Talk:Gender-critical feminism

Legal Cases

Is it worth adding yesterday's judgment against Westminster Council and Social Work England? Seems to be notable.

More here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/09/social-worker-wins-discrimination-claim-over-social-media-posts

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/09/social-worker-suspended-there-are-two-sexes-wins-tribunal/

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/social-worker-wins-harassment-claim-over-gender-critical-views-3v395btmg

https://unherd.com/thepost/victory-for-social-worker-harassed-over-gender-critical-beliefs/

https://www.localgov.co.uk/Tribunal-rules-against-council-in-discrimination-case-/58630

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/gender-critical-rachel-meade-westminster-city-council-social-work-england/ Void if removed (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is worth including – the Guardian piece includes: ‘The judge said the disciplinary process from 6 November 2021 amounted to harassment’ which is strong language. Thanks for picking this up – I had missed it. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding the BBCs coverage as well which just appeared: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67934781 Void if removed (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This one is useful because it provides another RS description of what GCF beliefs actually are. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's usable for that - we have sources discussing it directly; relying on a passing description in coverage of a court case doesn't really make sense. --Aquillion (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

We have many sources describing it directly in these same terms. This is not a passing reference, this is explaining the basis of the case at issue, and accords with what is neutrally represented in multiple HQ sources. Void if removed (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

If we have better sources (ones actually about this topic rather than just mentioning it briefly as part of the background for something else), we can use them instead; but this one adds nothing. It is, in this context, a passing reference - they are briefly explaining some background for the case at issue; they are not providing an in-depth look at this article's topic as a whole. That makes it a bad source for anything other than that specific case, and the case itself doesn't seem significant enough to include here. --Aquillion (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It's useful in that it provides additional weight (not just from the BBC, but from a judge) to the perspective that GCF is primarily about the nature and importance of sex, as opposed to, say, being some kind of far-right Christian plot. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The judgment also explicitly finds the opinions - and the expression of them - not to be transphobic:

The opinions expressed by the Claimant could not sensibly be viewed as being transphobic when properly considered in their full context from an objective perspective

I think this sort of thing highlights the increasingly hard to reconcile conflict between the position of UK courts and reporting in neutral sources, and the many (sometimes quite hyperbolic) sources in use on this page that maintain it is inherently and unavoidably transphobic, and anyone who disagrees is transphobic by extension. Void if removed (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• A judge is not a subject-matter expert; their opinion is relevant when it comes to the law (and mostly just the law that appeared before them, ie. this specific case.) They have no WP:WEIGHT when weighing in on larger social issues. Certainly I would strenuously oppose weighing a judge's decision over eg. academic coverage from experts on the subject. --Aquillion (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Surely not zero weight. As a larger social issue, academics don't have privileged access to truth. Reliable sources of all kinds should be used.

  One of the front-lines of dispute is about whether GCFs should be characterised as intrinsically transphobic, hateful or akin to racists. Where these concepts intersect with laws, a judge is very much a subject matter expert. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  One of the front-lines of dispute is about whether GCFs should be characterised as intrinsically transphobic, hateful or akin to racists. Where these concepts intersect with laws, a judge is very much a subject matter expert.

  I agree, this should definitely carry some weight.

  More coverage in the Times: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/social-workers-scared-to-speak-about-trans-issues-382370zcm

  And today, from Simon Fanshawe: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/beware-the-culture-wars-how-employers-can-trip-over-trans-issues-fvj9m5kxv

  Seems that a key aspect that keeps coming up is that the regulator was criticised for taking a complaint at face value rather than investigating it was malicious before taking action. As an aside I note that part of the reasoning in the judgment that the complaint shouldn't have been taken at face value was that the original complainant used "TERF". Void if removed (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I think no. This appears to be a regular first-tier tribunal ruling, and overall not that impactful. It doesn't appear to have created any new case law, unlike the Forstater appeal. While it's no doubt impactful to Meade, I fail to see how this is of encyclopaedic relevance, especially with respect to WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTNEWS. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd was a first tier ruling. First tier rulings aren't by themselves meaningless, and there are several notable aspects to this.

Per the Telegraph:

It is the first case of its kind where an employer and regulator have both been found liable for discrimination in relation to gender-critical beliefs, which Ms Meade described as the thought that “there are two sexes, male and female” and “that a person cannot change their sex”.

It is another case that builds upon and reinforces Forstater, covering as it does expression of belief. It lays out, again, what "GC" means in terms of UK law (good for the lede), and is notable because not only her employer, but also her regulator were found guilty not only of discrimination, but also harassment. Also notable because, contra many of the criticisms on this page, found "her opinions were not “of a nature that they aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms of others”". Void if removed (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The quotation from The Telegraph that you've highlighted seems to be misrepresenting the judgement. The issue at play here, per paragraphs 190-194 of the judgement, are those of freedom of thought (para 193), and whether the manifestation of Meade's beliefs were of a nature that they aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms of others contrary to Article 17 (para 194). In this instance, the tribunal found that the manifestations of Meade's beliefs did not rise to the level specified in para 194. There is also a lot of detail from paragraphs 205 to 266 detailing where the employer (first respondent) and complainant against Meade (second respondent) both were correct (eg, para 207 and 235 found that Meade's initial suspension on 22 July 2021 did not amount to discrimination for her beliefs) and incorrect (eg para 211 where the employer did not clearly identify the posts which they are considered went beyond a manifestation of the Claimant’s protected beliefs and why they considered this to be the case and para 233 where it was only the actions taken after 6 November 2021 which the tribunal found discriminatory).

If we're going to include this case at all, then we should wait for legal scholars published in reliable sources to analyse and summarise the key points. The press sources, like The Telegraph, do not go into a level of detail that fully and accurately summarises the breadth and depth of the ruling. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

My instinct is also no. I don't think the article on feminism in general would mention a court case involving a feminist unless it was somehow very clearly tied to the concept as a whole. So for instance an article on the civil rights movement would mention Brown v. Board but it doesn't mention every single one of the many legal actions relating to the movement. Loki (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's not really a useful source at the moment unless there's later reason to believe that it's a major case that directly relates to the topic as a whole. Articles like these aren't meant to cover every blow-by-blow of every court case related to anyone involved in the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I would add, for anyone arguing that this case should not be added - can we please apply the same logic to the AEA and Amy Hamm cases. Why should they be included? The sourcing on both is much weaker, AEA/EHRC is not an impactful judgment or one that relates specifically to gender-critical feminism, and the other isn't even a judgment at all yet. In addition to the numerous opinion pieces, straightforward news reporting on the Meade case is: BBC, Guardian, Times, Telegraph - that's a broad spread of the media in the UK. The other two are sourced solely to Pink News and LGBTQ Nation. There's no comparison there. Void if removed (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the Meade case is significant because it involves discrimination and harassment by a public authority and a regulatory body. Also, it is treated as significant by Personnel Today, which gives it considerable coverage, presumably because the publication thinks its readers need to know about it, in order to guide their conduct in future.

Another point: The section is called Legal cases, but perhaps it should be re-titled Discrimination against gender-critical feminists. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I edited the main page without realizing this discussion was going on. Yes we should include as its covered by multiple reliable sources. AndyGordon (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I count four in favour of inclusion, three against. But even if we do exclude, the current rationale for excluding this case would IMO favour removing the AEA and Amy Hamm cases. Void if removed (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I support the retitle Discrimination against gender-critical feminists suggested by @Sweet6970

Re Hamm, there are other sources that could be consulted especially CBN News, not just the one we're currently using.

Re the AEA case, not sure. The paragraph is a direct copy from our LGB Alliance page. As written, it doesn't explain what the case has to do with GC feminism, whereas the other three legal cases are all about discrimination against GC feminists. AndyGordon (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps these would all fit better in the United Kingdom section, given they are cases about UK law? Having the section at the top level might misleadingly imply that these rulings apply in other jurisdictions. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I simply note that if WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTNEWS apply to this, there are many many other things they apply to on this page, and if we set the bar here, then we should have a clean out of lots of other "news" that doesn't meet this threshold.

There's other sources for Amy Hamm (CBC has some I believe), but there's no ruling - does it need a blow by blow or should it wait till its finished? And AEA has no place here IMO. Its filler. If Equality Act judgments are important, then there's half a dozen rulings far more consequential and widely covered than this I can think of off the top of my head (all the FPFW and FWS judicial reviews for starters). Void if removed (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I would not support a narrowing of the legal cases section implied by such a renaming.

Re AEA v EHRC, I believe the second edition (and later) of A Practical Guide to Transgender Law by Robin Moira White QC, has detail for why this case is impactful with regards to the subject of this article, based upon the publisher's update note (page 6 of the PDF, after page 226 of the book) for its inclusion. This case was brought by a then prominent gender-critical activist, Ann Sinnott, and her organisation challinging the 2011 EHRC guidance on the inclusion of trans people, particularly trans women, in single and separate sex services. I would suggest instead that we cite and expand upon that analysis from White, as it details why this case and it's failure was impactful. I'd need to get a copy of the latest edition of that book though to see if there's any difference between the update note linked earlier in this paragraph and what is in the most recent edition, unless one of you already has a copy?

Re Hamm, I'm actually going to be removing it after posting this reply on NPOV grounds. There doesn't yet seem to be a ruling, and I don't see a good reason for us to be highlighting individual quotations from what she has said in oral evidence. That fundamentally fails NPOV, as we are only highlighting Hamm's side of the case. According to one of the bodies involved with Hamm's case, they won't be submitting written arguments until sometime in the early part of this year, so this is very much an ongoing case. I'd suggest we keep a note of it somewhere on the talk page however, and look at what sourcing exists particularly from legal scholars and analysts when the judgement is eventually issued. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

More coverage of the legal landscape in general, precipitated by the Meade judgment. A quote:

Gender-critical feminists believe sex is biological and cannot be changed, and disagree with trans rights activists who say gender identity should be given priority in terms of law-making and policy. Clashes in workplaces – in some cases with those who regard the focus on biological sex as transphobic – have led to a string of employment tribunals.

So another WP:RS saying quite neutrally what gender-critical feminists believe, and what the conflict is.

The article has further mention of Meade, implication of impact on wider employer behaviour, stresses the importance of all of these cases in totality, and notably mentions Bailey in the same breath as Forstater in terms of significance as setting "strong precedent", yet there's no mention of Bailey in our article.

Meade has now had something like a dozen mentions across The Guardian, Times, Telegraph and BBC. I still don't see why AEA is WP:DUE and this is not, based on the broader secondary coverage. Void if removed (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Please see my recent addition to our article, in which I treat the Guardian piece as a summary of the legal situation. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Points from the Jo Phoenix case

Another tribunal result is in: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65ae82d58bbe95000e5eb1f7/Ms_J_Pheonix_v_The_Open_University_3322700.2021___other_FMH_Reserved_Judgment.pdf *Dan T.* (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dtobias: there weren't any reliable secondary sources for this ruling when I looked a couple of hours ago. Has that changed yet? Otherwise it would be undue to include this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

There is now an article in the Guardian about the Jo Phoenix case [1]. Sweet6970 (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding some more:

Telegraph:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/22/open-university-gender-critical-jo-phoenix-tribunal/

Times: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/open-university-professor-gender-critical-wins-tribunal-m2sghj6x7

Times Higher Ed: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/open-university-failed-protect-gender-critical-professor

Solicitors Journal: https://www.solicitorsjournal.com/sjarticle/prof-jo-phoenix-wins-landmark-case-against-open-university. ("Landmark Case")

Irish News: https://www.irishnews.com/news/uk/professor-with-gender-critical-views-wins-unfair-dismissal-claim-H33ZEMT7WNLDFEKRTT655OADPM/ Void if removed (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Point (1) Comparisons with racism

The article in the Guardian says that the tribunal found that comparing gender-critical views to racism is a form of harassment:In a judgment published on Monday, the tribunal found that Prof Louise Westmarland, head of discipline in social policy and criminology at the OU, made the “racist uncle” comment, which amounted to harassment….. and Prof Westmarland knew that likening the claimant to a racist was upsetting for the claimant. We conclude that its purpose was to violate the claimant’s dignity because inherent in the comment is an insult of being put in the same category as racists”.

Point (2) Use of the label ‘TERF’

The article also says that failure to protect Phoenix from being called a TERF is grounds for legal action: The judgment said: “We find that the claimant was not provided with effective protection from the effects of the launch of the GCRN. We find that the respondent did not provide the claimant protection particularly in the form of asking staff and students not to launch campaigns to deplatform the GCRN, or make calls to remove support for the claimant’s gender critical research, or use social media to label the claimant transphobic or TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist).

These points should be highlighted in our article.

Sweet6970 (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning that the case was successful seems due, highlighting those specific quotes however does not. I would instead suggest rolling it in with the enumeration of successful claims in the third paragraph of that section. At the very least, this case does not appear to be settled yet, as per the second to last paragraph of the Guardian article the OU are considering appealing it. If we're going to include any more detail, I would strongly urge that we wait until legal scholars provide an analysis of the case.

