of the term being used as an insult don't mean those examples should redirect to the term, because it's the concept that's meant to be insulting there, not the term. Loki (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense. That was also my rationale for supporting the move for a redirect - "TERF," trans-exclusionary radical feminism," "gender-critical" and "gender critical feminism" all refer to the same topic, regardless of the precise terminology being used.

It's the same way that "pro-choice" and "pro-life" redirect to "abortion-rights movements" and "anti-abortion movements" respectively; these terms are primarily used in reference to beliefs and ideologies associated with them, not the terms in and of themselves. To me, this page is very clearly the WP:MAINTOPIC, even if the terms used to describe it are not neutral. XTheBedrockX (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I've struck it and rephrased it. The only sources that defend "TERF" are written by activist authors who think TERFs are "bigots of the worst kind". And the more thoughtful of the activists don't regard it as a useful word, and consider the conflict it provokes to be an unhelpful distraction, preferring plain old "anti-trans activists" or "transphobes". And the arguments here, that TERF is no different to "homophobe" or "racist" made me conflate that with editor's own views, which isn't necessarily true. It is different from those words and it is different from "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". That some people are not personally convinced of that is not important to Wikipedia decision making. What matters is that enough rational writers, enough neutral sources, enough reliable sources disagree with you. You may feel personally on the right side of history but the Overton window disagrees. We cannot and should not currently declare that TERF is absolutely not a slur and therefore is a perfectly acceptable and equivalent to "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". This is not about your views on the word or my views on the word. Our sources tell us this word is highly polarising, highly controversial, and our best and most neutral sources absolutely avoid using it for themselves.

Editors here will know my dim view of The Telegraph wrt trans issues, but I'm going to cite a recent article there. ‘Terf’ is the ultimate slur against women. It's by Suzanne Moore, who previously wrote for the Guardian and is well know for their gender critical beliefs. Read it. You and I don't have to agree with Moore. The majority of the US population and an even split of the UK population entirely agree with her and are nodding along with her and outraged that someone with views they agree with, and consider entirely normal, are getting attacked by trolls on the internet, given death threats, made to feel responsible for other's deaths and so on. Using a slur word, like an ethnic or religious slur, is not only offensive but also the strongest possible signal that the person using it is lacking in the intellectual qualities to make a good argument and who's personality is one seeking hatred and conflict rather than compromise and solutions. The arguments here seem to me no better than arguing an ethnic or religious or homopobic slur is fine because what the word means is just that the person belongs to a religion or ethnic group or sexuality group. That's a weak and frankly embarrasing argument. -- Colin°^Talk 09:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, an opinion column by a gender critical feminist in a paper you yourself admit is anti-trans is not exactly a reliable source.

I know they think it's a slur. But RSes say it's not, so I don't care what they think. Wikipedia's content is not determined by popular opinion.

(I should also say that I don't think TERF is exactly equivalent to those other terms. It's more pejorative, equivalent to "transphobe" rather than "anti-trans", so we should avoid it in Wikivoice unless the sourcing is clear.) Loki (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Loki, "RSes say it's not" is simply untrue. I'm not sure why you make that claim. When you tried to make that claim over at TERF (acronym) I reverted it and you haven't responded to the comments there. -- Colin°^Talk 15:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me but I've reverted your changes, many of which were not in fact reverts. I only made one change but you've made significant changes to the entire article. Loki (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that was deeply unhelpful action. I think there's a misunderstanding about what "RSes" can say wrt matters of opinion. I'll discuss on the other page. -- Colin°^Talk 07:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

But they don't refer to the same topic though.

Does "gender critical feminist" mean "people with trans-exclusionary views who are not necessarily involved with radical feminism" as the article on TERF says in the lede?

Does "gender critical feminist" mean "social conservatives who reject the position that trans women are women"?

These aren't synonyms, and comparing this to the pro-life/pro-choice disagreement is not an appropriate analogy. Trans-exclusionary radical feminist may have been coined originally for a group of continuity second-wave radical feminists but that is by far a minority usage of TERF, which is now little more than a synonym for "transphobe".

The primary topic is: people getting called a derogatory term for perceived transphobia. Someone seeing their favourite celeb getting called a TERF and ending up on a page about academic feminist disputes will be beyond baffled. Void if removed (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I support the position of Colin and Void if removed on this matter. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

If the participants here feel it's helpful to rehearse their arguments, by all means continue. It's related enough to the topic of the article that it would be lame to play venue cop. That said, no consensus developed here would be controlling for the target or content of the page TERF. A move review, new requested move, or redirect for discussion could all potentially establish a new consensus for the target/content of that page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm in favour of a move review. There was no need for a move, other than to create the redirect to point TERF here, and I don't think we can point TERF back to its original article without renaming it back to TERF. Void if removed (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Firefangledfeathers, I'm not sure what procedurally is the best approach. I suspect merely creating new section at the talk page of TERF (acronym) would not provoke fresh ideas and opinions. Clearly those on this page are not shifting their opinions and I'm getting frustrated that some of this involves making claims that plainly aren't true. Is there a way to get someone independent to examine how Wikipedia is using the word TERF and whether that usage should link to the content at TERF (acronym) or the content at Gender-critical feminism, and whether a redirect that a significant number of reliable sources claim is a slur meets our policy requirements for merely redirecting to the feminism topic. I don't think it needs for Wikipedia to reiterate the "is TERF a slur" debate, or to try to answer that question, just for someone to stick that into Google and go "OMG, that is polarising and contentious". In other words, we need people with opinions on TERFs (good or bad) like a hole in the head. We just need someone to examine if this move and the creation of this redirect is problematic enough that Wikipedia should not have done that. -- Colin°^Talk 15:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds mainly like an RfD to me. The point of both RfD and RM (which we might get through a move review that ends in "relist") is to centralize a listing and get input from people that are less involved in the particulars and more familiar with the relevant policies/guidelines/etc. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

One thing that was raised upthread though is that the redirect cannot simply point TERF to TERF_(Acronym) per WP:MISPLACED. The rename created a redirect that cannot simply be reverted without renaming the page, so I don't think RfD is enough? Void if removed (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It has clearly been demonstrated that the ideology itself is the primary topic; the vast majority of sources are discussing the ideology (including groups, events or individuals described as supporting the ideology), not the history of the word itself. It would be completely inappropriate to redirect TERF to the article on the history of the word rather than the ideology it refers to. The article on the acronym was moved precisely because the ideology is the primary topic in this context. Articles focused on just very narrow terminology issues – like TERF (acronym) and potentially GC (term) – are just sub topics of the topic covered by the article on the ideology. Those topics are smaller facets of the larger topic covered in this article anyway. A small number of sources focus specifically on the terminology debates surrounding TERF as a word, but they are in the minority, by far. For the most part sources just use the term as a shorthand, e.g. when referring to adherents (whether they are groups or individuals) of the ideology covered by this article. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Amanda, it hasn't "clearly been demonstrated" because you didn't "demonstrate" this at all. You claimed it but with no evidence. On the other hand, I demonstrated that the the primary topic of "TERF" is the hate word when one considers how Wikipedia is using that four letter word. I fully accept that when sources and Wikipedia use the four-word term (trans-exclusionary radical feminism) that they are discussing an ideology, but that's rare outside of liberal pro-trans writers. That there are lots of sources discussing the ideology just demonstrates we should have an article on that, which is this one. There are lots (more, in fact) discussing the culture war and a hate word like TERF is a big of that. The article moved because those participating and the closer themselves didn't know what they were doing. Amanda, you aren't reading wide enough. It isn't just sources for this article that matter. Nor is it just academia. A culture war is exactly that: a war in with wide culture of society. It isn't a nerdy academic war. It is a war of cultures in our society. As such newspapers and twitter and magazines and blogs and so on are all places where these words are used and abused. Why are they using it. They really really are 99.9% not using it to have a deep discussion of feminist ideology. Academic -isms are a minority sport. Whereas internet hate is a game anyone can play, and they do. In this culture war, TERF is a word thrown in hate. -- Colin°^Talk 18:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Your claim that using the word "TERF" as a shorthand for the ideology is "rare outside of liberal pro-trans writers" is, itself, not sourced. If WP:reliable sources (i.e. not just op-eds) regularly describe "TERF" as a hate word that's substantially different from "trans-exclusionary radical feminism", that would be one thing. But as far as I'm aware, this is not the case. XTheBedrockX (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

What Colin actually referred to there was the four word expansion, not the acronym. As to the rest, days ago in this thread I've referenced the OED and also the academic book "Female Masculinities". These agree: general usage is derogatory and far broader than radical feminism. Void if removed (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Mostly agreed with Bedrock here. There are definitely a bunch of sources where opinion columnists object to being called "TERF"s, but according to WP:RSOPINION opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers ... may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. So the most we can say is that gender-critical feminists often object to being called TERFs, and not that TERF is in fact a slur or a hate word or anything like that.

The "mostly" is because we do have some neutral sources that describe TERF as usually derogatory. Which it is, but mostly because the people who would use the word "TERF" instead of "gender-critical" think of the whole ideology it refers to in very negative terms. Which is to say, I think of "TERF" as equivalent for Wikipedia purposes as something like "anti-choice" or "robber baron": it's not really something we should use in Wikivoice outside of exceptional circumstances, but the redirect is fine, because as we've previously established redirects do not have to be neutral. Loki (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The redirect is not fine because we have WP:RS saying that TERF is not a synonym for gender critical feminism, and does not refer to a specific ideology at all. Void if removed (talk) 09:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

It is a common mistake to think that "reliable sources" are reliable for whatever I want to do with them. As I just noted on the other article talk page, an academic source offering the academic's personal opinions on a subject are only reliable for the academic's personal opinions on a subject. And in fact a newspaper or magazine article written by someone offering their personal opinions on a subject are also perfectly reliable for what that writer opinions are about the subject.

