Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Gender-critical feminism

NPOV

Thread retitled from "NPOV is a super important rule, and I don't think it is operating too well here".

Even if TERFs are assholes -- sure sounds like it -- that should have absolutely zero influence when we write. We want readers to walk away from any article with no clue about what Wikipedia itself thinks about the subject. I did not walk away with that impression. There's too much material on criticism. It's quite clear to me, reading the article, that the Wikipedia doesn't much like these people. It should not be at all clear.

People coming to any article want to know about the entity. People coming to an article about entity X want to know "What is entity X? Is it a political/cultural movement, or just people writing books and articles? What's it history? When did it start? Is it defunct? Were there precursors? Who are some of the main thinkers and leaders in it? Do they have a political party, and if so do they run candidates, and if so how do they fare? How many adherents? Is it a fringe thing?" Lots of other things like that. Of course criticism should be included, but it should be a distinctly secondary subject.

I get that a lot of editors don't like TERFs, and with good reason I guess, but editors who feel strongly about a fraught subject and can't or don't want to be ice-cold even-handed about it should work on other subjects, not to be harsh but it is what it is. If you can be ice-cold even-handed, that's different. (For instance, I detest Jim Jordan, but I took out a bunch of over-emphasis of attacks on him, because of course how I feel about any entity has nothing to do with my work here. Be like me.)

We don't want to see, let's say, an Israeli chauvinists writing about the Gaza war unless they can put aside any bias. Right? Look at Bolshevism, which is hated by many millions of people. There's plenty to criticize, and it helps put the entity in perspective, and it's important to include, but it's under 10% of the article. "Under 10%" seems like a good goal for any article, granted that might not apply here.

Generally, criticism is not intertwined a whole lot into our exposition on the subject, but rather put in a separate section towards the end called "Criticism" or something. That's not happening here.

There's work to be done. Herostratus (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have specific proposals for alterations to the article? Sweet6970 (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the article too closely, but just because someone thinks there's too much material on criticism does not mean the article itself is biased. Neutrality on Wikipedia means reflecting as fairly as possible the predominant views of published, reliable sources. If coverage in reliable sources happens to be unfavorable to the subject, then the article reflects that. Without pointing to specific sources and how they are used, this complaint seems to be nothing more than personal dislike. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But surely there are many people, who do not criticise Gender Critical beliefs, who have a neutral or positive view of the beliefs system, why have you not put them in the introduction, and rest of the article, this article is so lacking in neutrality it is distressing. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:5F01:D515:DB0B:1790:6E33 (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed tag