Of particular relevance to this section are the forthcoming scholarly paper and second edition of A Practical Guide to Transgender Law by Robin Moira White. Both have the potential to give us good summaries of post-Forstater legal cases within the UK. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I look forward to reading White's considered reflections on losing the Meade case when it appears. Void if removed (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Is Robin Moira White something to do with the Meade case? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

White was Council for Social Work England on that case. Void if removed (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

For the level of detail you're proposing Sweet, I think it would make more sense to cover the case in detail on Phoenix's article. This would be similar to how we currently handle Allison Bailey's case. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

"...known to its opponents..."

Saying that it is "known to its opponents as..." is plainly non-neutral wording and is completely unacceptable in the lead sentence. The given sources do not describe it that way; many of them use it as if it is a neutral descriptor and the proper terminology. Characterizing the authors as opponents is editorializing on our part. Furthermore, the framing implies that "gender critical" is the 'real', neutral term, which every source for that sentence contradicts - all of them present it as a self-description and use quotes surrounding it to make it clear it is a non-neutral term. If we were to qualify TERF with "...known to its opponents...", we would have to insert "Self-described" before "gender-critical", otherwise we'd be misusing the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

No, completely neutral sources employ "gender-critical". Hostile sources use TERF. The sources cited in the lede use words like "despise" about their subjects - are you seriously arguing that this is non-oppositional? That TERF is mentioned three times in the opening sentence of this article is non-neutral, and attempting to sanitise it by implying that those who are gender-critical refer to their own beliefs as "TERFism" or "TERF ideology" is absolutely unsupportable.

The introduction to a recent blatantly hostile source addition ("Exploring TERFnesses") even at one point uses the term "FART". I wonder quite why we're taking such pathetic juvenilia seriously TBH (and this is from a prominent and influential activist and author, not some random nobody), but there we are.

That source also says:

The acronym TERF, which means Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism, was coined by the Australian blogger Viv Smythe in 2008 to refer to a specific form of feminist hostility towards trans issues.

So again, the term is about "hostility to trans issues". Not a neutral or accurate description that is equivalent to "believing sex is real, immutable, binary and important" which is what "gender-critical" is widely accepted to mean, eg. in UK law.

It also says:

we see the expression ‘gender-critical feminism’ – a self-definition by some individuals and groups labelled TERFs by others – as problematic because it serves specific actors to ‘rebrand’ their anti-trans activism and to legitimise their own positions by presenting them as more moderate (Thurlow, 2022) or as doing critical work (Ahmed, 2021). While several authors in this special issue have suggested new expressions to address this phenomenon, we prefer to use the term TERFnesses based on the term TERF, because of its resonance in contemporary debates

Again, non-neutral - they don't see the two terms as neutrally equivalent, they see "gender-critical" as sanitising vague anti-trans beliefs they believe to be bad, and "TERF" a more resonant term for highlighting that negativity. The decision to employ a non-neutral term is explicit.

The use of TERF is inherently non-neutral because it is derogatory. There is no question about that. The only serious disagreement is technically whether it goes so far as to be a slur (and even then the best is that there is "academic disagreement"). Void if removed (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

That is your personal assessment of the source; it isn't what the source says. What they say is that "gender-critical feminism" is a non-neutral self-description used as a tactical rebranding, whereas TERF is the more established term. "Resonance" in this context means that it is a term that has broader usage. If you want to characterize "TERF" as being used primarily by its opponents, you will need high-quality academic sources saying so unambiguously (and you would need an overwhelming number of such sources, because they're in conflict with the sources already in the article.) And even then, it would be necessary to add the "self-described" before gender-critical, because the sources unambiguously frame it that way; you don't seem to be disputing that at all, you even quoted them saying it yourself. Obviously if we were going to characterize the usage of one term we would have to characterize both. --Aquillion (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The introduction to a recent blatantly hostile source addition ("Exploring TERFnesses") even at one point uses the term "FART". I wonder quite why we're taking such pathetic juvenilia seriously TBH (and this is from a prominent and influential activist and author, not some random nobody), but there we are.

Please don't misrepresent sources. "Exploring TERFnesses" doesn't use the term "FART" in its own voice, it just mentions the term's existence. Also, reliable sources can be used here even if you personally dislike or disagree with them. PBZE (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

1) There are countless examples of scholarly and mainstream media sources using this term descriptively. 2) There are numerous examples of TERFs calling themselves TERFs, there are even TERF groups that call themselves TERFs (sometimes written as "terven"). 3) The term was created as a neutral, descriptive term, by radical feminists themselves. If some (how many is debatable) TERFs now perceive it negatively, it's because of how the transphobic ideology it refers to is perceived, more than it is related to the term itself. Thus, the term can be compared to "racist", which describes an ideology that is widely condemned (and some might object to being called racists), but that is nevertheless a descriptive term – in the sense that racism does exist and some people/groups are racist. We don't write "known as racism to opponents". --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It is well established that the term is derogatory. Therefore, it cannot be neutral. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not at all established that it is uniformly derogatory. You have cited multiple high-quality academic sources using it in the article voice themselves; our usage reflects the highest-quality usage, not random blogs or opinion pieces. And, in comparison, we have sources overtly saying that "gender-critical" is a non-neutral self-description, so certainly we can never present it as the more neutral term. --Aquillion (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

our usage reflects the highest-quality usage, not random blogs or opinion pieces

No - it reflects some selective academic usage, and ignores the many other sources that have come up many times in this talk page - far beyond just "blogs and opinion". Aside from the fact that the OED says it is derogatory, some choice quotes:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09612025.2022.2147915

In the UK trans inclusive and gender critical feminists hold positions that are increasingly polarised. While the latter seek to exclude trans women from the category ‘woman’ and advocate for single sex spaces that would exclude trans women, they argue that the term ‘TERF’ (trans exclusionary radical feminist) is a derogatory slur in part due to its use by opponents on social media, and they prefer the term ‘gender critical’. While ‘TERF’ itself is a contested term and argued not to be a slur by some on the trans inclusive side, I will apply ‘gender critical’ here out of respect for people’s rights to self-define.

Kathleen Stock: Material Girls

In 2008, denigrating the motives of critics of gender identity theory was given a big boost with the invention of a 'TERF'. TERF stands for 'Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist'. It was reportedly coined by American Viv Smythe. In 2008 Smythe was running a feminist blog. In a post, she promoted the Michigan Womyn's Musical Festival, also known as Michfest. When founded in 1976, Michfest had been conceived by its radical feminist organisers as for females only - or, as organisers named them, 'Womyn-born-womyn'. There was a heavy lesbian presence, in the traditional same-sex sense, amongst attendees. Latterly, the festival had become controversial for its explicit exclusion of trans women from the event. (Indeed, eventually Michfest closed in 2015, partly due to this controversy.) Smythe was quickly taken to task by blog readers for her promotion of Michfest, and in the course of her subsequent public apology, coined the acronym TERF. She wrote, of her promise not to promote any trans-exclusionary feminist event' in future: 'I am aware that this decision is likely to affront some trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs).'n The term TERF rapidly took off, as memorable acronyms often do - perhaps helped by its ugly phonetics and capacity to be easily barked out as an insult or threat. Though in Smythe's original construction, TERFs were, by definition, feminists, later popular usage of the term widened to refer to any person at all who had, for whatever reason, an even mildly critical perspective on the bundle of ideas that constitutes gender identity theory. Indeed, trans women and trans men themselves came to be called TERFs, whenever they worried that gender identity alone was not what made you a woman or man.

Holly Lawford Smith: Sex Matters

Despite its alleged introduction as a neutral acronym for a version of radical feminism, in its current usage the term `TERF' has evolved so that it has become derogatory in at least its implicature if not its content. The term is widely used to apply to those who hold that the sex category 'female' has social and political relevance in certain contexts regardless "of gender identity. The term is almost exclusively used in derogatory and dehumanizing ways, and often accompanied by violent imagery, by those who are critical of people who take such a view. On seven different accounts of slurs, TERF appears to meet the criterion for counting as a slur.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/08/29/philosophers-object-journals-publication-terf-reference-some-feminists-it-really

TERF is an acronym meaning “trans-exclusionary radical feminist.” While the term has become controversial over time, especially with its often hateful deployment on social media, it originally described a subgroup of feminists who believe that the interests of cisgender women (those who are born with vaginas) don’t necessarily intersect with those of transgender women (primarily those born with penises). [...] TERF “is widely used across online platforms as a way to denigrate and dismiss the women (and some men) who disagree with the dominant narrative on trans issues,” the scholars wrote.

Finn Mackay: 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

Void if removed (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Stock and Lawford Smith are primarily notable as anti-trans activists. Stock is no longer a professor due to her views and is affiliated with an unaccredited alt-right "fake university" in Texas. Their publications in this field – outside their areas of expertise (such as fiction and aesthetics in Stock's case) – are not really academic sources or representative of mainstream scholarship in relevant fields – such as gender studies, sociology, etc. They are fringe voices in academia (or outside of academia in Stock's case), and their writings on this topic are primarily political/populist in nature. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

You keep mentioning these sources so I'll break them down:

1. Says GC feminists say TERF is a derogatory slur, does not say it is. It notes that trans-exclusive feminism started developing in the 70s
2. Is by a GC activist, says TERF is overused for non-feminists (and notably, that it was coined to refer to a group of radical feminists who believed trans women should be excluded from Mitchfest, which started in 1976)
3. By a GC activist, says TERF is a slur
4. Says 7 people (notably, including prominent GC activists like source 3's author) complained about the use of the term TERF in a journal, to which the journal said it's not a slur and is descriptive
5. Says it's overused for non-feminists, but notably the book repeatedly uses the full expansion "trans exclusionary radical feminists to refer to GC/TER feminists
6. The OED does not say "TERF is derogatory". They explicitly did call it derogatory because it's more nuanced than that: We weighed it up, and because of the intentions of the coiner and the fact that there is a little bit more nuance behind its usage – it’s not always just a straight-out insult – we took the approach that we would explain that in a note. We felt it was a bit more nuanced than just slapping on derogatory or chiefly derogatory[2]

So in short, these sources do not support the claim "TERF is derogatory". The sources you listed (and sources in the article TERF (acronym)) support 1) TERF has become somewhat overused to refer to anti-trans non-feminists as opposed to anti-trans radical feminists 2) TER/GC Feminists call it a slur a lot 3) it is sometimes (but not always) used in a derogatory way 4) it was coined to refer to a strain of feminism that existed since the 70s Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The point as always is that the term is disputed, can have a range of meanings, is often vague and insulting, and WP:RS repeatedly note that it is used by opponents in a derogatory fashion. The argument is being made that since academics use it, it is fine and precise. But that is selective, since other academics note it is controversial and use other, more precise and less inflammatory terms instead (like gender-critical feminist or trans-exclusionary feminist).

I think that it is important to note that this is contentious and fairly represent multiple sides, namely:

• Some say "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" is not neutral and inaccurate, and that "TERF" is anything from an insult to a slur (eg. Stock, Lawford-Smith)
• Some say gender-critical feminist is itself not neutral and that trans-exclusionary (radical) feminist delineates important power relations (eg. Thurlow, Hines)
• Some note that this is contentious and use gender-critical feminist or trans-exclusionary feminist as more neutral terms to avoid unnecessary conflict (eg. Shaw, Mackay)
• Some say that TERF itself should be used, because it is insulting, and the targets deserve to be insulted, because they are akin to racists (eg. Williams, Long-Chu)

A central part of the conflict is around the meaning and purpose of these terms, and insisting that it is undisputed or straightforwardly equivalent in the opening sentence is not WP:BALANCE.

Personally I would suggest a bolder rewording that makes the nature of the dispute clear, instead of trying to mash it into the lead sentence, and say something like:

"Transgender advocates say that gender-critical feminism is not a neutral term, and argue the importance of using trans-exclusionary feminism or trans-exclusionary radical feminism instead. The latter is commonly abbreviated as TERF, but this form has become contentious and is typically considered derogatory." Void if removed (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is no neutral term for this concept. But academic works are split, and even GCFs themselves use "TERF" sometimes, so we definitely can't say "TERF" and "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" are only used by its opponents. That's not only not verifiable, it's just false. Loki (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not established that the term is derogatory; in fact this is a slogan used by some TERFs. Many academic and media sources use the term descriptively. Quite a few TERFs refer to themselves as TERFs, or use the term interchangeably with gender-critical. For this movement, it seems every term used is subject to some disagreement – which includes "gender-critical feminism." Lack of universal support for a term – among the fringe group it describes – doesn't make it derogatory. An excellent comparison would be "white supremacist"; this term is not typically used by the white supremacists themselves; instead it is used as a descriptive term by scholars and others, and describes a real phenomenon, movement and ideology. The fact that many white supremacists would object to being called white supremacists doesn't make the term derogatory. Similarly, "trans-exclusionary" describes the real ideology of marginalizing trans women, particularly in the context of feminism; the other part of the term, radical feminism, is obviously not derogatory, it's what they call their ideology themselves. In fact, trans-exclusionary radical feminism/feminist is constructed as an even more neutral term than white supremacism/ist, so if anything, the term is less derogatory. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 09:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It's also a matter of the lead reflecting the body. First of all, nowhere in the body does it say that "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" is exclusively or chiefly used by "opponents", and the only sentence even suggesting that is "Though it was created as a deliberately neutral descriptor, "TERF" is now typically considered derogatory."