Ideas like whether gender critical feminism is a valid way of thinking about men and women are societal opinions. They are similar to whether we think it is valid that two men get married, or even that marriage is a good life goal and should be for life. Or what is the age of consent or whether alcohol is an evil. Wikipedia doesn't act like an individual person can dictate any of these things because society doesn't either. It needs societal consensus. And sometimes society is split, like whether socialism or conservatism are good political ideologies. Editors here are weirdly putting a handful academic writers on a pedestal, and we can't do that. We need society to put them on a pedestal for them to be even worth quoting. And we need thoughtful sources to document what society thinks about these things, not editors selecting academics (who disagree as a professional way of life).

Loki, please stop selecting which opinions you think are "reliable". Amanda, please stop claiming GCF is a fringe view. Something like "paedophilia is fine if the children consent" is a fringe view. Both viewpoints on these trans issues are completely mainstream in the US and UK and polling shows the pro-trans viewpoint is a minority one. Most people in the UK and US do not believe a trans woman is a woman. That's what the polls tell us. And that's what the politicians they elect are enforcing by law. Arguing that the majority who are also in power is "fringe" is ridiculous. -- Colin°^Talk 15:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

We have sourcing that GCF is a fringe view though, especially outside of the UK. Inside the UK, I agree that it isn't, though it's still a minority. Gender-critical feminism is not all transphobia: in the US (and frankly, in most places outside the UK), transphobia is overwhelmingly right-wing and therefore GCF is quite fringe among American feminists.

I'm also concerned by and would like to ask you to strike your reference to pedophilia. That feels like a weirdly inflammatory example given it's intended to be compared to views on LGBT people. Loki (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The fact that this discussion is now striped across two talk pages and near-impossible to follow since all the discussions about the actual meaning and derogatory nature of TERF are now happening in parallel here as well as there is again IMO an indication this rename/redirect was wrong. But I would add that while Finn Mackay might be good for a quote, it is the OED which says "Also more generally: a person whose views on gender identity are (or are considered) hostile to transgender people, or who opposes social and political policies designed to be inclusive of transgender people.", which is not a synonym for gender-critical feminism. We already had a page which served to disambiguate the general, widespread, derogatory usage from the specific, historic, actually-talking-about-radical-feminists sense. Redirecting the term here obscures the more general usage, and the more general usage is the primary topic, not academics arguing about still being able to call feminists they disagree with TERFs. Void if removed (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The fact that this discussion is now striped across two talk pages and near-impossible to follow since all the discussions about the actual meaning and derogatory nature of TERF are now happening in parallel here as well as there is again IMO an indication this rename/redirect was wrong.

To the contrary, I think it's an indication that people are conflating separate topics and derailing the discussion. Whether "TERF" is a neutral or derogatory term is completely irrelevant in deciding the primary topic and the existence of a redirect. It also doesn't matter if we object to how "TERF" is generally used.

It is the OED which says "Also more generally: a person whose views on gender identity are (or are considered) hostile to transgender people, or who opposes social and political policies designed to be inclusive of transgender people.", which is not a synonym for gender-critical feminism.

The OED says that secondarily to the primary definition, which is "A feminist whose advocacy of women’s rights excludes (or is thought to exclude) the rights of transgender women."

We already had a page which served to disambiguate the general, widespread, derogatory usage from the specific, historic, actually-talking-about-radical-feminists sense. Redirecting the term here obscures the more general usage, and the more general usage is the primary topic, not academics arguing about still being able to call feminists they disagree with TERFs.

It's not enough that "TERF" is sometimes used more broadly than its literal meaning. For it to be the primary topic, the broader usage needs to be more prevalent than the usage as a term for gender-critical feminism. Web and scholarly searches for "TERF" show that that's not the case. If the two meanings are even equally significant, we would need a disambiguation page at most. PBZE (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

No it says "more generally". This is not secondary or lesser, and the general imprecise usage is more prevalent. Web and scholarly searches for "TERF" do not show what you're claiming, no-one has done an empirical count of this in a WP:RS, and what sources do exist are invariably opinion, and divided - but it is not cleanly split along partisan lines since there is opinion even from those who are not called TERFs that the word itself is a void, and synonym for "transphobe", directed at women. And even among those who use it, the definitions are muddied.

For example, look at this definition of TERF from The Daily Dot:

Similar to many in the religious right, TERFs believe that gender and sex are the same.

Or this from Biology, Society and Sex: Deconstructing anti-trans rhetoric and trans-exclusionary radical feminism:

TERFs are members of a branch of feminism whose ideological beliefs hinge on the idea that sex is biological and fixed, rejecting the idea of socially constructed gender.

These are the precise opposite of what "gender critical feminists" believe, whole entire point is that sex and gender are distinct. Gender critical feminists hold to the distinction, maintain sex is immutable, and critique socially constructed gender. And, ironically, it is Butler, Hines etc who argue that sex and gender are not distinct.

It seems to me that a good candidate for the primary subject of "TERF" is the controversy over its meaning - which is something that the original page itself was describing, and moving out of the way to redirect it here begs that key and most controversial question. Void if removed (talk) 10:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll add that the very first citation on the TERF_(acronym) page is to "From TERF to Gender Critical: A Telling Genealogy?"

By my reading, that paper explicitly acknowledges TERF and gender critical feminism are not the same thing, uses the two terms distinctly, points out different theoretical/ideological approaches, and notes that gender critical feminism arose in part because TERF had come to be used in derogatory terms for merely transphobia in general, ie someone "labeled a TERF for being transphobic" need not be a feminist at all.

Indeed, it goes on to describe TERF as "trans-hostile" and gender critical feminism as "trans-skeptical".

So the first citation on the renamed page makes clear these aren't quite the same thing and supports the claim that TERF has a far wider, pejorative meaning. Void if removed (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

No it says "more generally". This is not secondary or lesser, and the general imprecise usage is more prevalent.

Yes it is. Otherwise it wouldn't be the second sentence and it wouldn't begin with "Also".

Web and scholarly searches for "TERF" do not show what you're claiming, no-one has done an empirical count of this in a WP:RS, and what sources do exist are invariably opinion, and divided - but it is not cleanly split along partisan lines since there is opinion even from those who are not called TERFs that the word itself is a void, and synonym for "transphobe", directed at women. And even among those who use it, the definitions are muddied.

Web and scholarly searches are listed in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as acceptable ways to determine a primary topic. I did an English-language Google search in the United States for "TERF" with search customization turned off, and these are the first 10 results I got:

1. Gender-critical feminism - Wikipedia
2. The rise of anti-trans “radical” feminists, explained - Vox
3. What's a TERF and why is 'Harry Potter' author J.K. Rowling being called one? - USA Today
4. Happy Pride. Don't Be a TERF. - National Women's Law Center
5. TERF Definition & Meaning - Dictionary.com
6. You may have heard about TERFs - Gender Justice
7. TERF - Boston Medical Center
8. The TERF Industrial Complex: Transphobia, Feminism and Race - The Clayman Institute for Gender Research
9. 'Pro-lesbian' or 'trans-exclusionary'? Old animosities boil into public view - NBC News
10. TERF Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Articles 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 use "TERF" to refer to the movement. Articles 3, 9, and 10 chiefly use "TERF" to refer to the acronym.

I also did a Google Scholar search for "TERF". Here are the first 10 results that aren't irrelevant:

1. TERF wars: An introduction
2. This is my TERF! Lesbian feminists and the stigmatization of trans women
3. Afterword: TERF wars in the time of COVID-19
4. Lesbian, feminist, TERF: a queer attack on feminist studies
5. TERF Wars: Feminism and the fight for transgender futures
6. TERF Wars: Narrative productions of gender and essentialism in radical-feminist (cyber) spaces
7. They would have transitioned me: third conditional TERF grammar of trans childhood
8. Gender-Critical/Genderless?: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminism (TERF) in Feminist Current
9. From TERF to gender critical: A telling genealogy?
10. “Gender-Critical” Discourse as Disinformation: Unpacking TERF Strategies of Political Communication

Articles 2, 5, 7, 8, and 10 use "TERF" to refer to the movement. Articles 1, 3, 4, 6, and 9 chiefly use "TERF" to refer to the acronym. At best, the usages are roughly equal.

For example, look at this definition of TERF from The Daily Dot:

Similar to many in the religious right, TERFs believe that gender and sex are the same.

Or this from Biology, Society and Sex: Deconstructing anti-trans rhetoric and trans-exclusionary radical feminism

TERFs are members of a branch of feminism whose ideological beliefs hinge on the idea that sex is biological and fixed, rejecting the idea of socially constructed gender.

These are the precise opposite of what "gender critical feminists" believe, whole entire point is that sex and gender are distinct. Gender critical feminists hold to the distinction, maintain sex is immutable, and critique socially constructed gender. And, ironically, it is Butler, Hines etc who argue that sex and gender are not distinct.

First of all, these quotes are clearly using "TERF" in their own voice to refer to some movement or ideology. They're not talking about the acronym. If you truly believe that TERF and gender-critical feminism refer to separate movements, that is another topic entirely. As it stands, several sources that refer to "TERFs" are treated as covering the topic of this article. We aren't debating whether there are one or two social movements. We are debating whether the primary topic of "TERF" is the acronym or the social movement(s) it refers to.

Second, you're making the unwarranted WP:OR assumption that gender-critical feminism/TERFism is logically consistent, and that we can take what they claim to believe at face value.