AndyGordon has asked for a citation for the sentence:Gender-critical feminists reject transgender identities and consider the concepts of gender identity and gender self-identification to be inherently oppressive constructs tied to gender roles. There is already a citation at the end of the paragraph, to Sex and Gender pp1-15, which covers this. For instance, on p6 there is: This [the view of gender identity theorists] conflicts with the gender-critical argument that gender is oppressive because it restricts both men and women to certain roles and ascribes low value to the roles that women are meant to perform. Far from being an innate or freely chosen identity, gender is a tool of oppression. So I don’t think a further citation is necessary, and I would delete the ‘citation needed’ tag. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That quote from S&G supports the second half of the sentence. The start says: "Gender-critical feminists reject transgender identities". Is there support for that?
Also, the third sentence concerning concrete beliefs, as stated in the Forstater case, I think, seems more prominent in the sources than the second sentence. I'd be minded to swap them in the intro. AndyGordon (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The text of the whole paragraph on p6 is:
Regardless of whether gender-identity theorists treat gender as an innate, fixed identity or one that is freely chosen and fluid, they believe that society should give greater weight to gender identity than to biological sex. The supporters of gender identity theory argue that sex is oppressive because it is binary: everyone is obliged to identify as female or male. According to this view, this binary system oppresses both women and men, especially those whose gender identity differs from their sex. This conflicts with the gender-critical argument that gender is oppressive because it restricts both men and women to certain roles and ascribes low value to the roles that women are meant to perform. Far from being an innate or freely chosen identity, gender is a tool of oppression.
On reflection, I think that the basic point is not that g-c feminists reject transgender identities, but that they are critical of gender identities/gender identity theory. This, logically, means that transgender identities are rejected, or considered to be less important than sex, but this is, in a way, a side effect of the basic view of g-c feminism on the relationship between gender and sex. So I would change the wording of the sentence to Gender-critical feminists are critical of gender identities and consider the concepts of gender identity and gender self-identification to be inherently oppressive constructs tied to gender roles.
I agree to your suggestion to move the sentence They believe that sex is biological, immutable, and binary, and that people should only be identified based on their biological sex rather than their gender identity. so that it is before the (changed) sentence Gender-critical feminists are critical of gender identities and consider the concepts of gender identity and gender self-identification to be inherently oppressive constructs tied to gender roles. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sweet6970 Sounds good - thanks. I don't have time to make that edit right now, but will as soon as I can. Or please go ahead if you have time. Would be good to put some of the content from S&G into a quote field in the citation. AndyGordon (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be removing the tag because stuff in the lead doesn't need to be cited if it's in the body, and the body firmly supports it. We have a whole section on GCF views of gender transition, which are uniformly negative and often in hyperbolic terms. Another term for the movement itself is "trans-exclusionary radical feminism", which makes it pretty clear, in addition to everything else, that they do in fact reject transgender identities.
I think that Sweet's proposals are best for the body, not the lead. We should not be that verbose in the lead. Loki (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the swap. I'm going to insert the rephrased sentence as per @Sweet6970. It's not any longer than what we've had. What if you reword as you see fit, @LokiTheLiar, and we can discuss. I think the phrase "reject transgender identities" to be rather vague (is "reject" at level of belief, or is it exclusion from physical spaces?), and I don't see sources that directly support it. We have used the TERF phrase already, so no need to repeat here. AndyGordon (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe reject transgender identities is clearer, and I also believe taking out reject transgender identities for critical of gender identities is an WP:NPOV violation considering the ample evidence of the stronger wording in the rest of the article.
That GCFs reject transgender identities is maybe the single most important piece of information about them. It's definitional. It's the common thing that unites a bunch of people that don't share that many other beliefs: certainly there's not a ton that Mary Daly and JKR would agree on other than rejecting the concept of trans people. They are often called "trans-exclusionary radical feminists" for this exact reason. Loki (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @LokiTheLiar, which sources in particular do we have for this claim that gc feminists reject transgender identities? AndyGordon (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Among many others, any source in the scholarly analysis section. But if you're gonna continue to WP:STONEWALL, here are three copied directly from the article:
  • [1], which we quote as saying transness has been and is the object of deep hostility within some marginalized forms of feminism.
  • [2], which explicitly is a comparison of trans-inclusive and trans-exclusionary feminism over time.
  • [3], which should be a fairly obvious source for this just from the title alone.
But to be clear, not just these three. I would estimate half the sources in the article would support the statement in question somewhere. Loki (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LokiTheLiar: Asking a question is not WP:STONEWALL. Please do not make unfounded allegations – this is inflammatory, particularly in a Contentious Topic. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't stonewalling, what's stonewalling is asking the same question after it's already been answered, and also when the answer is all over the article. Loki (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I spent some time looking at pp1-15 (the intro) to Sex and Gender, looking for something which would support the statement ‘reject transgender identities’ and could not find anything. I also looked at Chapter 4 of Material Girls, where Kathleen Stock takes apart the concept of gender identity. But I could not find anything which says that she rejects transgender identities. I reiterate AndyGordon’s question as to what sources you are relying on for your statement that rejection of transgender identities is ‘definitional’. In the meantime, you should self-revert, as your edit was against consensus. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let people know, I've notified all the Wikiprojects above about this discussion. Loki (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To Loki – I have tried looking at the sources you have provided. I do not have access to any of them. There is an abstract for the article in the Journal of Lesbian Studies; it is not at all obvious from the abstract that ‘rejection of transgender identities’ is mentioned in the article. There is no abstract available to me for the Transgender Studies article. And the article in the Economist is an opinion piece ‘part of a two-week discussion on trans issues’, so it is not suitable as a source. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We quote material from the top source sufficient to source the claim in the article already. I posted a quote which itself sources the claim, but here's much more extensive quotes:

We suggest that, in this case, the TERF was phantasmatic. This is not to say that the TERF does not exist. Let us be clear: TERFs exist and transphobia is real. Violence against trans people occurs with depressing regularity. Some self-identified feminists are transphobic; a simple search for “gender skeptical” demonstrates how much transexclusionary feminism exists.

and then later

The truth is that transness has been and is the object of deep hostility within some marginalized forms of feminism. Skepticism among earlier anti-trans feminists, such as Janice Raymond (1979), about transwomen being “real” women has morphed into JK Rowling’s Twitter feed where she has insisted that transwomen are not women (Gardner, 2020). These ideas are, of course, deplorable, but they are also quite fringe within feminist studies and activism in the US. As trans studies scholar Grace Lavery notes, TERFs are “a minority of a minority of feminists” (Tiffany, 2020).