If that were sufficient to summarize in the lead sentence, then for the lead to proportionally and WP:DULY reflect the body, the lead sentence would also need to summarize this paragraph:

Claire Thurlow noted that since the 2010s, there has been a shift in language from "TERF" to "gender critical feminism," which she described as "dog-whistle politics whereby the phrases act as a coded message of anti-transness to those initiated." Mauro Cabral Grinspan, Ilana Eloit, David Paternotte and Mieke Verloo argued that "we see the expression ‘gender-critical feminism’ – a self-definition by some individuals and groups labelled TERFs by others – as problematic because it serves specific actors to ‘rebrand’ their anti-trans activism and to legitimise their own positions."

PBZE (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Removals from history

@Sweet6970, you just reverted my recent addition to history stating delete material which is not about g-c feminism – see WP:COATRACK.

The material was added from the SAGE Enclyopedia of Trans Studies' TERF entry, specifically it's section TERF activism which says The following is a timeline of TERF activism that proved structurally or culturally significant. And before the "TERF doesn't mean GC" argument gets pulled, the source is 110% explicit that Since Hungerford’s 2013 announcement, gender critical and radical feminist are the primary self-identities used by TERFs when publicly discussing the equality of trans people. It is obviously about g-c feminism, so please self-revert.

Relatedly, I believe you should self-revert this edit, where you changed Janice Raymond's The Transsexual Empire, published in 1979, purported to examine the role of transgender identity in reinforcing traditional gender stereotypes to ...examined the role... You're an experienced editor so I feel weird having to point out 1) that is absolutely not a claim that should go in wikivoice without reliable secondary sources agreeing and 2) there are no reliable secondary sources agreeing, it's cited to Raymond herself. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

What do obscure lesbian paramilitaries in the 70s have to do with gender-critical feminism, a term coined around 2013?

The section this is taken from is a timeline of trans history. None of this is terribly relevant to the phenomenon of "gender-critical feminism" which emerged some 40 years later, about 5 years after TERF was coined. This is not a forum for listing every grievance against lesbians since time immemorial.

And the particular edit you point to is fine - it was editorialised. Void if removed (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, according to the source, they fall under TERF activism that proved structurally or culturally significant. Are you saying the gender-critical movement sprang into existence in 2013? You said the phenomenon of "gender-critical feminism" which emerged some 40 years later, about 5 years after TERF was coined - but that is not what the sources say at all. The sources say they're different names, not different concepts. This article already says that even...

Can you please explain why a timeline labelled TERF activism is actually a timeline of trans history.?

Also, my point about Janice Raymond still stands. 1) the role of transgender identity in reinforcing traditional gender stereotypes is absolutely not appropriate for wikivoice without secondary sourcing (it is her opinion trans identities do that, not a fact) and 2) there isn't secondary sourcing. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

a timeline of trans history

My mistake - it appears in multiple sections, I stopped at the first mention.

Even so I find it somewhat incoherent that a section which starts by stating TERF originated in 2008 then talks of "TERF activists" in 1973. Once again we find that TERF is a term used by critics indiscriminately, with little real regard for chronology or ideological specifics. The events mentioned are apparently structurally or culturally significant, but the author doesn't say how, why, to whom or in what way - its just some random events that have no bearing on gender-critical feminism. The leap from gender critical feminism, to TERf, to random events in the 70s is just further destroying any meaning of this page. Perhaps it has a place on Feminist views on transgender topics.

my point about Janice Raymond still stands

The changes was from "purported to examine the role of transgender identity in reinforcing traditional gender stereotypes" to "examines the role".

The use of "purported" implies the examination itself is false. This is editorialising and WP:POV. Void if removed (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

From the first paragraph of the entry: Popularized in 2008 by an online cisgender feminist community, TERF is an acronym for trans-exclusionary radical feminist. The community used the term to refer to the sex essentialist feminists who were flooding into their discussion space. TERFs asserted that “sex” was reducible to specific body attributes or to early socialization and therefore saw trans women as men and sought to remove them from “women’s spaces” and the lesbian feminist movement.

their section "Utility of TERF", they state The linguistic and cultural utility of TERF becomes apparent when one considers the reality that practically every contemporary anti-trans sex essentialist argument was originally asserted in Janice Raymond’s 1979 TERF classic, The Transsexual Empire.

TERF is an acronym for transgender exclusionary radical feminist, who sources agree prefer the term gender critical for themselves. Don't mistake a name for the emergence of whole new branch of feminism. Simple yes/no question: is the source referring to radical feminists who believed that trans women should be excluded from women's spaces? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

TERF was coined in 2008, GCF in 2013. While battles between feminists and transsexualism date back at least to the 70s, neither of these terms make much sense prior to when they were coined, in the context of post-1990s theorising about sex and gender identity and conflicts over self-identification. "Gender-critical feminism" is one step on a timeline, and the terms are not interchangeable.

The problem is TERF is a derogatory term for anyone (mostly women, and especially lesbians) who don't think trans women are women. While the original targets were eg. Raymond and Jeffries, that isn't its sole meaning. Again: the OED confirms it has wider meaning. Applying it backwards to lesbians in the 70s not only makes no sense, but as presented this is applying a term of abuse retrospectively and whitewashing documented sexual harassment.

So in this instance, no, it is not referring to radical feminists - it is referring to lesbians. There are no named individuals with a recognisable ideology, simply "TERF activists". Sources are supposed to be WP:VERIFIABLE and the narrative presented here conflicts with what is documented elsewhere.

These are modern terms for modern conflicts.

And I'd add that since I've noticed that TERF Lesbians has also been added as a redirect here, it reinforces that some people consider lesbians who don't accept trans women as women to be TERFs.

I'm frankly astonished editors are still arguing this is a neutral term. Void if removed (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources are supposed to be WP:VERIFIABLE That is not how WP:V works or what it means. The sources that we use on enwiki are not beholden to enwiki's policies, and there is no requirement in either WP:V or WP:RS that our sources "show their working". What V actually means is the information, whether it be facts, allegations, quotations, etc., that we include in our articles is verifiable to what one or more reliable sources state about the topic.

In this circumstance, it is verifiable that the SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies contains the text that YFNS quoted. The text beginning Popularized in 2008 by an online cisgender feminist community appears on page 822. The text beginning The linguistic and cultural utility of TERF is on page 825. With those page numbers, and the rest of the citation information (ie publication name, publisher, author, ISBN, etc), it is possible for any reader or editor with access to the source to verify that the source states that information. That is where the requirements of WP:V end.

There are no named individuals with a recognisable ideology, simply "TERF activists" True, but not unusual given the nature of the source being used, nor the nature of the content. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies is a tertiary source. It is briefly summarising and contextualising information already present in multiple other secondary and primary sources. For example, the expulsion of Beth Elliott from the Daughters of Bilitis and later harassment and attack of Elliott at the April 1973 West Coast Lesbian Conference is verifiable to a large array of secondary sources over on Elliott's article in the Daughters of Bilitis and West Coast Lesbian Conference sections. There's no reason why we could also bring those sources across here to further support what the tertiary source has stated. However even reliable secondary sources like Meyerowitz where she wrote about the West Coast Lesbian Conference don't name all of the individual activists, because several of the incidents involve large groups of people. Meyerowitz does however name one radfem who used their keynote speech at the conference to denounce and attack Elliott, Robin Morgan. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I basically agree with YFNS here and think something much like their edit should be reinstated, though I think the examples they added could be worded better so it's clear that the people in the examples were early anti-trans feminists and not just random women. Loki (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

YFNS: the material I deleted comprises inf about incidents in trans history. It tells us nothing about gender-critical feminism, which is the subject of this article. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: There is a rather large overlap between trans history and what we currently call gender-critical feminism or TERF activism, particularly with regards to the activists that are the topic of this article engaging in activities targeted against trans people. This is natural, given the subject matter. Reviewing the edit that YFNS linked above, the first paragraph seems to be content that fits within that expected overlap of what would now be called gender-critical or TERF activists targeting individual trans people and trans-inclusive organisations. The second paragraph likewise documents Janice Raymond's interventions towards restricting access to trans health care through public health insurance in the US.

If I've missed something obvious here, could you please detail which sentences are those which comprise information about incidents in trans history and are out of scope of this article? Otherwise I don't find your objection per COATRACK to be convincing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Sideswipe, the point is that the material is not about g-c feminism. It is just anecdotes about (apparently) trans history. The Transgender article doesn’t say that J K Rowling has received death threats from trans supporters, nor does it say that g-c feminists have suffered discrimination. None of the material I removed has any place in this article. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

the point is that the material is not about g-c feminism Except that it is? I've got a copy of that encyclopaedia in front of me, and the content that YFNS added is explicitly in a section about structurally or culturally significant TERF activism, covering activities from 1973 through to 2019. Two pages after this in the same chapter details the transition in branding (for lack of a better term) by the activists who are the subject of this article from TERF to gender-critical. Though the names have changed over time, they are still fundamentally the same group of activists or feminists, whether they are called gender-critical, TERF, or some other term. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t want to keep repeating myself. The material tells us nothing about g-c feminism, and you haven’t provided any argument that it does. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand how you believe this. Do you consider trans-exclusionary radical feminism to be wholly separate from gender-critical feminism? Do you believe that trans-exclusionary radical feminists only came into existence circa 2008 when Viv Smythe coined the term to describe them? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: – you are entirely missing my point. The material tells us nothing about g-c feminism. If you want to dispute the point, please address it – what does the material tell us about g-c feminism? Sweet6970 (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: I understand that is the point you're making, but I don't understand why you think this is the case. Personally I cannot start to refute a point until I can at least understand why someone is making that point. Why do you think the material that YFNS added is about a topic other than the subject of this article? Is it because it's describing events that predate the existence of the terms gender-critical and TERF? Or is there some other reason? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m sorry, Sideswipe, but we’re not getting anywhere here. The material I deleted comprises anecdotal history about trans activism. Trans activism is not the subject of this article. As a very rough analogy, the history of the Tory party has no place in an article about socialism.Sweet6970 (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, we're not getting anywhere here because what you've been saying does not make sense to me. I fundamentally fail to see how the activities of what we would now call either gender-critical feminists, or trans-exclusionary radical feminists made against three trans women (Beth Elliott, Sylvia Rivera, and Sandy Stone) would be considered trans activism. Nor do I see how the now defunct National Center for Health Care Technology citing Janice Raymond's work when recommending that US public health insurance not cover what we would now call gender-affirming healthcare could be considered trans activism. Both of these things were, per the SAGE Encyclopedia source and other sources, the result of activism and actions by trans-exclusionary radical feminists targeted against trans people, either individually as in the case of Elliott, Rivera, and Stone, or as a whole as in the case of Raymond.

I've tried asking you several times now for clarification so that I can better respond to your assertion, however you seem to have refused to provide that clarification. Maybe my response in the paragraph above this one disputes your point, and maybe it doesn't. However without clarification as to what you are basing your objection on, I cannot know for sure and I cannot give a fuller refutation.

As for your analogy, it is I believe a somewhat faulty one. Tory socialism was an established concept between 1870 and 1940, used to describe the approaches by Disraeli, Baldwin, and Macmillan. While that may be out of scope of the main socialism article, it is nonetheless in scope of the broader topic and is mentioned in other articles. Now the topic of this article does not yet have enough content to warrant a series of sub-articles. In the future we might have a history of gender-critical feminism article, if that section ever gets long enough to support it. And at that time, an argument could be made that content like what YFNS added and you reverted may be better placed in that article. But we aren't there yet. We only have this article, the related TERF (acronym), and somewhat adjacent anti-gender movement articles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Sideswipe, I have not refused to provide clarification – I have several times tried to clarify this for you, but it doesn’t seem to work for you, and I don’t know how to make it plainer. It is a very basic point about the subject of this article. This article is about a branch of feminism. It is not about trans people. So (dubious) anecdotes about trans people have no place here. Your argument about my analogy demonstrates that I am correct – there is nothing about Disraeli, Baldwin, or Macmillan in the article about Socialism.

But I now realise that I made a mistake when I deleted the material about Janice Raymond – that was not my intention. Apologies for causing confusion over that. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a branch of feminism. It is not about trans people. So (dubious) anecdotes about trans people have no place here. They aren't anecdotes about trans people. They are early instances of what we would now call TERF or gender-criticial activism against trans people, in this case three trans women, to try and prevent them from participating in events (Elliott at the West Coast Lesbian Conference and Rivera at the Christopher Street Liberation Day rally), groups (Elliot with the Daughters of Bilitis), or their work (Stone at Olivia Records). The trans women are the targets of the activism, not the perpetrators of it. Both the SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies (a tertiary source), and multiple secondary sources (like Meyerowitz and those in the biographical articles of the three subjects) cover it in the context of the topic of this article. It is part of the history of this type of feminism, in the same manner that the suffragette bombing and arson campaign in the UK is an important part of the overall history of the UK suffragette movement.