By my reading, that paper explicitly acknowledges TERF and gender critical feminism are not the same thing, uses the two terms distinctly, points out different theoretical/ideological approaches, and notes that gender critical feminism arose in part because TERF had come to be used in derogatory terms for merely transphobia in general, ie someone "labeled a TERF for being transphobic" need not be a feminist at all.

Indeed, it goes on to describe TERF as "trans-hostile" and gender critical feminism as "trans-skeptical".

So the first citation on the renamed page makes clear these aren't quite the same thing and supports the claim that TERF has a far wider, pejorative meaning.

It argues that gender critical feminism and TERFism are at least deeply intertwined, the former evolving from the latter. I don't think that warrants the claim that they are separate movements, which once again is off-topic. A quote from the paper's conclusion:

The most prominent change is trans-exclusionary feminism’s linguistic pivot away from its ‘anti-trans’ TERF past to a ‘pro-women’ gender critical present. This has allowed for ‘reasonableness’, with all its powerful and problematic effects, to infuse the position. It functions to obscure the continuing promotion of tropes about trans people popularized by TERFs, as well as obscure who experiences harms.

They say the most prominent change is a linguistic pivot, which they argue obscures the same beliefs about trans people as earlier TERFs, in ways perceived as more reasonable by the general public. Also note how they use "TERFs" in the last sentence refer to the movement, not the acronym. They don't refer to the movement as "gender-critical feminism" any less critically than they refer to it as "TERF", so this paper is not evidence for the idea that "TERF" refers to the social movement any less than "gender-critical feminism" does. PBZE (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Excellent points by PBZE. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, this is really comprehensive.

The one point I would like to add is that, according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, not every title has a primary topic it's associated with, and in the case of those that don't, the appropriate thing to do is a disambiguation page. This would suggest a compromise solution of a disambiguation page between the ideology and the term, which I don't hate. Loki (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The question here would be: Is it a more reader-friendly solution—in terms of navigation—to make it into a disambiguation page, instead of having a redirect here and a hatnote that points to the other article? I'm not convinced. The latter solution serves more or less the same function as a disambiguation page, in a more expedient manner. Remember that this article covers the topic in its entirety, including terminology. Hence, this article can never be "wrong" as a target. TERF (acronym) is simply an article that provides more detail on a specific (fairly minor) aspect/facet of the topic also covered (summarized per WP:SUMMARY style) here (the history of a word). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Otherwise it wouldn't be the second sentence

I mean: it is not a secondary definition. The OED doesn't give definitions 1. and 2. as with other words with alternative definitions. Eg. "caper" has multiple listed meanings. Here, the precise and general senses are contained within the same definition, and are at the very least on an equal footing. FWIW, Google for one returns the general sense from the OED when you search "TERF".

If you truly believe that TERF and gender-critical feminism refer to separate movements, that is another topic entirely.

No - that is what I have said from the outset, multiple times in this thread. It isn't even that they are separate movements, they are separate but interrelated subjects, both highly contentious, and conflating them is not WP:NPOV. I pointed out that the very first citation on the TERF page makes a distinction between them. You highlight from the conclusion that this is mostly linguistic - but mostly is not all, and the paper makes other, material distinctions. They are related, but not the same, and that is not something that can be teased apart if you simply direct TERF here. The old situation was completely fine - a page for TERF, explaining the term, what it means, why it is used, where it is contentious, and directing here in the hatnote.

The decision that this page could serve as a synonym for "TERF" or "the TERF movement" was taken on a different page, and that fundamentally is what I disagree with - this page should have been involved in that decision, and the failure to notify this affected page and properly discuss in advance has resulted in chaos.

The whole basis of my objection is that TERF - in common usage - is not a synonym for "gender critical feminism", but more generally just a synonym for "transphobe", largely directed at women. Editors have come to a barely discussed consensus on a different page that it is a synonym for GCF, and redirected the term here in a move that has had far-reaching consequences. The entire WP:PRIMARYTOPIC issue has been created by that decision, and now there is talk of adding disambiguation pages to resolve a situation created by the inappropriate rename/redirect.

So now looking at your Google results:

• 2 - About the history of the term TERF, the coining of the acronym, and also TERF ideology, gender critical feminism, considers them the same, describes the ideology thus: "In a TERF world, gender is a system that exists solely to oppress women, which it does through the imposition of femininity on those assigned female at birth." This is about both the movement and the acronym, and does at least acknowledge that "gender-critical feminism" is at root about acknowledging the sex/gender distinction.
• 3 - About the Acronym. Describes TERF as "an acronym that stands for trans exclusionary radical feminists. The term describes feminists who are transphobic."
• 4 - An explanation of what a TERF is. Talks about Rowling. Says "The technical definition of a TERF is a trans-exclusionary radical feminist. Most TERFs came to their ideology via second-wave feminism that radicalized into the lie that trans people are a threat to women." Says "TERFs have taken so-called feminism and twisted it into transphobia. Which is on purpose!"
• 5 - A dictionary definition of the acronym. States: "Disparaging. trans-exclusionary radical feminist: an advocate of radical feminism who does not believe that transgender people's gender identities are legitimate, and who is hostile to the inclusion of trans women in the feminist movement."
• 6 - Starts with a definition of TERF, explaining the acronym, as: "Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs) are cis-women who don’t believe trans people truly exist and who believe women’s rights are damaged when trans women are treated equally and with dignity."
• 7 - A dictionary definition of the acronym. States "An acronym meaning Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist. A shorthand to describe one cohort of feminists who self-identify as radical and are unwilling to recognize trans women as sisters, unlike other feminists who do."
• 8 - This is not immediately obvious what the subject is here. It refers to a 3-year-old webinar, and the brief outline refers to "The figure of the “TERF” (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist)" and examines cultural impact, controversy and "the outsize influence TERFs wield in the media". Is it a movement? Individuals? About the cultural flashpoint itself? Deciding what this is actually about is speculative as the vast majority of this page is the biography of the contributors. There's a breakdown of the webinar itself here. The webinar is broad ranging and covers not just "the movement" but online transphobia in general terms, "the TERF in my head" and so on. And crucially this draws a distinction within the purported "TERF movement" between "gender-critical feminists" and other actors under the same umbrella, including "anti-woke trolls". GCFs are described as:

a “more or less marginal group of feminist thinkers and activists” who, as Bey described them, are “very much a kind of nostalgic, second-wave-y form of feminist organizing and feminist ideology.”

• 9 - Refers to the label and controversy over its usage.
• 10 - Dictionary definition: "often disparaging: TRANS-EXCLUSIONARY RADICAL FEMINIST"

So I don't think this is anything like as clear cut as you say:

Articles 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 use "TERF" to refer to the movement. Articles 3, 9, and 10 chiefly use "TERF" to refer to the acronym.

I make it: 3, 5, 7, 9 and 10 are about the meaning of the acronym and its usage, and even 2, 4 and 6 incorporate both discussion of the definition and a wider movement to varying degrees. 8 is unclear from the actual search result itself, but digging further the webinar seems to be about the movement, and many other things besides.

My reading of all this is that the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is "what does TERF stand for and why are people called it". There isn't even a consensus among these links what "TERF" actually means: the definitions at 3,4,5,6 and 7 are in broader terms that are not clearly synonymous with "gender-critical feminism" but lean towards the "shorthand for transphobe" interpretation.

In fact, looking at the list of results it is highly incongruous that the top Google result is now this page, about "gender-critical feminism", when the majority of the other results are helpful explanations about the acronym.

Only one link (2) directly discusses "gender critical feminism", and the webinar described at 8 explicitly distinguishes gender-critical feminism as a niche subset of the "TERF movement", and this all lends weight to my point that TERF needs to go back to taking readers to its own page, separate from gender-critical feminism, because they are not the same thing - and even if they were, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is by my count clearly the definition of the acronym. Void if removed (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

No - that is what I have said from the outset, multiple times in this thread. It isn't even that they are separate movements, they are separate but interrelated subjects, both highly contentious, and conflating them is not WP:NPOV. I pointed out that the very first citation on the TERF page makes a distinction between them.

The whole basis of my objection is that TERF - in common usage - is not a synonym for "gender critical feminism", but more generally just a synonym for "transphobe", largely directed at women.

We're not discussing if "TERF" and "gender critical" refer to separate, interrelated subjects. We're discussing if the primary topic of "TERF" is the movement or the term itself. If "TERF" refers to a separate but interrelated subject, that is not evidence that the term itself is the primary topic. Nor is it evidence that the primary meaning of "TERF" is just "transphobia".

As it stands, many of the sources in this article use "TERF", and the TERF movement is within the scope of this article. If the TERF movement is a different topic from gender-critical feminism, and the TERF movement is notable, then either this article needs to be split, this article needs to be renamed to "TERF"/"trans-exclusionary radical feminism", or TERF (acronym) needs to be expanded to be about the TERF movement as a whole, not just the term.

If you're instead arguing that the TERF movement isn't a coherent topic outside of the term itself, and isn't notable enough to have its own article, you need pretty strong evidence, because many reliable sources (including some you've mentioned yourself) use "TERF" to refer to a specific movement or ideology. You need evidence that "gender-critical feminism" as a term is more often used, and less scrutinized, than "TERF", in reliable sources. Slightly differing definitions, or the existence of broader informal usages, are not enough.

Also, I'd like to point out that there isn't really any controversy about which group of people "TERF" refers to. Gender-critical feminists know that it refers to them, otherwise they wouldn't be complaining that it's a slur. Their main objection is that it's derogatory, but that's irrelevant because, as I've said before, redirects do not have to be neutral, except in the very narrow sense that redirects need to accurately point to their primary topic.