The full text of the second source appears to be available and the whole article is about the history of conflict between trans-exclusionary radical feminism and trans-inclusive radical feminism (and arguing that the most influential radfems were in fact trans inclusive).
I'd call the third source analysis, not opinion, but honestly it doesn't matter, I can pull three more from the article easily:
  • There's this: [4], which we quote as saying despite efforts to obscure the point, gender critical feminism continues to rely on transphobic tropes, moral panics and essentialist understandings of men and women. These factors also continue to link trans-exclusionary feminism to anti-feminist reactionary politics and other 'anti-gender' movements
  • There's this: [5], which we already use to source similar claims later in the article, and which says outright:

Groups like WoLF are commonly referred to as “trans-exclusionary radical feminists,” or TERFs. They alternate among several theories that all claim that trans women are really men, who are the ultimate oppressors of women. Most of their ideas — like that trans women are a threat to cisgender women’s safety — are based on cherry-picked cases of horrific behavior by a small number of trans people. Above all else, their ideology doesn’t allow for trans people to have self-definition or any autonomy over their gender expression.

  • And this: [6], which has quotes suitable to cite the claim several times in just the abstract.
There's tons of these. I could easily find five or six more already in the article (and even more if you allow for marginal cites like that some particular GCF is anti-trans), which is why I'm so insistent on this and why I frankly doubt your good faith here if you think there doesn't exist a citation for this claim. Loki (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed you doubt my good faith. I'm trying to understand what "reject transgender identities" means and how it is sourced. You're quoting several sources saying a range of things. Is the crux of it "the claim that trans women are really men" that you mention a couple of times? What if we used that phrase instead of "reject transgender identities", which I think many readers such as myself would find somewhat ambiguous? I'm sure there are sources that would back this up as a belief of GC feminists, although I've not checked. Or maybe "GC feminists believe that trans women are not women but really men"? I think a direct statement like that is easier to grasp. AndyGordon (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It includes that but is more than that. So for one they don't believe trans men are really men either, or that non-binary people are really non-binary, and they also oppose trans rights and trans activism in general. I feel like the lead already does a good job of summarizing this: it already says they reject transgender identities and then goes on to define the more important details with They believe that sex is biological, immutable, and binary, and that people should only be identified based on their biological sex rather than their gender identity.
One could also say that they are anti-trans or oppose transgender rights, but those wordings implicitly take a position against them, and the wording on this page is already a compromise between the view that this page should present their views as they are in the sources about them (which are mostly strongly negative) and the view that their beliefs should be presented as if by them. So absent those options I also wouldn't mind connecting the two sentences more clearly, such that They believe that sex is... is more clearly expanding on reject transgender identities and consider the concepts of gender identity and gender self-identification to be inherently oppressive constructs. Loki (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, how about the following edit for clarity:
Gender-critical feminists reject transgender identities, in the sense for example of saying that trans women are men [cite VOX]. They consider the concepts of gender identity and gender self-identification to be inherently oppressive constructs tied to gender roles [citation to S&G]
And we add citation to the Vox article by Burns which says TERFs ... alternate among several theories that all claim that trans women are really men, who are the ultimate oppressors of women.
This would resolve the need for the citation needed tag that started this. AndyGordon (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My perspective is that the citation needed tag wasn't needed, and that we're only editing for clarity of phrasing.
So here's my proposal:
Gender-critical feminists reject transgender identities and believe that people should only be identified based on their biological sex rather than their gender identity, such as saying that trans women are men. They believe that sex is biological, immutable, and binary, and consider the concepts of gender identity and gender self-identification to be inherently oppressive constructs tied to gender roles.
I mostly am for just reordering things but I do see the value in having one example. Loki (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Loki, I'm not completely happy with first sentence because people should only be identified based on their biological sex rather than their gender identity is too strong. Suggests that all GC feminists always misgender trans people in person, which is not the case. More importantly, as I said above, we should swap the two sentences. GC feminists start from position that sex is biological, etc, which leads them to assert that trans women are men. Not the other way round. Would you be happy to swap the two sentences? Can you think of way to rephrase the part about biological sex taking priority over gender identity? AndyGordon (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said a while ago, I support moving the 2nd sentence to be 1st. Regarding Gender-critical feminists reject transgender identities and believe that people should only be identified based on their biological sex rather than their gender identity, such as saying that trans women are men how about changing this to Gender-critical feminists reject transgender identities and believe that identification by biological sex should take precedence over gender identity, and consider that trans women are men. ? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They don't think it should "take precedence" over gender identity, they reject the entire concept of gender identity. Loki (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the two sources in the current page on that sentence, S&G talks about gender theorists view that gender identity takes precendence over sex, but not explicitly about GC feminists view. And the house of commons report says nothing about it. So, how about we cut the part about GI vs sex, and say the following (based on last proposal from Loki):
Gender-critical feminists believe that sex is biological, immutable, and binary, and consider the concepts of gender identity and gender self-identification to be inherently oppressive constructs tied to gender roles. They reject transgender identities, such as saying that trans women are men. AndyGordon (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry spoke to soon, would suggest changing the final part along lines of Sweet, to be They reject transgender identities, considering for example that trans women are men. AndyGordon (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I’m reading this correctly, AndyGordon is proposing changing the wording to: Gender-critical feminists believe that sex is biological, immutable, and binary, and consider the concepts of gender identity and gender self-identification to be inherently oppressive constructs tied to gender roles. They reject transgender identities, considering for example that trans women are men. I would support this wording. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't, because I think considering for example that trans women are men makes it sound like we're saying that and not that we're saying they're saying that. Loki (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so how about this: Gender-critical feminists believe that sex is biological, immutable, and binary, and consider the concepts of gender identity and gender self-identification to be inherently oppressive constructs tied to gender roles. They reject transgender identities. They consider, for example, that trans women are men. AndyGordon (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be OK with They believe rather than They consider. Loki (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you. Is that ok with you @Sweet6970? AndyGordon (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer ‘consider’ to ‘believe’. It looks to me that there is really not much difference in what is believed about biology. I think the dispute is about what counts – biology or gender identity, and this has the effect on how trans women are categorised. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to the VOX source, it says: TERFs...alternate among several theories that all claim that trans women are really men, who are the ultimate oppressors of women.. MOS:CLAIM suggests avoiding the word "claim" as it casts doubt, but lists alternatives including "describe".
Gender-critical feminists believe that sex is biological, immutable, and binary, and consider the concepts of gender identity and gender self-identification to be inherently oppressive constructs tied to gender roles. They reject transgender identities; for example, they describe trans women as men.
Can we agree on this phrasing drawn from policy? AndyGordon (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "claim" is perfectly appropriate here since we actually do want to be skeptical about this particular claim. That being said I'm fine with just "say": They say trans women are men. Loki (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer ‘describe’ to ‘say’, because, otherwise, as AndyGordon has suggested, this sounds like saying they always misgender trans women in person. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either say or describe would be fine with. @LokiTheLiar can we go ahead with "describe"? AndyGordon (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that "describe" again gives too much credence to their claim. Loki (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Loki, while you may feel that way, the policy is clear that "describe" is neutral. We're talking about this: They reject transgender identities; for example, they describe trans women as men. It's clearly ascribing the view to GC feminists and neutrally using the word describe, without being positive or negative. If you can agree then we have agreement on the edit between the three of us. AndyGordon (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't like that wording but I won't stop you if you want to add it. Loki (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you @LokiTheLiar. I think we have agreement to make this edit so I will go ahead. AndyGordon (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]