Your argument about my analogy demonstrates that I am correct – there is nothing about Disraeli, Baldwin, or Macmillan in the article about Socialism. I think you have misunderstood what I said. Socialism as a topic on enwiki is covered in multiple related articles. As one of several prominent political philosophies there is a lot to write about it, much more than can be summarised in any one article. As a result, the content is split over multiple articles all of which are linked within the Socialism sidebar template. Disraeli and the rest are not mentioned in main socialism article, because that is a high level overview of the breadth of the entire topic. They are however mentioned on more specialised articles within the same series, because those specialised articles go into the depth of the topic.

Currently, gender-critical feminism is a much smaller topic. We don't have a series of articles covering the breadth of the topic, because that level of detail has not yet reached the point where we would consider splitting the article due to size. That may happen in the future, for example if the history section gets long enough that it could support a stand-alone history of gender-critical feminism, then I would agree that the content would be better covered in that more specialised article. However we're not there yet. We only have a single article, which is covering the breadth and depth of the entire topic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

It tells us that gender critical feminists, also known as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists, repeatedly attempted to exclude trans women from feminist spaces in the 70s. Loki (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it tells us that this book contains an entry by a WP:PARTISAN activist who makes that unverifiable claim.

As it says in the intro, this is not a strictly scholarly text:

the inclusion of a wide range of contributors, including professionals in the field, academics, activists, and writers.

From this review:

The contributors are a mix of academics[...]; independent scholars; journalists; and non-academics

From this review:

In addition to the standard practice of including the work of university-affiliated researchers, the Encyclopedia features entries from independent scholars writing outside the context of academia; practitioners working directly with trans client populations; activists and organizers; and leaders of trans-led and trans-supportive organizations.

This is not comparable to a standard encyclopedia, despite its title. We should not be accepting at face value, as fact, in wikivoice, the unverified and ahistorical writings of a WP:PARTISAN source as if it is WP:SCHOLARSHIP simply because it appears in a collection which is explicitly committed to including non-academic writing, with a stated WP:POV as its objective. Especially when it involves tenuous interpretation of insults projected back in time 35 years before they were coined. This is at best a source for the attributed opinions of the author, all of which seem to be derived from the author's own self-published source. Void if removed (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Void’s points. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies is an excellent source and published by a major reputable academic publisher. The entry on TERF is specifically related to the topic of this article, that is the trans-exclusionary radical feminist (or TERF) ideology/movement, also known in some sources (or as a self-identification) as gender-critical feminism since around 2020. Note that trans-exclusionary radical feminism and gender-critical feminism are equal titles of this article, and has been since the beginning. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

1) Quick question, will you attack the reliability of any source that uses TERF and doesn't say it's a slur? Relatedly - does that apply to trans exclusionary radical feminist or just the acronym TERF?

2) What makes Cristan Williams a PARTISAN activist?

3) What is the stated WP:POV? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

This question was not posed to me, but I will just note that the use of TERF as a descriptive term in feminist and gender studies and sociology is quite mainstream,[3] and "terf is a slur" is mainly a slogan and unsubstantiated claim heard from some TERFs (quite a few of them call themselves TERFs, as we know). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

1: I like to think I would question the reliability of any sources that are shaky - I am pretty sure I have pointed out sources I have used myself that are, at best, viable for attributed opinion. And the point about TERF is that WP:RS have very, very different points of view on this. Even this source notes that some academics won't use it. And again, the OED says it doesn't simply mean "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" every time it is used, and that it is an insult. I think it is fine to say "source x argues it isn't a slur, source y argues it is" because that's well-documented. But it is much harder to definitively say it isn't derogatory when several dictionaries that say it is, and as to whether it gets used anyway, some academics do, but at least as many don't. It is selective to only agree with the ones that seem to enjoy using it and to ignore the ones that don't. It is a contested term.

2: Williams is Editor-In-Chief of TransAdvocate, which is:

The TransAdvocate aims to improve the lives of transgender people through investigative news and nuanced commentary from a boots-on-the-ground trans advocate perspective.

TransAdvocate is a project of Transgender Foundation of America, a nonprofit of which Williams is Executive Director.

There is nothing wrong with a source being partisan or activist, but this is not a neutral, dispassionate, scholarly record of history taking account of all points of view - this is the output of an advocacy org.

3: The stated POV is, from the encycopedia:

The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies centers trans people and experiences

And again: there's nothing wrong with a POV, but to ignore that this encyclopedia is written entirely from the trans perspective means that it is hardly an authoritative source on feminism or feminist history that can be readily taken as wikivoice, especially when the section author seems to be the principle source of information and using a quite contentious and deliberately insulting description.

Per WP:BIASED Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.. This is fine as long as we accept that this is a viewpoint, and not definitive, and thereby exclude other viewpoints. There is a difference between two irreconcilable positions on much of this topic, and we're relying on plenty of conflicting and polarised WP:RSOPINION. I am continually arguing for WP:BALANCE, and I simply don't think that taking a highly questionable interpretation of modern insults projected backwards to the 70s gives a useful timeline of gender-critical feminist history when the term was coined in this context in 2013. Void if removed (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

We cannot ignore that tons of academic sources positively cite very radical trans activist academic papers. And there is certainly no need to remove factual information from encyclopedic sources from reputable publishers. Reprarina (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The author of the TERFs section that YFNS quoted, Christan Williams, is as far as I can tell from information online, an academic with a PhD from an accredited university, who has a pretty respectable publication list both on Google Scholar and her own website, with works in several reputable academic journals and other works by academic publishers (eg she's one of several contributing authors to Trans Bodies, Trans Selves). She appears to have written extensively on trans history. While it is true that page xxvi in the introduction of the encyclopedia does state that the work as a whole does contain contributions from activists, I'm not seeing any evidence that Williams is a non-academic.

Now if you want to dispute the reliability of this source, or the section we're citing, ultimately that is a discussion best held at WP:RSN. However I will point out that this work overall was published by a major academic publishing company, Sage Publishing. The lead editors, Abbie Goldberg (dewiki article) and Genny Beemyn, are both well respected academics at major US universities. The overall encyclopedia itself, per page xxvi was subject to extensive editorial review, and the majority of authors were asked to revise their entries at least once. This work very much appears to be a reputable work, published by a mainstream academic publisher, with a high level of editorial oversight. It appears to meet all of our criteria to be considered a high quality reliable source, albeit a tertiary source.

Per policy, we can use tertiary sources. They can be extremely helpful when evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other, as well as providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. However Wikipedia articles are primarily based on material published by reliable secondary sources, so we may wish to support the citations to the encyclopedia with other relevant secondary sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes the encyclopedia is a reputable publication, that's not in question - what is though is whether it adheres to scholarly norms for such publications because it is being cited as if it is, and by my reading they don't - and there's a stated and laudable reason in that they want to center trans and marginalised voices. Fine, but I don't think you can simply say everything in it is definitive just because it is called an encyclopedia, and each section has to be evaluated on merit, whether it is WP:DUE, corroborated, etc.

I think this is a strong and unverifiable claim that needs independent corroboration to appear in wikivoice (and by that I mean actually independent, not just another source that cites Williams). Void if removed (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

what is though is whether it adheres to scholarly norms for such publications because it is being cited as if it is, and by my reading they don't If you have a copy of the encyclopedia, then I would direct you to the Background of the Encyclopedia section on page xxvi. That section clearly states, as I explained in my last reply, that there was strong editorial oversight from an editorial team, with contributors being asked to revise their submissions as and when appropriate. This appears to be no different a process than any other SAGE Encyclopedia that I'm familiar with.

I think this is a strong and unverifiable claim that needs independent corroboration to appear in wikivoice Again, you're misunderstanding WP:V. However, could you clarify which claim are you talking about? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Anything pre-2013 is already diluting the focus of this page. Anything pre-2008 makes very little sense, and the inclusion of Raymond and Greer really only serves as background to the establishment of the term "TERF".

Calling lesbian activists in 1973 "TERF activists" makes no sense whatsoever.

The page on Beth Elliott says she was accepted and served until late 1972 when accusations of sexual harassment from former friend, lesbian separatist, and feminist activist, Bev Jo Von Dohre, led to a decisive vote.. So this source contradicts the sources there.

I think this is a questionable source expressing completely unsubstantiated and ahistorical opinions, and trying to include it here is just going to derail an already derailed article further because what's stated here must be balanced by all the information on other articles that contradicts it, from much better sources. Void if removed (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Anything pre-2013 is already diluting the focus of this page. Anything pre-2008 makes very little sense It would be a monumental mistake to assume that the activists this article describes only came into existence in the mid-to-late 2000s. We know through academic and tertiary sources that this type of activism has been ongoing since since at least the early 1970s.

Calling lesbian activists in 1973 "TERF activists" makes no sense whatsoever. While it is true that the term TERF was only coined in 2008, the activists for whom that moniker described were clearly active long before that point. Whatever they may have called themselves, or been described as by others, would be of relevance to the terminology section.

So this source contradicts the sources there No, it doesn't. The mistake here is that our article on Beth Elliott is unclear as to when the 35 to 28 expulsion vote happened. The source in the citation for that sentence doesn't actually state when that vote took place. The Google Books preview for Joanne Meyerowitz' How Sex Changed: A History of Transsexuality in the United States implies that the vote took place in 1973, as that vote lead to the split of the Daughters of Bilitis, and it can be inferred that this was prior to April 1973, as that is when the West Coast Lesbian Conference occurred in LA.

The only thing that needs correcting here is our article on Elliott, for which we'd need to reanalyse the sourcing to figure out when the expulsion of Elliott from DoB occurred. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Just want to note I'd been fixing the Elliot article up right before you left this note and published just after. One of the sources there was a self-published website, but all the sources there (including that one) agreed she was kicked out for being trans in a vote on whether to allow trans women at all, none attribute the decision to the allegations of sexual harassment. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Many of first-wave feminists didn't call themselve feminists. But they are feminists according to RSs. Reprarina (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

For the record, the section I'm quoting, TERF activism, says

• TERF activists organized to expel Beth Elliott...,
• A group of TERF activists calling themselves the Gutter Dykes physically attacked...,
• TERF activists attempted to stop Rivera from speaking at the Christopher Street Liberation Day Parade,
• TERF activists had long been opposed to Sandy Stone... A TERF organization named The Gorgons...,
• Janice Raymond published what has become the manual for TERF advocacy, the book The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male.,
• and In 1980, the congressionally mandated National Center for Health Care Technology (NCHCT) contracted Raymond to research the ethical nature of trans health care.

So it is triply explicit (through the section title, description of the section as a timeline of TERF activism, and explicit use of the term TERF activist) these are moments significant to TERF/GC history. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Because of the clear consensus on this talk page, Sweet's WP:IDHT notwithstanding, I've readded the material with "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" or similar wherever the source has it to make the connection explicit. Loki (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: – you have also missed the point. If you want to dispute the point, please address it – what does the material tell us about g-c feminism? And please do not make unfounded accusations – I could say that those who refuse to address my point are engaging in IDHT – but I prefer to assume good faith, and assume that those who have not addressed my point have just missed it. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Trans-exclusionary radical feminism is gender-critical feminism, as we say in literally the first line of the article. Does that make it very clear? Loki (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Theres a 3/2 split here and clear ongoing disagreement. Accusing Sweet of WP:IDHT is uncalled for. Void if removed (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Your paraphrase is cumbersome and wholly inappropriate.

The author does not say "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" - they say "TERF". We've already established many times you can't just expand the acronym unless someone is using it very precisely, and this one is not.

In the same piece, the author argues:

While TERF, as a lexical unit, can carry unflattering overtones in the same way that bigot, misogynist, or racist might, it nonetheless constructs a much-needed way to disentangle the sometimes subjugative, violent, and even murderous anti-trans behavior and rhetoric of TERF activism from radical feminism itself

[...]

While the term TERF is critiqued as being antagonistic, it nonetheless fills a discursive void in that it concisely assigns a lexical identity to a set of ideas pioneered by the TERF movement, regardless of who makes use of these arguments. In this way, TERF can be used both to identify a specific morality-driven rhetorical tradition and to distinguish it from trans-inclusive traditions and movements.

The author is using TERF in a broad sense, and specifically because it is insulting and/or derogatory. It is very wrong to expand that terminology to the precise form where the author is not making this explicit, and is openly stating it has wider and derogatory usage.

In fact, the author even notes this:

Moreover, TERF is critiqued because its use is sometimes expanded, especially on social media sites, to refer to those who promote a TERF-style sex essentialist discourse, even if the anti-trans activist may not self-identify as being any type of feminist.

The author also notes that it is possible to be neutral, but they are choosing not to:

Some activists and academics do not use TERF, as they wish to avoid the possibility of a controversy that would detract from their arguments.

As a result, we have no idea who the supposed "TERF activists" they refer to are, or what their ideology is.

It all seems to be backwards reasoning, projecting modern terms onto past actions. The lesbians did not eject Beth Elliott because they were TERFs - but they are TERFs because they rejected Beth Elliott. Void if removed (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The idea that TERF might mean anything other than trans-exclusionary radical feminism seems extremely suspect to me, to say nothing of the assertion that "we've already established [this] many times". Loki (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, from the OED:

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.

I literally just quoted the source above, conceding this point:

its use is sometimes expanded, especially on social media sites, to refer to those who promote a TERF-style sex essentialist discourse, even if the anti-trans activist may not self-identify as being any type of feminist

And I gave 5 quotes higher up in this discussion with expanded meanings. Seriously, it is a disputed term, and an empty one, that basically just means "transphobe" at this stage.