You highlight from the conclusion that this is mostly linguistic - but mostly is not all, and the paper makes other, material distinctions. They are related, but not the same, and that is not something that can be teased apart if you simply direct TERF here.

The source is primarily discussing the rhetorical strategies used by the movement, and how they have changed over time. Included in that discussion is coverage of both the acronym "TERF" and the term "gender-critical feminism".

TERF (acronym) does not discuss anything about the rhetorical strategies used by TERFs or the history of TERFism. It discusses the acronym "TERF", the history of it, and whether or not it's a slur.

It is TERF (acronym) that cannot adequately cover the evolution of the movement, which is outside of its scope. Meanwhile, this article is completely equipped to cover that subject in its entirety.

In fact, looking at the list of results it is highly incongruous that the top Google result is now this page, about "gender-critical feminism", when the majority of the other results are helpful explanations about the acronym.

The fact that many of the Google results are dictionary definitions of the acronym doesn't make the acronym the primary topic, any more than the majority of search results for "God" being definitions detracts from the actual concept of God being the primary topic.

The results are helpful explanations of who the acronym refers to. Almost none of them talk about the acronym itself more substantially than that, or more substantially than they talk about the movement itself. In contrast, look up any ethnic slur, or any real slur in general, on Google or Google Scholar. You'll find the majority of results are about the slur itself. None of them focus on the slur's targets more or even equally than they focus on the slur itself.

I'd argue that it's perfectly congruous for an encyclopedia article to go into the particular ideology or movement in more detail than the dictionary definitions. The only thing that's possibly incongruous is the title of this article. PBZE (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

PBZE, have you noticed that you keep writing "TERF movement". You don't use the word TERF as though it is an -ism or an -ology or a movement. That's because it is a word invented to label people that the inventor didn't agree with and which has become used as a label for anyone perceived as transphobic who is hated. I wish you would stop claiming "redirects do not have to be neutral" as though that makes it fine for us to redirect what is widely considered a slur to an article on an -sim. We don't have any of the racial or religious slurs redirect to their racial group or religion. Are you seriously telling me that if someone redirected "wog" to the racial group that you'd be utterly gobsmaked when they got their backsides dragged to ANI and topic banned or community banned and you'd complain that policy says redirects don't have to be neutral? The reason you think it is just fine is that you personally don't think it is a slur (you give this away by writing "they wouldn't be complaining that it's a slur"), by othering the group that we are talking about. Nobody writes about the N word by saying "which black complain is a slur". Editors here need to separate their own views on this word and accept that a significant number of reasonable people regard it as a slur, as an indicator of hate towards a people group, that Wikipedia should not be taking sides with the haters and redirecting it as though it is just fine. -- Colin°^Talk 09:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

And, having read a few academic papers on slurs recently, your argument that "slur word" is equivalent to "neutral description of such people" because "they know that it refers to them" is about as convincing as you arguing that the N word is equivalent to "black people" because "they know that it refers to them". I do wish editors here would try to look at the argument from the other side, or at least to consider some analogies, and to think about how it looks. You are about as convincing as arguing that deadnaming and misgendering are just fine because, you know, that's their actual name and actual sex they were given on their birth certificate, and hey, --insert famous feminist here-- thinks its fine and they are a reliable source. That editors here personally may think calling someone a TERF is not a clear indication of intellectual knuckle dragging and a clear sign of hate in one's heart shouldn't stop us from accepting this is contentious. Wikipedia doesn't take sides. -- Colin°^Talk 09:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out that there isn't really any controversy about which group of people "TERF" refers to.

I just gave you multiple examples in the search results you gave that the people using TERF do not know to whom they are referring, and are using it in a broad sense that doesn't map to "gender-critical feminism", are simplified, wrong, or simply some variation on "transphobia". Here's the relevant portions again:

TERFs believe that gender and sex are the same.

- Wrong

The term describes feminists who are transphobic.

- Transphobia, feminist specific.

cis-women who don’t believe trans people truly exist

- Transphobia, female-specific.

feminists who self-identify as radical and are unwilling to recognize trans women as sisters, unlike other feminists who do

- Handwavy, gender-critical feminists don't necessarily self-identify as radical,

an advocate of radical feminism who does not believe that transgender people's gender identities are legitimate

- Gender-critical feminists aren't necessarily radical, legitimacy of gender identities is broad

the TERF umbrella [...]. In the middle are the “gender-critical feminists,” a “more or less marginal group of feminist thinkers and activists” who, as Bey described them, are “very much a kind of nostalgic, second-wave-y form of feminist organizing and feminist ideology.” Another group Lavery termed the “anti-woke trolls,”

- TERF is an umbrella term encompassing non-feminists, gender-critical is a subset of those called TERF

More sources:

From "Deconstructing anti-trans rhetoric and trans-exclusionary radical feminism" (E Hotine 2021)

do not subscribe to the belief of gender as a social construct

- Wrong

Claire Thurlow. "From TERF to gender critical: A telling genealogy?"

Moreover, once the term was popularized, being trans-exclusionary and therefore liable to being labelled a TERF did not necessitate being a feminist at all, with the term also being used to describe trans-exclusionary positions from right-wing or religious perspectives.

- TERF is widely used and meaningless

Finn Mackay's "Female Masculinities":

The acronym has become so widely shared in social media activism and mainstream journalism that it has become almost a void, as it is applied to anyone expressing transphobic, prejudiced, bigoted or otherwise exclusionary views about trans men, trans women and all transgender and trans people. It is applied to those who are not feminist activists and would never identify themselves as feminists; it is put onto those who may be feminists but are certainly not Radical Feminists; it has become a shorthand for transphobic, and mostly applied to women

- TERF is widely applied, particularly to women, and just means transphobia

OED definition of TERF (general usage):

a person whose views on gender identity are considered hostile to transgender people, or who opposes social and political policies designed to be inclusive of transgender people.

- TERF is widely applied

The feminists who coined the term "gender critical feminism" are a clear subset of those who were being called TERF at the time, and indeed coined it largely in response to being called TERFs. But TERF is so widely applied that to consider them the same thing is unsupportable.

I've gone through your sources and shown that two treat it as a synonym for transphobia, directed at women. Another gives a definition of TERF that gets their sex/gender distinction exactly backwards. Another two make "radical" a requisite, which - for gender critical feminism - it is not. And when you dig into one it explicitly renders gender-critical feminists a tiny subset of the TERF umbrella.

I've given you three additional sources, including the OED, who back up that the term is broadly applied, and little more than a synonym for transphobia, and another use where the author uses entirely wrong.

The idea that this all refers to some coherent "movement" is unsupportable. TERF these days is a broad insult meaning transphobe, and even those who talk about "movements" invariably draw distinctions or are handwaving about something they cannot accurately define. Void if removed (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's an example. India Willoughby publishes this twitter post about Hanna Barnes, complaining about their Newsnight coverage of GIDS which ultimately led to Barnes' book Time to Think: The Inside Story of the Collapse of the Tavistock's Gender Service for Children. In it, Willoughby says "Oh here we go. More anti-trans propaganda from in-house terf Hannah Barnes. Sensationalist crap." and "Hannah Barnes -as all trans will tell you - is a terf."

I'm not aware of any publications (inform me if I'm wrong) where Barnes has expressed gender-critical views, or trans-exclusionary radical feminist views. I've read their book. They do not rant about trans women actually being men. They don't deadname their trans interviewees or misgender them. They don't express an opinion on so-called "women only" spaces. They don't bang on about a "trans ideology" or "gender ideology" or a "trans lobby". Their crime would appear to be raising concerns about the medical treatment of children who question their gender, and investigating those concerns thoroughly, and their findings are awkward for those who are fully invested in a certain treatment path. Now, they may well be wrong, in part or whole, and they may well have biases that influence their conclusions, they may have interviewed "the wrong people" and been too credulous in believing them. But I've rarely read any publication in this domain that is as neutral in its approach and language and respectful of each side. Which is what you'd expect from a BBC journalist. And yet apparently they are a "terf" and "all trans will tell you" that. And one can tell from the twitter post that the word "terf" is being used as a slur and is a post full of hate towards someone detestible.

Any suggestion that Willoughby is using the word TERF in that post to inform their readers about a sect of feminism is for the birds. This is a hateful post. Some people might share their hate, but Wikipedia can't. -- Colin°^Talk 11:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, we get it, you have a strong attachment to WP:OR and simply can't let it go.

However, your personal analysis of a Twitter post cannot be used for sourcing on Wikipedia. Loki (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

You're WP:SYNTHing yourself into a conclusion that isn't broadly supported by reliable sources. I find it highly questionable that you're dismissing out-of-hand the reliable sources that define "TERF" in a way you disagree with.

Yes, some sources have different definitions of what "TERF" means. The fact that you personally believe their definitions are inconsistent is WP:OR and irrelevant. Definitions are never perfect. That doesn't change the fact that multiple reliable sources use "TERF" in their own words, and that the majority of results on Google and Google Scholar discuss the thing the term refers to at least as substantially as they discuss the term itself.

Some sources say "TERF" is used as a general pejorative, but that doesn't contradict or negate the existence of the TERF ideology/movement that many other reliable sources refer to. And again, the TERF movement is within the scope of this article, as evidenced by the many sources in this article that use "TERF" in their own words.

Even if, hypothetically, some sources were to flat-out say that the TERF movement is not real and a meaningless concept, at most we would have parts or sections of this article covering "criticism of the concept" or something similar. It would be inappropriate to arbitrarily pick the side of some reliable sources while discarding the viewpoints of other reliable sources. The fact that reliable sources discuss and analyze the TERF movement is enough for their information about the movement to be included in Wikipedia. PBZE (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

> Yes, some sources have different definitions of what "TERF" means.