Verifiability is core policy, and WP:CITELEAD is a guideline. There is no reason in policy not to provide a citation, and policy requires a citation when material is WP:CHALLENGEd, and it must be provided by the person wishing to retain the material, or else the uncited content should be removed. I don't see the point of this discussion, or roping in other opinion. Wouldn't it be easier just to add a citation to the lead as requested, rather than notify seven projects and waste everybody's time? Mathglot (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with adding a citation; the issue is that the thing people are clearly trying to do is remove the claim based on dubious claims that it needs a citation. The citations are all over the body, and if someone had just moved one of those up to the lead I wouldn't have objected. Loki (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

  1. ^ Thomsen, Carly; Essig, Laurie (2021). "Lesbian, feminist, TERF: a queer attack on feminist studies". Journal of Lesbian Studies. 26 (1): 27–44. doi:10.1080/10894160.2021.1950270. PMID 34313195. S2CID 236452285.
  2. ^ Williams, Cristan (2016). "Radical Inclusion: Recounting the Trans Inclusive History of Radical Feminism". Transgender Studies Quarterly. 3 (1–2): 254–258. doi:10.1215/23289252-3334463.
  3. ^ Hines, Sally (13 July 2018). "Trans and Feminist Rights Have Been Falsely Cast in Opposition". The Economist. Archived from the original on 2 May 2019. Retrieved 2 May 2019.
  4. ^ Thurlow, Claire (2022). "From TERF to gender critical: A telling genealogy?". Sexualities. 27 (4): 962–978. doi:10.1177/13634607221107827. S2CID 252662057.
  5. ^ Burns, Katelyn (5 September 2019). "The rise of anti-trans "radical" feminists, explained". Vox. Archived from the original on 11 August 2020. Retrieved 29 August 2022. "I don't think American women are buying it", she said, pointing out that nearly every major US feminist advocacy group is vocally pro-trans rights and inclusion.
  6. ^ Dickey, Briar (2023). "Transphobic Truth Markets: Comparing Trans-hostile Discourses in British Trans-exclusionary Radical Feminist and US Right-wing Movements". Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies. 10 (2): 34–47. doi:10.21825/digest.85311.
Quelle: Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gender-critical_feminism