When the (opinionated) source itself says TERF might actually not strictly mean "trans-exclusionary radical feminist", while at the same time applying it back in time to unidentified lesbian feminists some 35 years before the term was even coined, with no citations, I think you're on shaky ground thinking it can be simply expanded as "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" in wikivoice. Void if removed (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Dictionaries are generally not great sources for this sort of thing because they're often not written by subject-matter experts and tend not to go into depth; as a result, even your reading of it depends on your interpretation. Likewise, the problem with just dismissing a source as "opinionated" the way you're doing here is that logically most editors are going to feel that sources that say things they disagree with or which use language they disfavor is opinionated, leading to circular arguments; you could say "I think no neutral source uses the word TERF!" and when sources are presented saying otherwise, you could just dismiss them as non-neutral because they use the word TERF. Whether a source is opinion or not depends on how and where it's published - there are publications that don't do a great job of separating fact and opinion, but you have to actually make that argument, you can't just dismiss academic papers as "opinionated" based on your personal characterization of their conclusions. And in general there's a lot of high-quality academic sourcing discussing how TERFs rebranded as gender-critical, making them the same ideology; it's a pretty hard sell to try and characterize all of that as opinionated, especially when you haven't really presented anything that directly disputes that fairly well-established timeline. --Aquillion (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

’purported to examine’

How about amending the wording to: … examined what she considered to be the role of transgender identity in reinforcing traditional gender stereotypes…? (proposed addition in bold) Sweet6970 (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

That works perfectly; thank you! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I have now made this change. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Article scope

I've noticed that there are persistent disputes over what exactly this article covers (like if it covers anything before 2013/2008, and if it should include sources about "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" or exclusively sources about "gender-critical feminism"). Should there be an RFC to settle this issue once and for all? PBZE (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe. But RfC's are a large time investment for the community, and I think an important first step before an RfC would be to look at what secondary and tertiary reliable sources consider the scope of this topic to be. Do they draw a distinction between post-2013 activism versus 2008-2013 activism versus pre-2008 activism? Or do they consider it to be one consistent topic, that has changed names at least twice (ie TERF to gender-critical)? As in all things on Wikipedia, we should follow the sourcing for how they describe and frame this topic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement that all the questions you've listed are important ones and the right ones to ask. Even so, we should probably establish an explicit consensus for them soon in some way, to avoid having the same rehashed arguments over and over again, like what's happening now. PBZE (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think answering those questions is how we can achieve an informed consensus on the article's scope. There's no point in holding an RfC until we have some sort of answer for those, because I strongly suspect the first question from an uninvolved editor will be "well what do RS say?"

If the sources are clear, then we wouldn't even need an RfC to resolve this issue, as we would be able to point to those sources for it. We have several very strong policy reasons like WP:V and WP:NPOV to support such a consensus even in the absence of an RfC. Conversely if the sources are unclear or undecided, then we could go to an RfC, using those same sources to inform the question and options for the survey. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, we have multiple highly credible academic sources in this very article that very explicitly link the "TERF" and "gender-critical" terms together (some describing the latter as a rebranding of the former) and discuss history of the underlying ideology/movement going back to the 70s. To me that's pretty clear evidence for the scope of this article being broader, but that gets repeatedly called into question in this very talk page, so I hope for a way to better establish a consensus and put this dispute to an end. PBZE (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

There's many articles where a basic fact about the topic gets frequently called into question. The ones that come to mind immediately as someone who spends a lot of time in trans-related articles are the first sentence of trans woman, Graham Linehan's status as an anti-trans activist, and also Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull's status as an anti-trans activist (and not a women's rights activist).

In one of these cases (trans woman), there was an RFC to determine the consensus. But in the case of KJKM and Linehan there wasn't, those are just based on talk page consensus. And if you look at the list of articles that use the special template on Linehan's talk page I'd guess you'd find most of them are based on talk page consensus. Loki (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

An issue with that is that the sources disagree quite profoundly, depending on which "side" they fall on.

Meanwhile arguments are being made here that "TERF" is not an insult (or if it is, it is deserved), that "gender critical feminism" is akin to racism, and therefore any sources that don't treat it with contempt are to be distrusted/excluded. Void if removed (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

TERF ideology is singularly focused on marginalizing and demonizing trans women, so in that sense the ideology is comparable to other ideologies that marginalize groups of people, particularly minorities. Above we discussed whether a term that describes such an ideology is inherently derogatory because some (but not all) of them object to the term. It seems to me that trans-exclusionary radical feminist (or TERF) treats TERFs with far more respect, and is much more "neutral" in nature, than comparable terms such as white supremacist. And there are many examples of TERFs using the term themselves. The radical feminist part of the term just refers to radical feminism and there is nothing derogatory about that; the trans-exclusionary part refers to their stated objective of excluding trans women from what they consider radical feminism/womanhood etc. Many academic and other reliable (media) sources use the TERF term descriptively. It doesn't really matter if all TERFs are comfortable with the term; most white supremacists don't describe themselves as white supremacists either. We do not require terms to enjoy universal support, even among fringe groups. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

TERF ideology is singularly focused on marginalizing and demonizing trans women

Whatever it is that you think "TERF ideology" is, that is not an accurate description of gender critical feminism. If it were, it would not be protected in UK law. Such a belief would not be (as it goes) worthy of respect in a democratic society.

The constant claims that "TERF" is neutral are not reflected in academic sources like the one at the heart of this latest controversy, which concedes it is not neutral and makes a point of using it precisely because it isn't. There's a general confusion between "academic sources think it is neutral" and "some academic sources think they deserve it". Void if removed (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the results of the Mackereth and Forstater cases:[4]

only if the belief involves a very grave violation of the rights of others, tantamount to the destruction of those rights, would it be one that was not worthy of respect in a democratic society ... The EAT in Forstater thus concluded that it would only be “in extremely limited circumstances in which a belief would be considered so beyond the pale” that it would not qualify for any protection under article 9 ECHR. ...
In our judgment, it is important that in applying Grainger V, Tribunals bear in mind that it is only those beliefs that would be an affront to Convention principles in a manner akin to that of pursuing totalitarianism, or advocating Nazism, or espousing violence and hatred in the gravest of forms, that should be capable of being not worthy of respect in a democratic society. Beliefs that are offensive, shocking or even disturbing to others, and which fall into the less grave forms of hate speech would not be excluded from the protection.

British courts have not ruled on whether or not "TERF ideology", "GC feminism" or anything else "is singularly focused on marginalizing and demonizing trans women". But both those cases did rule that such a singular focus would not make beliefs cease to be "worthy of respect in a democratic society".

Forstater and Mackereth did not say that GC beliefs are good or don't harm trans people; those cases merely found that the threshold for not protecting beliefs is so high that only pursing totalitarianism, or advocating Nazism, or espousing violence and hatred in the gravest of forms would not be "worthy of respect in a democratic society". Not the highest of bars and certainly not a rebuttal of @Amanda A. Brant's statement. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The bar for the mere holding of a belief being permissible grounds for discrimination is rightly high. A belief that was "singularly focused on marginalizing and demonizing trans women" would not pass the Grainger test, because a component of that is that it "not conflict with the fundamental rights of others", never mind the other tests for coherence and cogency. You're misunderstanding those cases by imagining that the bar is so high, such a belief would so obviously clear it.

But in any case beyond the mere belief itself, if it were indeed "singularly focused on marginalizing and demonizing trans women" then you would expect expression of that belief to run into problems. Yet time and again this expression is also being protected and not - as portrayed by opponents - deemed transphobic and hateful. Indeed, in Meade last week, the fact that both SWE and Westminster Council believed that it was inherently transphobic led them to discriminate unlawfully, while the judge explicitly found that Meade's statements were not transphobic when viewed objectively. I think continuing to spread around the claim that these beliefs are inherently hateful and that sources that espouse them are also hateful, constantly likening this to racism and white supremacy - when if that were true it would not be protected in law in the UK - is clear WP:POV. Void if removed (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Void’s interpretation of these cases is correct. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Whether transphobia is "legal" in the UK, or Russia or any other countries with bad LGBT+ records[5], has no bearing on the argument made above. Even in the US you can advocate really extreme views, such as Nazism and other forms of racism, but that doesn't make those views "non-extreme". It's also perfectly legal to point out how such views marginalize and dehumanize minorities. The bar here isn't whether it's legal to hold an opinion. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I don't know if we need an RFC to settle a question that is settled by the first sentence of the article. Loki (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The article's scope has been settled from the very beginning and there is no need to keep beating this dead horse. The article covers the ideology or movement that is now typically known as either trans-exclusionary radical feminism (TERF) or gender-critical feminism, with the terms being used interchangeably by academic and other sources to refer to the same thing. A topic is not based on the specific term – terms often change over time, and many topics are known under more than one name – but rather on a concept. This movement did not come into existence in the 2020s, it started out as an anti-trans fringe movement in radical feminism decades earlier and has roots dating back to the 1970s as many sources note, but the movement became much more prominent/notorious/visible in the 2020s, and the specific terms used today are relatively recent: There are barely results for "gender-critical feminism" in Google Scholar before 2020 or so, but many results for trans-exclusionary radical feminism/ist/ists or TERF in the decade prior to that, but that doesn't mean this entire belief system was created only just now. Of course anti-trans self-identified radical feminists had been around for much longer than the past 3–4 years. Adopting a new term didn't change that. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem is, the dead horse keeps getting beaten anyway by editors who dispute this article's scope. The fact that we feel the need to even engage with those disputes, instead of, say, WP:SNOWCLOSEing and moving on, to me feels like a sign that we need to more formally and unambiguously establish a consensus. PBZE (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

We already have a consensus. The article already has a clearly defined scope, and has had from the very beginning. We can just move on now. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, participating in this argument for a day has kinda convinced me. A lot of the pages that do with an informal consensus just have IPs or new SPAs coming to disrupt them. We have a consistent dispute between two groups of editors, and although one group is definitely larger I don't think the question will be settled until we do some sort of formal consensus-settling mechanic. Loki (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

But we do have a consensus. We discussed the conceptualization of the article extensively from the beginning, and it was always clear that it was intended to cover what is known as both trans-exclusionary radical feminism and gender-critical feminism, a term that gained traction only recently (around 2020) and that refers to the same ideology, as many sources note. In fact those two titles are equal titles, as discussed extensively since the very beginning. There was never any opposition to the conceptualization of the article in this regard when it was decided. Furthermore, this article evolved from/was split off from a section in Feminist views on transgender topics that had been titled "Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism" (as equal titles) for a long time (and which remains its title), reflecting a long-standing consensus. When we have a status quo that has existed for literally years, it is by definition the existing consensus. It's important to keep in mind that "consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote"; the consensus in this case has evolved through editing—the most common route—and discussion over many years, resulting in the current status quo (see Wikipedia:Consensus for more). If someone wants to change that, they would have to obtain consensus for a change, but that would be their responsibility.

I don't see any viable or serious alternative to the status quo. What is the actual proposal here? Limiting the article based on just a term that gained traction 3–4 years ago, as a new term for a movement and ideology that had existed for many years before that (Thurlow, Claire (2022). "From TERF to gender critical: A telling genealogy?". Sexualities. doi:10.1177/13634607221107827. S2CID 252662057.), would not only be artifical, but completely absurd and impossible given how this topic is treated by sources: In the decade prior to 2020 there is a large body of academic papers discussing trans-exclusionary radical feminism as an ideology or movement and hardly any mention of the term "gender-critical feminism". Then, as sources note, "gender-critical feminism" appears as a new "self-definition by some individuals and groups labelled TERFs by others" (Grinspan, Mauro Cabral; Eloit, Ilana; Paternotte, David; Verloo, Mieke (2023). "Exploring TERFnesses". Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies. 10 (2). doi:10.21825/digest.90008.). Gender-critical feminism is simply a new term for what was pretty much universally labelled TERF before 2020, and this movement or ideology didn't come into existence in 2020, but has a much longer history. If, say, Bill Clinton changed his name to Rob Johnson, we wouldn't omit his entire biography before the name change. And there are many ideologies, movements and numerous other concepts, from fruits to humans, that have had more than one name. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 11:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Every second we spend entertaining the idea of changing the article's scope is a second we could have spent improving the article. I suspect that, because we would only have to do so once, an RFC would save time in the long term.

Regardless, we need to stop the consensus from being repeatedly questioned or obscured in ways that drain the time of editors and act as a bottleneck to improving the article. How do you think we should do that? PBZE (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the need for an RfC, especially considering that there is no viable alternative. Having a vote is not required to establish a Wikipedia:Consensus. The existing consensus and the years-long status quo are as valid as any consensus that could result from an RfC. You typically start an RfC if you want to challenge a consensus and change something. It has been explained several times how this article has been conceptualized and how it has two equivalent titles that basically refer to the same thing, and the article also includes sources that explain all this. We could add this explanation that reflects the status quo to the top of this talk page, to limit pointless comments about whether sources use one specific term that gained traction 3–4 years ago or whether they use the use the term that was used by virtually all sources in the decade prior to that and that remains a common term. E.g. something like: The topic of this article is the ideology or movement known variously in reliable sources as gender-critical feminism (including abbreviated forms such as "GC", "GC feminism) or trans-exclusionary radical feminism (including abbreviated forms such as "TERF ideology", "TERFism" and similar expressions). The two main titles are equivalent. The article was split off from the article Feminist views on transgender topics where the corresponding section is titled "Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism" --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Conversion Therapy / Gender Identity Change Efforts

@Void if removed you reverted my recent addition to the article stating Remove not WP:DUE, WP:COATRACK, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:POV material, argue for this in talk please.