Yes. Which means pointing it here is invalid - it should go to the TERF page to explaining all the different, contradictory meanings. Picking one as the "true" meaning and saying that "true" meaning is "gender-critical feminism" is not supported by the evidence you've provided.

Common usage is demonstrably a synonym for transphobe. That's not a "movement".

> the TERF movement is within the scope of this article, as evidenced by the many sources in this article that use "TERF" in their own words.

This is circular.

> It would be inappropriate to arbitrarily pick the side of some reliable sources while discarding the viewpoints of other reliable sources.

No, what is inappropriate is directing TERF here as if "one side" is correct in saying that not only is there a TERF movement/ideology, but that "gender-critical feminism" is the same thing. Rather than expand TERF to discuss this supposed wider movement, the contested, derogatory and overwhelmingly imprecise usage of TERF is hidden from the reader by treating this as the primary meaning.

In Colin's comment above think of the uneducated reader encountering a post by a reasonably notable UK media figure calling a journalist a TERF - they google and what do they find? This page, not the one explaining how it is an insult, mostly synonymous with transphobe. Barnes is not part of any "movement".

OTOH they will find the OED definition first, which - per google's prioritising of the general sense - says:

DEROGATORY: a person whose views on gender identity are considered hostile to transgender people, or who opposes social and political policies designed to be inclusive of transgender people.

That's useful. Bringing them here isn't. In fact it is thoroughly misleading the reader, and sanitising an insult.

At this point TERF describes a movement in the same way that Ron DeSantis' use of "woke" does, ie its a loose collection of stuff he doesn't like.

Adding together all the contradictory things various (often highly biased) sources think they mean when they say "TERF" and calling it a movement is the wrong approach, and saying that "gender-critical feminism" is that movement, is doubly wrong.

And: you should have raised it here first and made the case here.

Look at this current requested move for LGBT -> LGBT(initialism) so that LGBT can redirect to the disambiguation page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LGBT_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_to_LGBT

That's the correct thing - notify the affected page of the redirect. The way this TERF move was done was wrong, and the weeks of dispute since shows it. Void if removed (talk) 09:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It has been pointed out elsewhere that WP:OR does not apply to talk page discussion. Neither does WP:SYNTH. Deciding what words are appropriate for wikivoice (and a redirect of TERF to Gender-critical feminism is placing that word into wikivoice) is a matter for editor consensus, and editors can cite whatever they like to form their arguments.

There are plenty results on Google Scholar for "Trump idiot" where the word "idiot" is flung around while dismaying at the anti-intellectualism in American politics and Trump's embodiment of that. That doesn't mean Wikipedia should or may call Trump an idiot, nor does it require editors to find reliable academic sources firmly stating that calling Trump an idiot is unprofessional and unencyclopaedic for us to agree not to. It's for us to decide. Same for TERF. This is a matter for Wikipedians to decide. -- Colin°^Talk 10:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

As I've said many times before, TERF (acronym) is not the appropriate article because it is solely about the term, and does not include analysis of the movement itself as discussed by reliable sources, outside of those directly related to the terminology. As it currently stands, those reliable sources are included in this article instead. With the current scopes of both articles, the move request was entirely appropriate. If TERF (acronym) is supposed to cover the concept of the TERF movement as a whole, it is WP:UNDUE and unfit for that purpose.

If reliable sources exist that say the TERF movement is incoherent as a concept, feel free to add their views to this article, duly weighted. Alternatively, you could start a new discussion arguing that information about the TERF movement needs to be moved from this article to what is currently TERF (acronym). A lot of work needs to be done to TERF (acronym) for it to appropriately cover the primary topic of TERF with due weight, a role currently served by this article instead.

Unless and until we do that, the only way for TERF to point to an article appropriately covering its primary topic is to redirect to this one. The primary topic of TERF includes the TERF movement as discussed by reliable sources, which is covered by the majority of search results listed by Google and Google Scholar.

Your argument that different definitions from different reliable sources render a topic incoherent is not obvious or uncontroversial. Many topics have different definitions by different sources, like mathematics, state (polity), and fascism. If we use your own conclusion of that argument as the basis for making the primary topic of TERF nothing more than the acronym, we would be violating WP:NOR. If there exist reliable sources making your argument, and we use those as the basis instead, we would be privileging those reliable sources above others, violating WP:NPOV.

Your comparison to "woke" is a false equivalence, because reliable sources don't discuss and analyze something they call the "woke movement". In an alternate universe where they did, it would be entirely appropriate to have an article about it. PBZE (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, any attempt to discuss a broader focus for the TERF (now TERF (acronym)) article than its narrow focus on only terminology has been rejected in the past, so that is a big reason why we needed an article that covered the actual movement and ideology. Regardless, it's not like that the TERF ideology/movement and gender-critical ideology/movement/feminism are two different things, they refer to the same ideology and movement, with GC being preferred by many of its adherents, especially in the UK, and TERF being perceived by some as more critical, and being the more common term in the US, continental Europe, etc. It's more like eggplant / aubergine, French fries/chips, candy/sweets, other terms that refer to the same thing. In this context TERF (acronym) is more like a hypothetical article on French fries (term). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The "TERF (acronym)" title was proposed by PBZE a couple of months ago. The way you keep going on about how things have been decided in the past and must no longer be discussed it might surprise you that Wikipedia was quite happy with the title "TERF" for four years. Nobody who opposed/opposes that move wants that as a title, as though it is all about it being an acronym. It is rather important to them that it isn't viewed as just an acronym, and there are sources and multiple dictionaries that back that up. Even folk like McKinnon, who are happy to use the word and argue it isn't a slur accept that many folk just aren't using it to mean "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" any longer, or any kind of feminism any longer, they are using it to mean something different from it being an acronym. This usage isn't a dialect thing and more than shortening "Pakistani" to four letters is a British dialect thing that folk just just get over and some moaning about. -- Colin°^Talk 18:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll also say that given that you copied the origin and expansion of the acronym from TERF_(acronym) onto this page as the first item after the lede makes me think that actually the acronym is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I've removed that content. We have a page for TERF. Turning this page into that one piecemeal is inappropriate. Void if removed (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted this change. It is completely ordinary and appropriate to have a section of an article that's a transcribed version of another page. We even have a template (Template:Excerpt) for doing this. Loki (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It is ordinary - but was completely unnecessary on this page until the recent relocation of TERF to TERF_(acronym). I think copying the acronym-explaining parts of TERF_(acronym) prominently into this page, while still maintaining that the content at TERF_(acronym) is not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is inconsistent. Void if removed (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Why? That's exactly what we would do if this was the primary topic. Otherwise we'd copy portions of this page into the other article. (See summary style) Loki (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I have raised a move review here: Wikipedia:Move_review#TERF_(acronym). Apologies, I have never done this before so I'm not sure what the policy is on notification where this affects multiple pages, but since the discussion has been predominantly here, I think this is fair enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Void if removed (talk • contribs) 14:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I took a wikibreak for a bit so catching up and there's too much posted since I last checked in. The opening sentence of the reply to me -- "We have sourcing that GCF is a fringe view" -- just sums up to me where editors here are going wrong. You only have sourcing that a handful of writers, all of whom are explicitly and strongly hostile to gender critical views, think or hope or believe that it is a fringe view. Which is no better than quoting a handful of political pundits who think or hope or believed that Brexit was a fringe idea. These are personal opinions, not hard data. You have no sources, none whatsoever, whose authors attempt to determine, in the population, whether this viewpoint is fringe. The closest we have are several polls in the US and UK that indicate that the population is evenly split between viewpoints that are absolutely in alignment with gender critical feminism (male and female are fixed at birth, there are spaces/events for women were trans women should be excluded, so-called "trans women" aren't actually "women" -- they are "men", etc) and viewpoints that are more trans supportive and progressive. I have not found a source that joins the dots on that, though. But in addition to confusing personal opinions (which magically just happen to align with editor personal opinions I would guess) with facts, we are also confusing academic thought and publications with societal views. Academics think all sorts of things and generally they have to be disagreeable to get published. Nobody gets published for writing thoughts that are what everyone else is already thinking. Some academic writing attempts to collect data and information and inform the reader about the world. But other writing is where the author thinks their own clever thoughts and expresses them for you to consider. In this field, we have been generally citing the latter but acting as though it is the former. All an encyclopaedia can do with the latter is attribute these clever thoughts, bearing in mind due weight.

In the UK, in 2016 we had a referendum on Brexit. The experts considered the anti-EU side to be a fringe idea, held by "mad, swivel-eyed loons". And maybe within economic academia, the voices against the idea outnumbered those for. But when it came to the vote, a small majority voted in favour of it. Much to the complete shock of many. Analysis since then showed what an echo chamber those against Brexit were living in. Firmly convinced that since the "facts" were against it, only an idiot could be for it. And surely there aren't that many idiots. I think the same thinking has befallen this article, and some of the rent-an-opinionists we cite as sources. They believe in their hearts that only a bad person could be gender critical and surely the country or feminism or academia or whatever can't all be full of bad people. The statistics don't have such a cognitive bias

Lastly, we have the problem of academic bias. It is widely claimed, and even accepted by those opposing GCFs, that the climate in the UK does not encourage GCF academic publication. Whether journal articles or books, the publishers, universities and academics/writers themselves will face attack. Instead, such writers have found alternative publishers online and among the right-wing press. If anything, their voice is heard more than it was before. Wikipedia rightly favours academic publications for facts. But for opinions, it doesn't matter if your article expressing your opinion is published in some obscure journal or The Daily Telegraph. What matters for Wikipedia is whether you and your opinions have any weight. Are people talking and writing about what you wrote? A primary source for a persons opinions does not establish its weight (i.e. should we mention it) no matter where that was published. And it doesn't magically turn an opinion into fact because the publisher is a university press. -- Colin°^Talk 13:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Essentially the unresolvably contested nature of the term should have played out on the original page. That is the forum for "some academics say x, opinion writers in the telegraph say y" or somesuch. By sidelining it and redirecting TERF here, that's been undermined. It isn't exactly a WP:POVFORK, but it feels similar.

