Jump to content

Talk:Gender-critical feminism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

title

[edit]

is there any reason why it's titled "gender critical feminism" instead of "TERF?" it seems like the latter is much more commonly in use. I understand there are many who don't like this name, but there are also quite a few -- a much bigger population, arguably -- that would like to call them TERFs. Hirocho28 (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

‘TERF’ is a derogatory term. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)TERF is even more of a misnomer than GCF as the vast majority of GCs are not Radical Feminists or even influenced by Radical Feminism. (Yes, I know there are some notable exceptions.) Also, they allege that "TERF is a slur" and we don't want to waste more time on that noise. We have to go by the name the Reliable Sources use most (see WP:COMMONNAME) as opposed to what might be more commonly used on the street or more popular among editors here. Those sources tend to say "Gender Critical" (with or without a hyphen, with or without capitalisation but increasingly more often without "feminism"). I'm not going to formally propose it, because I know that consensus is impossible here, but my preference would be for the article to be called "Gender-Critical movement" so that it can encompass the whole movement, without the title saying what its connection to feminism is, because that is far too nuanced a topic to capture correctly in an article title. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the top of this talk page, you'll see there was a discussion on this exact question back in Jan-Feb 2024. I urge we do not re-open it (-: AndyGordon (talk) 09:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have to say gender critical (and nothing else) seems to be becoming the more common name. LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this whole article needs to be deleted from Wikipedia, it is just a biased opinion piece. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:7A01:C940:AB1E:B2DF:F496 (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, if I could choose any title I would prefer to title this article trans-exclusionary radical feminism. I think the sourcing definitely exists for it, especially in the scholarly sources that Wikipedia mainly relies on. IMO the current title is a compromise to avoid having to argue a question that is mostly pointless, and which at article creation would probably have caused objections to the existence of the article in the first place.
While I agree that the main purpose of the group is anti-trans activism, and that their connection to actual advocacy for women's rights is increasingly tenuous, I'd strongly oppose taking "feminism" out of the title for two reasons:
  • The ideology of the group is based very strongly in an alleged concern for women's rights, or at least women's safety. It's not borne out by facts or their own behavior or anything like that but it sure is a key component of their ideology that that's what they believe they're doing.
  • "Gender-critical movement" is just a synonym for the broader anti-gender movement.
Incidentally these arguments are related: the main differentiation between gender-critical feminism and the anti-gender movement is the claim to feminism. The broader anti-gender movement tends to be anti-feminist, or at least heavily skeptical of feminism, while gender-critical feminism tends to be at least in theory very pro-feminist, though they often believe that they're the only real feminists, other feminists are imposters because they won't fight against trans rights, and that the anti-gender movement despite often being openly anti-feminist are key allies in the "fight for women's rights" (against trans people). Loki (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. This isn't meant to be the final argument, but "TERF" is a vastly more popular search term than "Gender-critical feminism" and I'm fairly confident the sources will follow. I don't think we should give a second of credence to anyone arguing it's a slur. It's a word the movement chose for themselves that stuck. – MW(t•c) 21:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TERFism isn't a bad name, but also I think gender critical movement is a better one. Snokalok (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Not all gender-critical feminists are "radical", so the R in TERF is sometimes inaccurate for the topic (even leaving aside the fact that TERF can be a slur, as cited with the Oxford English Dictionary in this article). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:904C:7477:47E3:558 (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a lot of people believe a lot of thing, 2A00:23C4:B3AE:DF01:EC67:B074:D91:42C0 (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is the supreme court statement on the equality act 2010, that it defines women as biological women, going to be mentioned in this article, as the campaign to have this authoritative well respected judgement recognised was won by Gender Critical campaigners. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:DF01:EC67:B074:D91:42C0 (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should mention the UK court statement, and possibly also the polling that suggests that many members of the public (in the US and UK at least) support some of the basic ideas within gender critical feminism. I will have a bash when I get a chance. StupidLookingKid (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to the first part, at least in principle, but please be very careful with any polling bit. It is very easy to fall into WP:OR or WP:SYNTH even without meaning to. We would need a Reliable Source interpreting the polls and we can't go beyond what they say. If in any doubt then it is probably best to leave the polls out. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yougov Where does the British public stand on transgender rights in 2024/25? | YouGov
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/51545-where-does-the-british-public-stand-on-transgender-rights-in-202425
This Yougov polling gives some stats, it is regarded as a reliable source. It includes results like "Most Britons are again opposed to allowing transgender people to take part in gendered sporting events, and transgender women in particular. While 60% say trans men should not be allowed in men’s sports events, this rises to 74% for trans women at women’s competitions." 2A00:23C4:B3AE:E501:7114:A859:CCBE:5D9B (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But they don't link this to the Gender-Critical position so it would be WP:SYNTH for us to do so. DanielRigal (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it is still in line with the gender critical viewpoint. So it shows the context of popular debate, 2A00:23C4:B3AE:E701:C0E9:7D3D:7D13:20BE (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the polling indicates that the Gender critical position is not some position on the extremes, but on many issues is aligned unlike it's critics, to the moderate centerground of the vast majority of popular opinion in the United Kingdom. As that particular poll shows. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:E701:4527:F8E1:6741:7735 (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"general tenets"

[edit]

It looks like we need to talk about the "general tenets" bit. This has been added by two people and removed by two people. Let's not get into an edit war over it. The diff we are talking about is this: diff. This removes part, but not all, of what StupidLookingKid added.