• WRT WP:DUE - Gender-critical activists have very prominently and repeatedly opposed bans on gender identity change efforts (particularly in the UK). Kathleen Stock did so, and wrote about it, and we have a secondary source analyzing her argument against it (that respecting trans kids is actually sexual orientation change efforts). Whether or not you like it, it is a recognizable view and campaign platform of the GC movement covered in RS
• WRT WP:COATRACK - Material that is supported by a reliable, published source whose topic is directly related to the topic of the article, is not using the article as a coatrack. It clearly doesn't apply. Same for WP:NOTEVERYTHING.
• WRT WP:POV - how so? Is it not a neutral/verifiable statement that gender-critical groups have lobbied against bans on gender identity change efforts? Frankly, per WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, the added text should have been more clear that conversion therapy does indeed include GICE regardless of what GC feminists say.

Since you removed 5 sentences and 6 sources, it would also help if actually listed specific objections relative to those instead of broad unsubstantiated complaints about the whole subsection. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Just want to state back up of this opinion and comment that I believe GC feminists have been against conversion therapy bans for trans youth in the UK for a couple of years by this point. LunaHasArrived (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Since it included content clearly tied back to the main subject of gender-critical feminism, I don't see a good reason for reverting the entire thing. I agree that if there are objections to specific parts, then it would be better to challenge those on a case-by-case basis. Hist9600 (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The information about supporting conversion therapy from GCs must be included in the article. It is obviously a significant fact. The academic sources: 1, 2. Reprarina (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

"Opposing bans on conversion therapy" is not equal to "supporting conversion therapy". Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Very true. It is important to be precise when editing Wikipedia. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• I think it's a reasonable paraphrase, but either way that's certainly not a strong enough objection to remove the entire section, especially since the section itself didn't say they supported conversion therapy. --Aquillion (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

So, my issues in turn.

1. This is supposedly an article about an "ism". The views of that "ism" should as far as possible reflect the views of the "ism", as sourced to multiple, reliable, independent sources. I don't think citing the views of one individual is enough to establish that this is the "views" of an "ism", especially when the phrasing is questionable, and especially when it is hard to extrapolate nuanced positions on specific legislative proposals to general opinions on general concepts. The idea that Kathleen Stock rejects Stonewall's interpretation of gender identity conversion therapy is reflective of gender-critical feminist opinion on conversion therapy as a whole is improper.

2. The continual widening of interpretation of "gender-critical feminism" to just anything "gender-critical" is improper and widens an makes an already overly broad article worse. So material about Genspect for example is not relevant (they are not a gender-critical feminist organisation). They have an article, and are already mentioned heavily across multiple other articles that touch on conversion therapy vs exploratory therapy, I'm not sure why it needs dragging in here too. Likewise talk of "gender-critical therapy" or a random noticeboard that just happens to have "gender-critical" in the name. None of these are anything to do with "gender-critical feminism" and again WP:NOTEVERYTHING.

3. The paraphrasing as "Gender Identity Change Efforts" is WP:POV. The UK gov did not remove "gender identity change efforts" from any proposed bill.

4. The material on Kathleen Stock is paraphrased, seeing as the article in question was actually about Stonewall's interpretation of gender identity conversion therapy. This is a complicated and nuanced difference of opinion expressed by a living person, and needs the strongest possible sources expressed in a fair and balanced way. On her article this is handled with a direct quote of her own words, which is fairer. Even so, I don't think that random opinions of individuals are the best way of establishing the "views" of an "ism". There is neither the space nor the reason to give a full rendition of the state of opinion on - very specifically - the UK government's proposed ban on conversion therapy here. For example, this submission by Labour Womens Declaration (arguably a gender-critical feminist organisation) amounts to: it is complex, wait for the Cass Review to finish.

So - you added one sentence saying what Kathleen Stock's opinion is, paraphrased in wikivoice instead of an attributed quote like on her own article. You added four further sentences not actually about the views of gender-critical feminists, but about:

• criticism of it via WP:RSOPINION rendered as wikivoice instead of attributed (one-sided, ignoring all the contradictory views, so there's no WP:BALANCE here).
• the UK gov flip flopping on legislation (doesn't seem WP:DUE here, there's not a lot of coverage, no direct mention of "gender-critical feminist/ism", but WRN are quoted as saying "Watching and waiting therapies are not 'conversion' and this bill obfuscated that fact.", so if it were due I think it would be via a quote like that at best IMO)
• The Trevor Project and Heron Greenesmith's opinions on conversion therapy that have nothing to do with gender-critical feminism
• Genspect's opinions on exploratory therapy, who aren't a gender-critical feminist org, and again why is this under the heading "conversion therapy".

Adding a contentious new section on the views of an "ism" where at least 80% of it doesn't describe the views of the "ism" is why I say this is WP:COATRACK stuff.

Personally I think a better way to deal with this would be a section elsewhere on responses to specific legislation, where that legislation was notable and covered in WP:RS, perhaps in this case in the "united kingdom" section. It is hard to extrapolate general views on "conversion" to specific bills in particular regions where what may be opposed is particular wording, not the practices, or the timing and lack of evidence. And again, those views should be attributed to specific organisations that are well-established as "gender-critical feminist" orgs.

So in the UK section, a paragraph about proposed conversion therapy ban and the feminist response to it would be possibly WP:DUE, as long as it didn't get derailed into reiterating every single exploratory vs conversion argument yet again here. Void if removed (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

1. We don't say it reflects it as whole, but every GC organization in the UK opposed the conversion therapy ban so it seems to be a unifying view
2. Please provide a single source corroborating the existence of a "gender-critical" movement larger than "gender-critical feminism".
3. That was the title of this talk page discussion and wasn't put in the article, but yes, they did remove that, that's literally what they did (the term GICE means conversion therapy on the basis of gender)
4. Stock has written on it repeatedly. Quoting her opinion piece on her article is bad writing. Quoting a reliable secondary source summarizing her arguments across multiple articles she wrote is much better.

• WP:RSOPINION does not mean "a reliable source said something I disagree with". It is a WP:RS. The characterization of Stock's views is fine. Per WP:FRINGE,
• Nearly all BBC coverage of the conversion therapy ban mentioned opposition from gender-critical groups
• Greenesmith links to an article explaining the change from "TERF" to "GC" when introducing the term... And the UK Government Equalities Office cited her on the growth of such boards.

Most of your points boil down to the second point you listed, and frankly it's a huge reach to say they're referring to something else by "gender-critical".

WRT moving to the UK Section, I don't think that's a good solution as there is indeed a recognizable view independent of the UK: ie affirming trans kids is actually SOCE, conversion therapy bans shouldn't include GICE as it's different from SOCE. Here's anther GC activist opposing the ban[6] and here's another one explicitly using the argument SOCE and GICE are different.[7]. Here's another source examining UK GC campaigning against conversion therapy bans/ the belief that affirming kids is actually conversion therapy.[8] Here's one on TERF activists in France opposing such bans on trans conversion therapy saying the same. [9] Here'sWomen's Declaration International arguing affirming trans kids is conversion therapy[10]. Here's one on arguing Raymond supported conversion therapy for trans people[11] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, page 37 of this book analyzing GC feminism notes that LGB alliance calls affirming trans kids conversion therapy. [12] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The material added under the heading ‘Conversion Therapy’ is about Conversion Therapy, on which we have an article. It is not about g-c feminism, which is the subject of this article. This is classic WP:COATRACK.

Also, the text about the UK government’s plans regarding banning conversion therapy is out of date – in December 2023 Kemi Badenoch announced plans to “bring forward a bill to ban conversion practices, which seek to change or suppress someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” See [13].

Sweet6970 (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

For the record, by that same line of reasoning, we should remove "Sex and gender" from "Views" too, since we have an article on it so it's coatrack apparently... The section added was about GC views on conversion therapy, not all of conversion therapy, in the same way we have a section on GC views on sex and gender in addition to an article on the sex-gender distinction. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

to YFNS: by that same line of reasoning… No, my reasoning is not that if we have an article on a subject, mentioning it in another article automatically makes this coatracking. My argument is that the material you added is about conversion therapy, and therefore should only be considered for inclusion in that article. It is not about g-c feminism, and therefore it does not belong in this article. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not about g-c feminism, and therefore it does not belong in this article Hard disagree. I've re-reviewed the content added by YFNS and content about gender-critical feminist views on conversion therapy is on topic for this article. A direct parallel here is the ex-gay movement. Their views on conversion therapy are off-topic for the conversion therapy article, and they are mentioned very briefly in that article's content in the ex-gay/ex-trans ministry section. But they are on-topic within the ex-gay movement article, where they are discussed in detail in the sexual orientation change efforts section. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

20% of the material was one person's opinion of one specific interpretation of gender identity conversion therapy, and not directly quoted like on their own article, but filtered via someone else's unattributed opinion of it.

80% of the material was not about gender critical feminist views, but tenuous other views and out-of-date/unsupported statements about the UK government's position on paraphrased "gender identity change efforts" etc. This is exactly what WP:COATRACK is about. And in any case this particular legislation has ample, and better, coverage here.

Ex-gay is not a good analogy, since the ex-gay movement is entirely about conversion therapy. That's the very core of what it believes to be possible and encourages or condones. Gender-critical feminism OTOH is not in any sense "about" conversion therapy. That individuals or groups may take issue with the wording of specific legislative proposals in one region is several steps removed from core beliefs or views.

If there was significant secondary coverage of actual gender critical feminist views on this topic, we'd be able to use those sources. And even if so, this is a nuanced subject that needs approaching fairly, their opinions need to be given ample space in their specific context, and not taking one person's indirectly-presented opinions about one legislative proposal as a launching point for a bunch of other material, presented as if this is the "views" of an "ism" about "conversion therapy" as a whole. Void if removed (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of your framing of actual gender critical feminist views; we do have coverage of actual gender-critical views on the topic, that's what the sources you're objecting to are. The section cites secondary coverage of prominent gender-critical figures and campaigns in-depth, including via high-quality academic sources. There may be room for improvement, of course, using sources that discuss the broader topic, but given the amorphous nature of these sort of movements, covering the views of prominent figures and major activists is appropriate, and indeed, the way this section does so is comparable to several of the other view sections; given the breadth and quality of coverage, I don't think you've successfully made the argument that it ought to be omitted entirely or that there were serious problems with it in its current form. And a quick nose-count in this discussion shows a general consensus for inclusion in some form, so I've restored the section for now. --Aquillion (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

How is a footnote quoting the Trevor Project in passing calling something undefined and unverifiable "gender-critical therapy" a reflection of "gender-critical feminist views on conversion therapy"? Especially when that footnote points to an archived page that no longer exists and was deleted in 2021?

When the latest Trevor Project report on conversion therapy doesn't mention "gender critical therapy" at all?

If this was a widespread viewpoint of gender-critical feminism - the subject of this page - to the point of specifically advocating "gender-critical therapy" as a form of conversion therapy, why is this source so tenuous? Why is there not a single gender-critical source - feminist or otherwise - advocating "gender-critical therapy" anywhere that I can find?

Why, when I search for "gender-critical therapy" is the oldest usage I can spot an opinion piece by Gemma Stone, not reporting that that is actually a practice, but coining it to refer to something they are criticising? That is, in response to an attempt to create a list of gender critical therapists, Stone repeats activist warnings about "gender-critical therapy"?

In fact what seems to have happened is Stella O'Malley tweeted "I hate the phrase gender critical but I am making a list! A large number of people contact me seeking help and I don’t know enough Irish therapists who can provide compassionate and nuanced therapy."

And a number of opponents tweeted that "gender critical therapy is conversion therapy" and now this particular myth is here, constructed from one WP:PARTISAN opinion piece based on hostile tweets, a long-deleted Trevor Project page, and an article in Teen Vogue.

This looks like the only ones using the term "gender critical therapy" are opponents, which got into a Trevor Project page temporarily and is now removed and never mentioned again I am guessing because it doesn't actually exist.

Digging even deeper - the other citation used here is a GEO report. This says nothing about gender-critical therapy. However it does say - in the footnotes again - "For instance, there have been reports of people sharing lists online of therapists for parents of transgender children seeking non-affirming therapists (Greenesmith, 2020; ILGA, 2020)" so nothing about gender-critical feminism or therapy at all, so this it WP:SYNTH based on the fact that it cites Greensmith's Teen Vogue piece again, making this redundant. It also cites an ILGA report which bases its claim on the Gemma Stone article in the Independent.

There's nothing here. There is no independent corroboration of any of this, no source outside of the Stone opinion piece and the Greensmith Teen Vogue piece, which are demonstrably using their own terminology, not describing anything actually offered with the name "gender-critical therapy".