The ongoing move review looks certain to endorse with no prejudice for a fresh request.

My concern is that the consensus for the original move was localised and unevidenced with the primary outcome of disrupting this page without discussion, but that a fresh attempt to move back will likely produce no consensus (as these endless debates have) and thus the status quo ante cannot be restored. Void if removed (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Noting that as of yesterday there is now a news source who has clearly googled "TERF", got this page, and copy-pasted from the lede for this page to describe what "TERF" means: https://news.yahoo.com/jim-dey-terf-battle-urbana-145200301.html

What is a TERF? It stands for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" and constitutes "a movement that opposes what it refers to as 'gender ideology.'" Confused? Let's try again. That's the "concept of gender identity and transgender rights, especially gender self-determination." Members of the gender-critical movement believe that "biological sex cannot be changed."

The article then has to go on to explain in its own words that TERF isn't a neutral descriptor, but contentious, and derogatory. In fact, the whole subject of the article is that it a "no TERFs" sign in a shop window is discriminatory.

Despite claims that this article is WP:MAINTOPIC at least one recent article seems to have been ill-served by that. Void if removed (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Opening phrasing discussion

Proposed revision was

• "Gender critical feminists believe that biological sex is immutable from birth and reject the idea of sex or gender as a social construct. Broadly speaking, they reject the validity of transgender identities."

Reverted by @Sweet6970 First of all, I object to the phrasing that my edit "makes no sense," it's rude and doesn't imply good faith on your end, or implies bad faith on my end. As stated in my edit description, the proposed wording better aligns with the citation on that sentence:

• "First, they reject ‘sex as a social construct’ by summarising the biological evolution of sex and the diversity of sex phenotypes in the natural world, in reference to foundational male and female roles. "

The current phrasing saying "biological sex is real" is not a useful or neutral description of their beliefs, as no one disputes the existence of biological sex. Implying that opponents of GC believe sex isn't "real" violates NPOV, unless there are citations showing that they do not believe in the existence of biological sex. The disagreement between GC and anti-GCs is primarily around whether biological sex is immutable and whether sex or gender is a social construct, as per the source. Obviously, no one objects to the existence of XX or XY chromosomes and so on. The dispute is really about whether sex at birth determines gender. As such, the phrasing is more balanced by focusing on the primary disagreement they have with opponents. Though GCs may claim that their belief is "sex is real", it's not our duty to repeat their beliefs word for word but rather use RS to describe them neutrally.

If you would like to include the idea behind "sex is real", I suggest using phrasing such as "they believe sex can be concretely defined" or something more specific. "Sex is important" can remain in the phrasing, as it's described in detail in the main article, though I also have concerns about that phrase's neutrality. "Sex is real" however is not expanded upon anywhere and that phrase doesnt appear in the source either. Ashvio (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

There is not much in it but I do see the proposed change as a small improvement. (I'd leave out "Broadly speaking", though.) I share the concern that "sex is real" is not a meaningful statement without further explanation. Depending on what one intends by it, it can be a very bland statement of one of several uncontested truths or it can be a euphemism/dog-whistle for some highly contentious ideas that the speaker might wish not to state too openly. We should avoid using it in Wikivoice as it is so ambiguous. Of course, we can mention that it is used as GC catchphrase and it's fine in a quotation. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Apparently there are people who do dispute the existence of biological sex. But the more common argument is over whether binary sex is socially constructed (and to say that it is gets unhelpfully summarised as "sex is not real"). I have added a clause and a reference to the article body to mention this. I think this part of your edit is half right: ...reject the idea of sex or gender as a social construct. GCs do reject the idea of sex as a social construct, but do not reject the idea of gender as a social construct (quite the opposite). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

That article you linked is pretty clearly a non-scientist strawmanning his opponents. Part of his definition of "biological sex is real" is "there are only two sexes" (which is just false), and he can't offer a coherent opposing position but rather asserts that anyone who disagrees with him doesn't think sex is real and is therefore wrong.

As for your actual edit, I think you've got it backwards. GCs think sex is (physically) real but they reject gender as a social construct and therefore "not real". They treat all mention of gender past physical bodies the same way other feminists treat gender roles, and seem to believe that physical bodies have an essential sex that can't be changed. Loki (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

At base, gender critical views are commonly understood in UK law as:

the belief that sex is biological and immutable, people cannot change their sex and sex is distinct from gender-identity.

This is to my mind a neutral definition from an authoritative, unbiased source, and I'd favour this wording or words to that effect, rather than straying into more ambiguous areas like whether or not it can be concretely defined.

Gender-critical feminism additionally adds upon that (from Sex and Gender: A Contemporary Reader):

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 theory and traditional conservative views about gender roles (Stock 2021; Lawford Smith, 2022). This position still accommodates a wide range of views but puts gender-critical feminists in opposition to people who acknowledge the reality of sex but repudiate feminism.

Which is the key distinction between "gender critical" views and the "gender critical feminism" from which its name derives.

As for the rest, when you say "no-one is saying", the problem is that this whole thing gets complicated by different opinions of what people mean by "sex", and what people mean by "real".

When scholars take the view that sex is a social construct (a la Butler, Hines etc) are they saying sex isn't "real"? Or do they have a different conception of what "real" is?

Delphy theorised sex as coming from gender: sexed differences are read through gender, not the other way around. [...] "Feminists seem to want to abolish hierarchy and even sex roles, but not difference itself. They want to abolish the contents but not the container." [...] As feminist theory entered the 1990s, more scholars joined Delphy in her task to eradicate the container as well as spilling its contents. Judith Butler’s work thus explored sex, not just gender, as a socially constructed concept

And

As the sex/gender binary was disturbed so too was the binary of male/female

Butler etc argue that sex as a binary is itself a product of gender, and gendered social practices. Is that saying it isn't real? Perhaps socially constructed things are still "real" in a sense, but it is using the word "sex" to mean something immaterial, and challenging the male/female binary means redefining it in ways that no longer refer to gamete size as they do in every other anisogamous species.

When large, established, influential charities like ActionAid and Amnesty both stated there is no such thing as a biologically female body was that denying sex is real?

When Chase Strangio of the ACLU said there's no such thing as a male body, and that to name somebody as "male" is an ideological position, not a fact, was that saying that sex isn't real?

Few outright say "sex isn't real" but confusing "normative expectations of sexed bodies" with "sex", freely using sex words for gender, and calling male/female ideological claims is IMO muddying the waters. Void if removed (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

How about just:

Gender critical feminists believe that sex is biological and immutable

With the extra cite to https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/employment-tribunal-rulings-on-gender-critical-beliefs-in-the-workplace/ ? Void if removed (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Void, wrt the full parliament quote above, I think the "people cannot change their sex" isn't necessary as that's what "immutable" means. But shouldn't we also include "sex is distinct from gender-identity." So we end up with "Gender critical feminists believe that sex is biological, immutable and distinct from gender identity." -- Colin°^Talk 16:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Good point, but I was only talking about the first part of the sentence, so it would be in full:

Gender critical feminists believe that sex is biological and immutable, whilst being critical of gender, including both gender identity and gender roles.

Because it goes on to mention gender identity, I'm not sure it tracks well as:

Gender critical feminists believe that sex is biological, immutable and distinct from gender identity, whilst being critical of gender, including both gender identity and gender roles.

Because of the repetition? But maybe it does and I'm overthinking it. Void if removed (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I think including the quote from the source that they reject the idea of sex or gender as a social construct is useful and informative Ashvio (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, I think "distinct from gender identity" is not a correct assessment of their beliefs, as they believe "gender identity" is not a valid concept to begin with and that only sex determines what others call gender. Ashvio (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

They do not reject the idea of gender as a social construct. Nor do they say that sex "determines" gender". They explicitly reject that, see here:

Gender is not determined by sex

They reject the idea of sex as a social construct. They maintain gender is a social construct, and are critical of it, hence the name.

This dispute is largely about whether or not sex can be theorised as distinct from gender.

The GCF view of the Butlerian perspective is:

Gender, sex and sexuality are an intertwined socially constructed system of power. Thjs system is variously named “heteronormativity” or “the gender binary” (Butler) or “hetero/sexuality” (MacKinnon). In both cases it is considered that “sex”, “gender”, and “sexuality”, are intertwined parts of one system and cannot be meaningfully disentangled, although the emphasis is on the priority of “sexuality”. [...]. The division of humans into “male/man” “female/woman” is taken to be an artefact of this system of power.

The extent to which this perspective accepts "sex" to be real, it considers the binary male/female nature of sex to be social constructs - an artefact of heteronormative power - which is inseparable from gender, and that by challenging both the division of humans into male/female and also the link between male/female and man/woman (viz: sex and gender are both spectra and indivisible), greater liberation for all can be achieved.

This conflicts with the GCF perspective which is that while sexed gender norms should be challenged, male/female actually are material, binary and immutable, and that obfuscating that acts to the detriment of female people, who can no longer be named or protected on the basis of their actual sex. That is what GCFs mean by "sex is real".