I can see why it was removed. "general tenets" is a bit too vague to be meaningful and I'm not convinced that the sources support it anyway. The WRC source is a blog post from an organisation without an article. OK. It is a statement posted to a blog so maybe that's more than just a blog post but are WRC RS for anything other than their own opinions? It looks like a Primary Source that can't be used for more general statements. Are their opinions even notable? The Fawcett Society source might be OK if it supported the claim but I'm pretty sure that, if anything, it does the opposite. Also, they are only talking about their own positions so maybe that's also Primary?

Neither source contains the phrase "gender-critical" (with or without a hyphen) and, to me at least, the Fawcett Society statement, bland though it is, seems to be leaning much more away from than towards the GC position. Maybe other people read it differently but that's the point. We would have to interpret the source as supporting, or not supporting, the claim because it doesn't directly say anything about what is being claimed. It is WP:SYNTH to extract anything from this, nevermind something as broad as "its general tenets are supported by others". Do we even know which "general tenets" we are talking about? I favour removing it again. If anybody wants to replace it with a more specific and meaningful statement that is unambiguously supported by at least one solid RS then that's probably OK. Let's not make it too verbose though. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've talked about the problems with it better than I could have done. It's also notable that the lead is meant to be a summery of the body and we currently don't have a section covering support from the feminist movement. LunaHasArrived (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lack of the use of the term "gender-critical" makes it clear WP:SYNTH / WP:OR - "general tenets" according to who? It just reflects one editor's personal opinions that the things expressed there are the general tenets of gender-critical feminism, which isn't appropriate. Even the court part has the same problem. It's extremely important to be cautious when using primary sources like this - we cannot perform any sort of interpretation or analysis ourselves; we can only report or summarize exactly what they say. If we want to say that something reflects gender-critical beliefs, we need a source overtly saying as much in as many words. --Aquillion (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to say, as the person who added the points being discussed, I am grateful for the revision. I am still relatively novice at editing, I appreciate the steer in the comments on this, and I apologize if I overstepped re OR.
    I do think the lead feels a little unbalanced (and possibly overlong). However I take the point that we would need relevant citations in the main body before they appear in the lead. Re "general tenets," I accept that was vague wording. I was trying to refer to the beliefs listed in the second line of the article. StupidLookingKid (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I didn't do this before but when I mentioned leadfollowsbody in my edit that was a reference to Wikipedia:LEADFOLLOWSBODY a useful editing tip. LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks - will have a good read before going further! StupidLookingKid (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist: Regarding your edit summary: I was not ‘edit warring to reintroduce disputed content’- I was reverting to a version which at that point was agreed by 3 out of 4 editors. You should not make accusations in edit summaries. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content was added innapropriately (OR/SYNTH in the lead unsupported by body)[1], it was reverted by an editor noting neither source supported it (as neither mentions GC feminism)[2], you-readded it claiming both the sources did[3], it was reverted again[4] noting it was OR and the lead must follow the body, and you re-added it again.[5].
WP:EW: An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. - Twice in a row, you restored a new version which was reverted by other editors that you should absolutely know was unfit for the lead.
I was reverting to a version which at that point was agreed by 3 out of 4 editors. - At no point did "3 out of 4 editors" agree upon that version. A new editor added it (1-0), Snokalok reverted (1-1), you put it back(2-1), Luna reverted (2-2), you put it back (2-2), DanielRigal opposed it here (2-3) right before I reverted (I'd missed that when I reverted) so (2-4) opposing. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YFNS: the text was added at 10:45. Snokalok then deleted it at 10:57. I reverted it back in at 12:05. Snokalok posted on my Talk page at 12:30 that the revert was a mistake. LHA reverted me at 13:54. I reverted LHA at 14:23. DanielRigal started this discussion at 15:31. At the time when I reverted LHA, 3 out of 4 editors (including myself) supported the version including the text Sweet6970 (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually am on the fence now Snokalok (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to discuss editor behaviour at this venue. Let's stop and keep this talk page focused on the actual Wikipedia page. LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender-critical_feminism&oldid=1286979447"