Assembling this kind of WP:SYNTH from fragments of primary sources, deleted self-published sites and WP:PARTISAN opinion pieces is completely wrong.

Compare this approach to sourcing to the dozen or so high quality and unambiguous sources and 9 days on and off discussion it took simply to amend this page with media coverage of highly relevant legal rulings. I don't think incredibly contentious and inflammatory material based on a three-year-old partially-deleted game of telephone belongs here, frankly. Void if removed (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

When the latest Trevor Project report on conversion therapy doesn't mention "gender critical therapy" at all? Maybe because that newer report doesn't enumerate all of the alternative names for it. It only explicitly mentions the reparative therapy, ex-gay, and unwanted same-sex attraction alternate names. But we know from other sources that there are other names, especially when the practice is targeted at specific demographics like trans and non-binary people.

And a number of opponents tweeted that "gender critical therapy is conversion therapy" and now this particular myth is here, constructed from one WP:PARTISAN opinion piece based on hostile tweets, a long-deleted Trevor Project page, and an article in Teen Vogue. It's not a myth, it's an alternate name. Also your timeline doesn't take into account the ILGA's February 2020 report on conversion therapy], which predates the Trevor Project report by about a year, and the Teen Vogue piece by about four months.

based on hostile tweets, If we're going down the OR rabbit hole, which is fine on a talk page but not on an article, then we need to go deeper. Looking at the archive you provided, O'Malley's tweet (3 February 2020) was a quote retweet of one by Graham Linehan (3 February 2020) where he said that O'Malley was trying to assemble a list of Irish gender critical therapists as a resource for parents (emphasis mine). Linehan's tweet predates Quibilah1's by a day, but there's more. After doing a search on Twitter, the oldest tweet I was able to find that uses the term was from June 2018 from someone who seems to be a gender-critical activist or supporter. Maybe there's older tweets than this, Twitter's search function isn't the greatest at the best of times and has only gotten worse since Elon's takeover. But with the term gender-critical only coming into existence circa 2016 it seems unlikely. Stating that the term was based on hostile tweets does not stand up to scrutiny I'm afraid.

This looks like the only ones using the term "gender critical therapy" are opponents, which got into a Trevor Project page temporarily and is now removed and never mentioned again I am guessing because it doesn't actually exist. And ex-gay ministries is a term used by conversion therapy proponents. That doesn't preclude it being a valid alternate name to describe what is the same overall type of pseudoscientific practices couched in therapeutic language. There are also still contemporary examples of the term being used as one of the alternate names for conversion therapy. For example, a September 2023 article on The Therapist written by a licensed psychologist mentions the term as one of several alternate names for conversion therapy. As does this UNDP handbook (page 17) April 2023.

Assembling this kind of WP:SYNTH from fragments of primary sources SYNTH only applies to us as enwiki editors, and like all of our policies does not apply to the sources that we use. Indeed synthesising information from primary sources is the expected role and function of any reliable secondary source on a given topic. Please stop trying to apply our policies to content that appears in reliable sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I cited the ILGA report. I pointed out it is cited by the GEO report. I said It also cites an ILGA report which bases its claim on the Gemma Stone article in the Independent.. The usage in the ILGA report is based on:

• Stone's opinion piece
• The GCN story about O'Malley
• A medium blogpost

Forgive me if I don't consider this to be the strongest sourcing.

I'm not engaging in WP:OR. I'm verifying what the sources say. When sources are simply repeating other sources, they're not independent and there's no point adding them as additional citations. And I specifically didn't search for earlier tweets - I looked at the ones mentioned by the supposed WP:RS.

And when you drill down into the opinion piece that seems to be the original basis, the phrasing "gender critical therapy" comes from twitter criticism of O'Malley and Linehan. A list of "gender critical therapists" is a different thing to alleging there is such a thing as "gender-critical therapy", and even more so to claim any of this is WP:DUE for an article that is about "gender critical feminism", in a section about "conversion therapy".

What this is is opponents hyperbolic views expressed on social media of therapists who are gender-critical, via a broken telephone. This is not gender-critical feminist views on conversion therapy. Void if removed (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm verifying what the sources say. That is not how WP:V works. V starts and ends with the source that's being cited and asks if it contains the information that supports our content. For example, if we're citing a source that says the sky is blue, then we verify that by checking if the source contains content that supports that assertion. There is however an acceptable limit for how far someone may reasonable question the validity of what most other contributors consider to be reliable sources. And saying that a report by a major international human rights organisation like the ILGA is invalid because of what it cites is kinda over that limit. A better way to dispute the validity of the ILGA report would be to cite another report by a reputable organisation or a peer reviewed research paper that disputes it. Bonus points if that report or paper disputes the content you're finding objectionable.

When sources are simply repeating other sources, they're not independent That is not how WP:INDY works. An independent source is one that is not closely affiliated with a subject. The citations that a source may or may not use for its content do not determine its independence. For example Ray Blanchard would not be considered independent from James Cantor, because they regularly collaborate on research papers. However someone else, unconnected to Blanchard or Cantor, citing Blanchard's work as an example of "here's something this other study found" would be considered independent from Blanchard. If we were to use your definition of independence, a great many research papers published in reputable journals would be considered non-independent, not to mention a great deal of news and current event coverage, because they repeat what other sources have said.

And when you drill down into the opinion piece that seems to be the original basis, the phrasing "gender critical therapy" comes from twitter criticism of O'Malley and Linehan. No, it doesn't. As I said in my reply above, the oldest use of the term "gender critical therapy" that I could find on Twitter was from 18 June 2018, by someone who is either a gender-critical activist or supporter, when they were criticising the then recently published 2018 Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines for trans and gender diverse children and adolescents and its content on conversion therapy. It is incorrect to say that the original basis for the term comes from criticism of O'Malley and Linehan's tweets on 3 February 2020. The term predates those tweets by approximately two years and was used in context to describe conversion therapy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The source used in our article regarding ‘gender critical therapy’ says that ‘gender critical therapy’ is just a name for conversion therapy. The source doesn’t even say that ‘gender critical therapy’ exists, still less does it say that it has anything to do with gender-critical feminism. So the source is basically saying that ‘gender-critical therapy’ does not exist. So there is no reason to mention this in our article. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, gender critical therapy is another name for conversion therapy, I don't think anyone here has disputed that. So is gender-exploratory therapy, reparative therapy, ex-gay ministries, and about a dozen other terms. However unless you're going to dispute the existence of conversion therapy, it is erroneous to say that it does not exist. Briefly mentioning it, as we do, seems due to me.

Though I would also suggest expanding further upon the gender exploratory therapy content, as that too is another name for the same thing, and one that has somewhat more use by both its proponents within the gender-critical movement and opponents outside it. At least one source, a 2023 report by Tranzycja (a collaborative knowledge project between Stonewall Poland and Fundation Kohezja) has mentioned that the GET term has superseded all of the previous terms in use, and there may be other more reliable sources that state the same thing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

gender critical therapy is another name for conversion therapy

It is a term those sources are using. They don't describe it beyond that - it just means that The Trevor Project and ILGA are calling conversion therapy "gender critical therapy". That's it.

Which means that what this is is those sources' opinions on conversion therapy. This is not gender critical feminist views on conversion therapy. The sources are the only ones calling conversion therapy, gender-critical therapy.

This is backwards.

In order for this to be relevant you first have to establish from WP:RS that "gender-critical therapy" is actually a coherent thing, that is advanced, advocated or in some way directly related to "gender-critical feminism". This material could then be offered in response to it - but it does not, on its own, establish relevance or notability.

unless you're going to dispute the existence of conversion therapy, it is erroneous to say that it does not exist

That's false logic. It is completely possible to dispute that anybody, anywhere actually offers such a thing as "gender-critical therapy" and that the term is merely a label used by opponents of "gender-critical" beliefs more generally, while accepting that conversion therapy is a thing.

Please give a one line description of what "gender-critical therapy" is and how it relates to "gender-critical feminism".

Here's what the currently offered sources say:

• ILGA -

Activists and survivors have pointed out that the term “gender critical therapy” is a term used to refer to a form of “conversion therapy” practiced on trans youth

• Deleted Trevor Project Page -

“Conversion therapy” can come in many forms and is sometimes known by other names, including: “gender critical therapy”

• The Therapist website:

Conversion therapy, also known as reparative therapy, gender critical therapy, or sexual reorientation, refers to a set of harmful practices that attempt to alter a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

• The UNDP handbook:

Conversion therapy: An umbrella expression to refer to any sustained effort to modify a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. Other terms include: “reparative therapy”, “gay cure”, “ex-gay therapy”, “gender critical therapy”

So what is it? "Gender critical therapy is conversion therapy" is a tautology. Unless it exists outside of this claim, it does not actually exist - it is just a label applied to conversion therapy by these sources, that's all.

We can find actual WP:SECONDARY sources about practitioners using the other terms to obfuscate conversion therapy. As such, if the subject of an article actually espouses "reparative therapy", we should be able to a) source them advocating it and b) respond to that with these sources saying it is really conversion therapy per WP:BALANCE.

What we cannot find is any source actually connected to the subject of this article calling for "gender-critical therapy". What is happening here is the "balancing" viewpoint is being used as its own justification for inclusion, with nothing to actually balance.

This is why I say it is not WP:DUE. The opinions of these sources are irrelevant to gender critical feminist views on conversion therapy, because all they are is the sources' views on conversion therapy. If you have WP:RS of gender critical feminists advocating gender-critical therapy, saying what it actually is, you could argue these would be appropriate WP:BALANCE but as things stand this is WP:COATRACK material.

By analogy, this whole exercise is like relying on this source:

I cannot stomach the thought of allowing my own labours to feed a press willing to lend its reputation to 'gender critical' fascism.”

To add a section on "Fascism" in views, with the implication there is such a thing as "gender critical fascism", that is somehow espoused by gender critical feminists.

Except at least this is a reasonably recent WP:SECONDARY source and hasn't been deleted.

I would also suggest expanding further upon the gender exploratory therapy

And I don't think the answer to a WP:COATRACK is to put more coats on it. Void if removed (talk) 10:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I add my voice to Void’s request: Please give a one line description of what "gender-critical therapy" is and how it relates to "gender-critical feminism". Sweet6970 (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

One sentence, drawing from the sources: gender-critical therapy is a form of conversion therapy targeted at transgender youth which presupposes a pathological cause for being trans (autism, misogyny, homophobia, social contagion, take your pick of ridiculous claims) and has been advertised through online forums which share lists of "gender-critical" therapists who will refuse to affirm their trans patient's identity.

• An additional explanatory sentence per the Tranzycja report: it was pushed by groups like gender-critical groups like SEGM and Genspect and figures like O'Malley, though has been superseded by the more recent term "exploratory therapy"

We already have sources in the article detailing how a prominent GC position is "respecting trans kids is actually conversion therapy since they're just traumatized, gay, autistic, or whatever else we can try and blame", they support criminalizing trans kids transitioning, and oppose bans on conversion therapy because they believe trans kids should instead be treated for whatever pathology "made" them trans...

1. These are extremely WP:FRINGE positions.
2. It provides obvious relevance to the related fact there are boards advertising GC therapists who hold these views to prevent trans kids from transitioning.

Saying "Gender critical therapy is conversion therapy" is a tautology makes no sense to me. ILGA is clear in their section that[14]:

• There is no one single term consistently and universally adopted to denote attempts to modify a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. It then goes into different examples and the historical context of each term like "conversion therapy", "Reparative therapy", "ex-gay therapy", "gender-critical therapy" etc.
• Activists and survivors have pointed out that the term “gender critical therapy” is a term used to refer to a form of “conversion therapy” practiced on trans youth It then notes Stella O'Malley, who wrote for a book calling trans kids an "ideology" and "dangerous", made a compilation of gender-critical therapists

And here's some quotes from the TeenVogue piece[15]:

• The names being recommended on the Gender Critical Support Board include psychiatrists, endocrinologists, pediatricians, and therapists. The thread tying them together is their commitment to “gender criticism,” a term that’s morphed from its introduction in women’s and gender studies departments into a dog whistle for anti-trans-affirming activists. (link to article explaining the change from TERF to GC in original)
• The Gender Critical Support Board was founded in part by an anonymous internet user who goes by the name Gender Critical Dad or GCDad. Gender Critical Dad is active in gender-critical spaces on Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, on his own blog, and, of course, on the comment board he founded.
• But a fundamental rejection of trans identity is the end goal of so many of the other “gender-critical” therapists, pediatricians, counselors, and endocrinologists whose names are passed around by members of the board.

The sources are so obviously talking about the GC feminist movement that your walls of text to the contrary are getting into WP:IDHT territory, if they aren't already there. Please answer my earlier question, what gender-critical movement are they all referring to if not the subject of this article? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a lot of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. What is "gender-critical therapy"? It is apparently a term for conversion therapy. Who uses it and what do they describe with it?

For example, reparative therapy has a history, and literature, of advocates and practitioners. We can find people describing what they mean by it, as advocates of the practice, and we can find critics, and now a consensus that it is a harmful, conversion practice.