These are opposing viewpoints, and both see the other as reifying the power structures they seek to challenge, so it is an intractible conflict. Void if removed (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The source you provided actually provides 4 different viewpoints from GCs, without qualifying how common each viewpoint is, including one where they belief sex is strictly the same as gender. All the sources I've seen for how GCs operate in practice shows that of those 4 viewpoints, GCs use sex and gender interchangeably, and deny the validity of socially constructed genders that are different from sex. For example, gender criticals will often refer to trans women as "men" or "males" interchangeably.

See the way GCs described a trans women in a legal case in the US:

“Simply, Aimee Stephens is a man. He wanted to wear a skirt while at work, and his ‘gender identity’ argument is an ideology that dictates that people who wear skirts must be women, precisely the type of sex stereotyping forbidden by Price Waterhouse.”

I think it's important to describe what GC's actual beliefs are, not their stated beliefs in some literature that contradict the majority of what they actually believe. We have a duty to be descriptive of the majority opinion of the group (WP:DUE), not to repeat word for word what they "theoretically" believe. I think this example of their beliefs being used as a legal argument shows exactly what I mean. Regardless of what they might write in literature, the core of GC ideology is that gender == sex == sex assigned at birth. Ashvio (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

No, the source provides 4 different viewpoints on sex and gender, only one of which is the "gender-critical feminist" viewpoint. They do not use sex and gender interchangably. The whole entire argument is that they consider them separate.

The full quote:

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.

This accords with the intro to Sex and Gender: A Contemporary Reader and multiple other sources. I don't agree that an amicus brief is relevant to feminist philosophy, but you are misunderstanding what is being said.

They are objecting to the idea "that people who wear skirts must be women".

The idea that it is women who wear skirts is a gendered social norm. That is what they are critical of.

GCFs are to one degree or another gender abolitionists. They separate sex from gender in order to argue that gender is harmful and should be as far as possible dismantled.

See Finn Mackay's (not a gender-critical feminist at all) "Female Masculinities":

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.

Equating sex and gender is the very thing that they are critical of.

It is Butler and so on who argue sex and gender are inseparable, in that gendered social norms precede and create sex.

See Stephen Whittle: "Sex Changes?" (2007)

In the 1990s Butler (1993) argued that sex, the "matter" of the body was produced through language discourse and institutions - a set of "regulatory norms" which precede and exceed the sexed body. Butler argued that rather than existing independently, bodily "sex" was a "regulatory practice that produces the bodies it governs" (1993: 1).

Void if removed (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• " Gender is a social system of norms, roles and values which functions to oppress women on the basis of their sex. "

This is not the commonly accepted definition of gender, which is not specific to women or a system but rather an identity of a specific person. We should use the commonly accepted definition of gender when determining what their beliefs are. Rather than relying on the exact words of sources, deconstruct and analyze meaning from the source and apply it to the WP:COMMONNAME definitions of sex and gender. Academic definitions can differ wildly even wtihin academia (such as the academic definition of racism) and we should write for people unfamiliar with them.

I'll make a formal argument below:

Definitions:

• Gender includes the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of being a man, woman, or other gender identity.
• Sex is the biological trait that determines whether a sexually reproducing organism produces male or female gametes.

Discussion

1. You can summarize GC beliefs based on all of the sources and their actions and legal statements as "trans women and trans men are not valid identities."
   • Given that a sentence with basically this wording is in the opening paragraph uncontested, I would assume it's consensus among editors that sentence is true. That is to say, they believe the gender of a trans woman is immutably male from birth dependent on their sex (and vice versa).
2. This would imply that GCs belief sex at birth determines gender, when using the common definition of gender.
   • They may believe a different definition of gender is different from sex, but we should describe their beliefs using the common definitions rather than academic or esoteric definitions of gender not familiar to readers.
3. Finally, believing sex determines gender means they believe sex and gender are fundamentally inseparable, and in practice, the same. Every person born male is eternally a "man" and every person born female is eternally a "woman."
   • Please refer to earlier citation on GC org explicitly calling a trans woman a "man" for evidence that this is their commonly held belief.

Next Point

• "Gender non-conformity is a normal part of human existence but does not change your sex."

GNC is a completely different topic/discussion from gender itself. Basically what this is implying is that being a "male" and dressing as a "woman" does not stop you from being a "male" and a "man." GCs do not believethat GNC trans individuals who are AMAB have the gender of "woman," they are basically using gender as a substitute for "gender expression" rather than the common definition

Also, your citation from Steven Whittle does not show that gender feminists believe sex and gender are interchangeable.

I would summarize this by once again pointing out the dispute between the two groups is not whether sex == gender or sex is real or gender is real. The dispute is whether sex is immutable, and that should be the focus of how we explain their beliefs. Ashvio (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the definition Void gave is a jargon GCF definition of "gender", and so to avoid creating the Frankenstein by using it without explanation, we should only use he commonly understood definition of gender in our definition.

I could see something along the lines of:

Gender-critical feminists believe that sex is inherent and unchangeable, and that gender is inherently oppressive.

But I also think that this definition applies mostly to academic gender-critical feminism, and even then mostly to the earliest versions of it from the 70s. I suspect if you asked modern GCFs to define their movement they'd say something different, and frankly I suspect they'd say something that would be too self-serving to be usable. I don't think we should rely primarily on GCF sources to define what GCF is. Loki (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

IMO, reliance on negative outsider sources is entirely how we've got ourselves into a mess where people are claiming things about GCF that aren't so. We've got sources that are explicitly talking about people they view as transphobes and carelessly describing their views because they aren't important enough to get right.

Loki can you imagine writing about any other branch of feminism or a religion/sect like Mormonism or Anglicanism and someone saying "I don't think we should rely primarily on Anglican theologians to define what Anglicanism is." I suspect, from the comparisons you've made before, that you are looking at this -ism more like sexism or racism or anti-semitism, which are written about by those who reject and disapprove of this in others. But there are key differences. Those -isms are largely rejected by society (at least, in word if not in deed) and holders to do not claim the -ism for themselves and declare its core beliefs in scholarly writing and university press books, or get asked to participate in discussions about changing the law. Indeed there are no core beliefs of sexism or racism, as it is more of an attitude that manifests in all sorts of random ways. If you want to persist in this approach, I think we need an RFC. Otherwise, please can you try to write about this dispassionately like we are describing Anglicanism or some other branch of feminism that doesn't arouse feelings.

I think if editors here want to just write about these people from an entirely dismissive and hostile perspective, they should create something like Transphobia in 21st century UK or whatever. Then the views of "TERF haters" would have dominant weight. -- Colin°^Talk 07:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

There are countless ideologies which we don't use the exact words of its purveyors' to describe their beliefs. It's often the case that that would be impossible, as their beliefs are often constructed in a manner that inherently strawman's the opposition. For example, basically every form of pseudoscience is labeled as pseudoscience on Wikipedia, but you'd be hard pressed to find a flat earther who wouldn't object to that term.

• "Those -isms are largely rejected by society (at least, in word if not in deed) and holders to do not claim the -ism for themselves and declare its core beliefs in scholarly writing and university press books, or get asked to participate in discussions about changing the law. "

This is not true. Since youre such a big fan of public polling, I suggest you take a look at polls for abortion rights, refugees, black lives matter, affirmative action, and so on. Racism and sexism are highly prominent in Western society, though not necessarily a majority. And though it's rare today, historically explicit racism was not an outlier but a feature of many academic areas of interest. See eugenics among others.

Similarly, gender critical feminists are a fringe among scholars today, and even in society I would not say many people even understand specifically GC beliefs, let alone believe all of them. Although obviously many people agree with certain things GCs say, the specific ideology of GC is not commonly held, especially not outside of the US or UK. It's like saying that because a lot of people are racist in the US, that means Nazism is not a fringe ideology, when clearly even among racist people very few in the West explicitly identify as a Nazi.

I would also point out public polling is rather contradictory at times over topics like these, especially on topics that many are not very well informed on (eg, a person with no experience with trans people in their life probably would agree birth sex == gender because that's the only thing they've experienced in life, rather than because they are a fervent GC feminist).

I wonder, do you have the same disdain for experts on Nazism who oppose the ideology as "anti-Nazis" or "negative outsider sources" that should not be considered as reliable evidence of their beliefs? It seems like this idea that we should disregard critics of an ideology merely because they are critics is not broadly applicable in an encyclopedic context. It's reasonable to deconstruct the arguments of an ideology and reframe them in a neutral manner, and many critics of an ideology often provide the best basis for doing so.

* "[racists, sexists dont] get asked to participate in discussions about changing the law."

Last point, this is also not true. There are countless states where abortion is illegal, and other discriminatory and racist things make it into the law. I don't know if you remember but a few years ago there was a guy who tried to ban Muslims from entering the country too, among other things. The recent GOP primary debates were basically a festival of "who wants to kill the most brown illegal immigrants" as well. Ashvio (talk) 08:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

To answer your question more explicitly, take another look at the eugenics article I listed. The definitions are sourced from scholarly authors who are clearly opposed to the ideology of eugenics, yet it was decided that in order to have a neutral definition this would be the best source. I dont see why the same wouldnt apply here, especially since we have already agreed that GC self-described viewpoints such as "sex is real" are not a neutral or useful explanation of their beliefs. Ashvio (talk) 09:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

You completely ignored my "at least, in word if not in deed" and ended up attacking a strawman. I'm not asking what proportion of the populations are racist or sexist (and of course it depends who you ask what degree makes one a "racist" as some might declare nearly everyone is). I'm asking what proportion think it is fine to be a racist or go as far as to self-define as one. And I'd argue that's close to zero even for orange presidents who want to ban muslims entering the country. And eugenics entirely fits my pattern for an ideology that today is entirely discredited and considered appalling.

You ask whether a naive person who was polled might end up choosing a GC belief. Well that also confirms to me what this talk page is suffering from. Those involved in trans politics or at least liberal politics, know the terminology and the opinions each group holds and so on. There's such an echo chamber of what is "correct" they've lost the understanding that this is ahead of where society currently is. For example, the moves for simplifying gender ID in the UK failed to go anywhere in England and got stymied in Scotland and are now perhaps unlikely to shift for a political generation. The US may well elect that orange president again next year and those that vote that way are quite fine with keeping trans women out of the ladies toilets.

Pro-trans beliefs are counter-intuitive in our firmly cis-normative society. Our societal default really is much closer to GC. Centuries of our societal norms, religions and literature all expect men to be men and women to be women and people not to change. Viewpoints change of course and at some point we may all consider this entirely unexpected. Like, can you imagine if you spoke to someone in 1950s Ireland that they'd have a gay unbeliever president and abortion would be legal.

Coming back to how we source beliefs. You mention pseudoscience. In the Homeopathy article, there are quite a number of homeopathic books and articles cited as sources for what homeopathy believes or its proponent/founder believes. That doesn't stop us citing other texts to say it is wrong. Citing sources written by those within an -ism or -ology doesn't compel us to "use the exact words". We wouldn't write about the blood of Jesus as though that was actually communion wine. Similarly we watch out for language like "sex is real". The pro-trans writers have their own catchphrases. "A trans woman is a woman" is loaded with "well, what do you mean by a woman", for they don't magically develop two XX chromosomes and start making eggs. Similarly we can't, in Wikivoice, repeat what the pro-trans writers say about "TERFs" being transphobic bigots. -- Colin°^Talk 13:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is incorrect for interpreting what a specific group of feminists mean by specific words in context. GCFs are essentially continuity 2nd-wave feminists, and "gender" here is not "man/woman" but "masculinity/femininity". What they mean is more like gender role.

In the words of Germaine Greer: "female is real, and that's sex, femininity is unreal, and that's gender".

Look what that page said a year or two ago:

Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to femininity and masculinity and differentiating between them.

Again: it is Butler etc who have produced the theorising that sits behind the current definition of gender on this page, ie that being a man or a woman is all about your gender and identity, rather than your sex.

The first line of that page as it stands now is "Gender includes the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of being a man, woman, or other gender identity."

GCFs reject this. That they haven't the cultural power to have their viewpoint accepted as "true" on an article on Wikipedia doesn't mean they go along with that.

They maintain that being a man or a woman is not a matter of identity but a matter of being one sex or the other, and that gender is masculine/feminine stereotypes that should be critiqued. A lot of them come from a socialist/marxist standpoint so the very idea of "identity" isn't something that maps - they are materialists, not idealists.

By contrast, the second line is: "Depending on the context, this may include sex-based social structures (i.e. gender roles) and gender expression. "

GCFs accept this and it is this that they are critical of.

Just because you think that man and woman are (or should be) gender words, doesn't mean they do.

GCs do not believe that GNC trans individuals who are AMAB have the gender of "woman,"

Yes. Not because they think sex and gender are the same, but because they think they are different, and that woman is a sex word. They don't agree that "woman" is a gender - or to the extent that it is, they say it should not be. They argue that saying "woman" is a gender reifies the sex-based stereotypes (femininity) underlying social expectations of what a "woman" should be. Void if removed (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• "GCFs reject this. That they haven't the cultural power to have their viewpoint accepted as "true" on an article on Wikipedia doesn't mean they go along with that."

Just because they reject the common definition of gender, doesn't mean we should assume readers understand what they mean by gender when we write their beliefs. If they use a different definition of gender, we should first explain that definition before explaining their critiques of gender. The opening paragraph is not the appropriate place for doing so, and we should use the opening to explain their beliefs using the common language. Any alternative definitions should be attributed with quotes and citations.

• "Again: it is Butler etc who have produced the theorising that sits behind the current definition of gender on this page, ie that being a man or a woman is all about your gender and identity, rather than your sex."

This is not true, the commonly accepted definition of gender in the dictionary refers to gender identity, and I doubt Butler or other theorists wrote that entry. While it's true Butler and other use this definition, they are not outliers in this regard. Again, their arguments are more about the fluidity of gender and sex as compared to sex assigned at birth, rather than their definitions. It's GCs who deviate from the norm on what the definition is.

• "Yes. Not because they think sex and gender are the same, but because they think they are different, and that woman is a sex word. They don't agree that "woman" is a gender - or to the extent that it is, they say it should not be. They argue that saying "woman" is a gender reifies the sex-based stereotypes (femininity) underlying social expectations of what a "woman" should be."

This is a better explanation of their beliefs that you could integrate into the article. As is, using their definition of gender without explaining it first is confusing. Ashvio (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Or you could just link "gender" here to Gender#Feminist_theory_and_gender_studies

Which says:

the term gender refers to proposed social and cultural constructions of masculinities and femininities. In this context, gender explicitly excludes reference to biological differences, to focus on cultural differences.

This is an article on feminism.

The article on evolutionary theory just uses the word "theory" without explanation and links to the scientific definition.

I don't see why that's not enough. Void if removed (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Most readers won't click on links and will assume it's linked to the common definition of gender. The common definition of a scientific theory is well known and listed in dictionaries, but the same can't be said for the academic definition of gender. It's worth explaining what exactly gender critical are criticizing on an article about them. Ashvio (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The section "Sex and terminology" explains all this. That it is buried 9/10 of the way down the page rather than being in the "Terminology" section straight after the lede is the issue.

Move that entire section up to Terminology, it doesn't belong in "Views" anyway IMO. Void if removed (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Example text

I disagree. The conflict is around the separation of sex from gender, and maintaining that sex is material, not socially constructed.

The immutability of sex is a secondary concern, but follows from its materiality.

See "From TERF to Gender Critical", Thurlow, C.

Thurlow is critical of the fact that GCFs maintain a split between gender and sex:

Further, research on the interplay between sex and gender, the biological and social, the suggested discursive nature of both, poses questions about the tenability of maintaining a stark separation between the concepts of gender and sex.

Thurlow is critical of the fact that GCFs don't accept sex is socially or discursively constructed:

It remains the case that any suggestions that 'sex/female/male' are as constructed through interpretation as anything else (as in post-structuralist thought) are met with a unified, and sometimes contemptuous, dismissal.

Thurlow criticises Kathleen Stock for sticking to a use of man/woman as sex words:

Kathleen Stock argues that man/woman are neutral and non-evaluative concepts. [..] For Stock, therefore, it is an illogical extrapolation to suggest that a biological definition of woman brings with it the 'inclusion problem' (Jenkins, 2016:394). This claim is implausible given the histories of categorisation and the work of feminists and anti-racists to illuminate the hierarchy inherent in categorisation, particularly binaries. Yet, for Stock, the rich and varied work which shows "woman' to be something more than/other than biology, has been 'potentially catastrophic' (Stock, 202la).

Thurlow criticises GCFs for dismissing critiques of sex itself:

this engagement with, but dismissal of, critiques of traditional conceptualisations of sex

Void if removed (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we actually disagree. The consequence of GC believing sex isn't a construct is that sex is immutable and unchangeable from birth. Not all opponents actually belief sex isn't a construct, many acknowledge that sex insofar as primary and secondary sexual characteristics are in fact real scientific concepts that exist in humans. What separates the list of "GCs" and "opponents of GCs" into two distinct sets (a venn diagram with no overlap) is their belief in trans identities and the validity of the ability for one to change their sex and gender. The fact the sides can't even agree on what gender means adds to the confusion. Ashvio (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I think DanielRigal and Void have some good points about the "sex is real" comment. It certainly is a catchphrase and I therefore it is too close to being a shibboleth, a wording that signals which tribe the author belongs to. Used outside of quotes but attributed to GC beliefs, it could possibly be used but only after we'd done a fair bit of explaining about what GC writers mean by it. It is too opaque jargon for the lead I think. I agree there is a danger that such a catchphrase generates in the reader a confused response as there are several meanings one could apply to that phrase that are obviously uncontestably true, as Daniel notes, and perhaps that's part of its power as propaganda. But it is an important enough slogan that it needs covered in the article. -- Colin°^Talk 16:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I suggest including it i quotation marks lower in the article rather than without quotes in the opening, along with "sex is important" Ashvio (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The closest you could say any anti GC believes to "sex isn't real" is "gender isn't real", which is a very different argument since they consider gender as a social construct distinct from primary/secondary sexual characteristics associated with biological sex. The main point im making is that "sex is real" oversimplifies the arguments in both sides in an uninformative manner Ashvio (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Updated the wording based on this discussion. Reply here if you have thoughts before reverting; I'll reply as soon as I can. Ashvio (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Reply to Ashvio: to say ‘sex is immutable from birth’ would only make sense if sex was mutable in the womb. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Sex immutable from birth does not imply it's mutable before birth. But sex is assigned at birth, legally speaking, so it's significant that it's considered immutable from birth Ashvio (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Restructuring article discussion

@Void if removed I agree with moving the definition of gender/sex up. However, that still better belongs in the "Views" section. How do you feel about moving up the Views section to below terminology? I'm not even sure if the terminology section serves much of a purpose right now, to be honest, since it just describes what TERF is. Could be combined in potentially with another section. Ashvio (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Personally I think the definition of "TERF" shouldn't even be duplicated on this page, but either way if "views" goes after the lede with "sex and terminology" as the first view, that is fine by me. I just think that the detailed description of what they mean by sex and gender should be the very first thing after the lede, because it is clearly the most important thing in explaining what this "ism" is actually about. Void if removed (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)