Your "wall of text" OTOH makes clear that no such resource exists for "gender-critical therapy". This is a term invented by, and used exclusively by, critics of therapists who are "gender-critical". Which makes it not a "view of gender critical feminism" at all.

None of this belongs here. Void if removed (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a lot of ... WP:OR Citing information that is present in reliable sources is not OR. It is the anthesis of OR. As WP:NOR policy states in its second sentence On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. (emphasis from original text).

This is a lot of WP:SYNTH I would ask you to please elaborate on this, as there does not appear to be synthesis here. However as SYNTH is a part of WP:NOR, and there does not appear to be OR here, there also cannot be SYNTH here.

What is "gender-critical therapy"? It is apparently a term for conversion therapy. I said this in my reply on two days ago on 23 January. It is an alternate name for conversion therapy.

Who uses it and what do they describe with it? Both gender-critical supporters and their opponents have used the term. For use by the opponents, see the sources that YFNS has provided and we've already discussed. For the supporters, I demonstrated in my comment on 23 January that the earliest use of the term I could find on Twitter was from 2018, and posted by a gender-critical activist. An October 2020 article by PinkNews mentioned that the now defunct Canadian anti-trans organisation We The Females were at one point a proponent for gender-critical therapy. We know from the TeenVogue article, the term was used by parents seeking support on the Gender Critical Support Board, though linking to specific instances of that is impossible as while the forum still exists, most of it is in a private member's only area.

Part of the difficulty in identifying proponents is that the terminology shifted shortly after the tweets by Linehan and O'Malley, with the current term for the same thing is gender exploratory therapy (GET). This difficulty is compounded by some gender-critical organisations, like the aforementioned We The Females, becoming defunct and being replaced by others, often with the same people involved. Of course, for our purposes that doesn't really matter too much. All that matters is what reliable sources, like the ILGA report and UNDP handbook state. And in this case, they describe gender-critical therapy as an alternative name for conversion therapy.

This is a term invented by, and used exclusively by, critics of therapists who are "gender-critical". Not only is this demonstrably not true, see the rest of my reply above, it also doesn't matter. The purpose of an article on Wikipedia is to cover all of the mainstream and significant minority viewpoints on a topic, as published in reliable sources. One of the viewpoints on this topic is that gender-critical feminists and activists promote what is understood to be conversion therapy, even if they don't call it conversion therapy. At one point this was called gender-critical therapy, then the terminology shifted and now it's called GET. It's entirely possible that in another few years, the terminology might shift again to some other name.

Currently we have two sentences on gender critical therapy. One summarising the Trevor Project and ILGA reports, and one summarising the TeenVogue report. In the overall sense of that section, that seems due, given that this was a relatively short lived name, and a small part of the overall story on gender-critical support for conversion therapy. The only thing we lack is a source that gives a timeline of the terminological shift. Conversely we only have a single sentence on GET, and that is something I think we could expand to be a full paragraph or more in its own right, based on the multitude of academic and other sources about the gender-critical movement being a major proponent for it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Sweet6970, you just removed a paragraph about GC opposition to the UK conversion therapy ban including protections for trans people stating removing out of date material – see Talk page, my comment 14:19 21 January 2024, with the link to the news story. The article does not mention GC feminism once, and is unrelated to the statement you removed. Please self-revert, as the fact the government has once again U-turned on it's position has nothing do with what GC feminists campaigned for it to be (as reported in multiple RS, see my earlier comment to VIR). "A asked B to do C; later B did D" in absolutely no way means "A asked B to do C" is somehow false or out of date... No issue with adding a sentence after the one you removed like Kemi Badenoch later announced that she planned to ban conversion therapy and suggested gender-affirming care could be considered a "new form of conversion therapy" for gay kids, stating "no child is born in the wrong body".[16][17] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The material I removed is out of date trivia. See WP:NOTNEWS. And the stuff about Kemi Badenoch is also trivia. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 31 January 2024

Gender-critical feminism → Trans-exclusionary radical feminism – We should rename this article for WP:COMMONNAME reasons. "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism" is more commonly used in reliable sources than "gender-critical".

To survey how common the respective terms are used in the academic literature, I conducted two searches on Google scholar, with the following result counts:

• ("gender critical" OR "GC feminism" OR "GC feminist" OR "GC feminists") - about 6,840 results
• ("TERF" OR "TERFs" OR "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" OR "trans-exclusionary radical feminists" OR "trans-exclusionary radical feminism") - about 29,400 results

When I combined the two queries, I got a listing of sources overwhelmingly using "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" rather than "gender-critical feminism":

• ("gender critical" OR "GC feminism" OR "GC feminist" OR "GC feminists" OR "TERF" OR "TERFs" OR "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" OR "trans-exclusionary radical feminists" OR "trans-exclusionary radical feminism")

In addition, there are three academic journal issues listed in the "Further reading" section of this article. These are the only academic journal issues dedicated to this article's topic that I am aware of. All three of them primarily use "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" instead of "gender-critical feminism":

• TERF Wars: Feminism and the fight for transgender futures
• Trans-Exclusionary Feminisms and the Global New Right
• Varieties of TERFness

"Gender-critical feminism" as a title cannot be justified on WP:NPOV grounds alone, because "gender-critical feminism" itself is described as a non-neutral term by reliable sources. Even assuming that "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" is not neutral, it being the most common name and the lack of a neutral alternative justifies its use as a title under WP:NPOVNAME. PBZE (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Weak support: I don't think that there's a huge advantage to either name, but I do agree that "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" is both slightly more common and slightly more neutral than "gender-critical feminism". Loki (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Why did you only survey academic sources? If you want to make a COMMONNAME argument, academic sources are probably the weakest class of source, because academic papers are only read by ~hundreds of people whereas mainstream media reaches ~millions. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Because of this sentence in WP:CRITERIA: Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject, and this sentence in WP:COMMONNAME: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. Academic sources are generally the most high-quality sources about this topic.

  Regardless, repeating the same queries on Google shows us that "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" is used far more frequently:

  • ("gender critical" OR "GC feminism" OR "GC feminist" OR "GC feminists") - about 659,000 results
  • ("TERF" OR "TERFs" OR "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" OR "trans-exclusionary radical feminists" OR "trans-exclusionary radical feminism") - about 3,530,000 results

  And when combining the two queries on Google, "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" is shown more frequently in the leading results:

  • ("gender critical" OR "GC feminism" OR "GC feminist" OR "GC feminists" OR "TERF" OR "TERFs" OR "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" OR "trans-exclusionary radical feminists" OR "trans-exclusionary radical feminism")

  PBZE (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Including "TERF" - which is a common term of abuse that means far more than straightforwardly "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" as has been demonstrated time and time again including links to the OED - massively skews this result.

  The correct comparison is "gender critical feminism" (the current title, 22,000) and "trans exclusionary radical feminism" (the proposed title, 21,000).

  And even then - as I've said already - some of those results are explicitly saying that trans-exclusionary radical feminism should not be used. Void if removed (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, doing a variant of this shorter search, allowing for use of both feminism and feminist for both titles to catch text like "according to gender critical feminist theory" which is also the subject of this article, on Google Scholar:

  • "gender critical feminism" OR "gender critical feminist" - 516 results
  • "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" OR "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" - 1,340 results

  On JSTOR:

  • "gender critical feminism" OR "gender critical feminist" - 13 results
  • "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" OR "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" - 45 results

  On Google Search:

  • "gender critical feminism" OR "gender critical feminist" - about 42,100 results
  • "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" OR "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" - about 76,200 results

  So in every single search comparison between the two equal terms, the term "trans-exclusionary radical feminism/feminist" has roughly double the number of hits as "gender critical feminism/feminist". Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Trans-exclusionary radical feminism/feminist are not equal terms.

  Because "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" contracts to TERF, whereas ""trans-exclusionary radical ferminism" does not, and TERF is a widely used term of abuse.

  Stick to the suggested titles, please. Void if removed (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Trans-exclusionary radical feminism/feminist are not equal terms. You've misunderstood what I meant when I said between two equal terms. I'm not saying that feminist and feminism are equal terms, because that would be wrong. What I'm saying is that the combination of trans-exclusionary radical feminist and trans-exclusionary radical feminism is equal to the combination gender critical feminist and gender critical feminism. This is important because when assessing the breadth of all papers published on this topic, a verbatim search for only feminist will exclude any papers that exclusively use feminism and vice versa. If you want to include the full breadth of papers published on this topic, you have to include both feminist and feminism variants in a logical or.

  Because "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" contracts to TERF, whereas ""trans-exclusionary radical ferminism" does not There are plenty of high quality reliable sources that contract trans-exclusionary radicial feminism to TERF. For example a research paper published in Sexualities, a research paper published in Women's Studies in Communication, a research paper published in Journal of Lesbian Studies. Arguably you cannot talk about either feminism without also talking about either feminists.

  However, if you truly want the results of papers that just use feminism and exclude feminist then, on Google Scholar:

  • "gender critical feminism" -"gender critical feminist" - 243 results
  • "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" -"trans-exclusionary radical feminist" - 416 results

  On JSTOR:

  • "gender critical feminism" NOT "gender critical feminist" - 7 results
  • "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" NOT "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" - 16 results

  On Google Search:

  • "gender critical feminism" -"gender critical feminist" - about 25,800 results
  • "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" -"trans-exclusionary radical feminist" - about 24,000 results

  Note Google uses a minus operator for a boolean not search, whereas JSTOR uses the NOT operator. So within academia, once again the primary term seems to be trans-exclusionary radical feminism, by a 2:1 margin. It's only when you add a general Google Search that the two terms become about even.

  And for comparison's sake, here's what happens when you invert that search, searching for sources that use feminist and exclude feminism, on Google Scholar:

  • "gender critical feminist" -"gender critical feminism" - 208 results
  • "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" -"trans-exclusionary radical feminism" - 870 results

  On JSTOR

  • "gender critical feminist" NOT "gender critical feminism" - 4 results
  • "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" NOT "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" - 27 results

  On Google Search:

  • "gender critical feminist" -"gender critical feminism" - about 15,800 results
  • "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" -"trans-exclusionary radical feminism" - about 58,600 results.

  Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  Again, you are jumping through hoops. The terms at issue are:

  • "gender critical feminism"
  • "trans exclusionary radical feminism"

  No others. Stop making this more complicated than it needs to be.

  On Scholar (excluding citations):

  • "gender critical feminism" (304)
  • "trans exclusionary radical feminism" (468)

  On Scholar (excluding citations), since 2020:

  • "gender critical feminism" (259)
  • "trans exclusionary radical feminism" (334)

  On Scholar (excluding citations), past year:

  • "gender critical feminism" (125)
  • "trans exclusionary radical feminism" (118)

  Older searches favour trans exclusionary radical feminism, newer searches reverse the ratio. I doubt that is stable.

  Google:

  • "gender critical feminism" (23,700)
  • "trans exclusionary radical feminism" (22,800)

  Google (since 2020):

  • "gender critical feminism" (3450)
  • "trans exclusionary radical feminism" (2910)

  Google (past year):

  • "gender critical feminism" (1630)
  • "trans exclusionary radical feminism" (1140)

  Gender critical feminism edges it, again with the gap widening in recent years.

  Google trends (12 months and 5 years) show "gender critical feminism" more popular.

  Google news:

  • "Gender critical feminism" (1290)
  • "trans exclusionary radical feminism" (136)

  Significant weight for gender critical feminism there.

  And the issue is that you haven't done a qualitative analysis of the papers or results that come back in a straight search and several of them don't support this argument, but instead note the inflammatory nature of "trans exclusionary radical feminism" in passing before moving on to a more neutral term instead (or indeed, the reverse). These google searches tell us little, but "gender-critical feminism" is clearly favoured by mainstream sources - especially news - and putting extra terms together merely confuses the issue. Void if removed (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose– gender critical feminism is the original form of second-wave feminism. It exists in it own right. To call it transexclusionary radical feminism is to look at it only from the point of view of transgender ideology. That would about as biased as it is possible to get. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  having searched through both this article and second-wave feminism the only time either mentions the other is a quote on this article saying that considering Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism an extension of second wave feminism is a misnomer. Because of this I don't see where the claim that gender critical feminism is the original form of second wave feminism comes from. LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  According to Holly Lawford-Smith, in Gender-critical feminism, p13 , gender-critical feminism ‘has its roots on radical feminism, influential during the second wave, before the various cultural influences that broadened out the scope and constituency of feminism came along.’ Also, the view that it is trans-exclusionary is looking at it backwards – g-c feminism exists without reference to transgender ideology – it is a feminism which is critical of the ideology of gender. Also on p13 ‘Some think of it as being a new name for an old position, while others see it as a new position. Many perceive it as being focused on a single issue, namely the uptake of gender identity. One of the arguments I will make in this book is that this is a mistake. Gender critical feminism is a general feminist theory (albeit one that is a work in progress). The fact that it currently gives the bulk of its attention to a single issue is explained by the urgency of that issue, and not anything more fundamental to the theory of gender-critical feminism itself. It is about being critical of gender, and this has implications for a wide range of feminist issues, not just gender identity. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Nowhere does that say gender critical feminism is the original form of second-wave feminism - it says the opposite. It says GC feminism developed from radical feminism, which developed during the second wave (ie, it developed from an influential subset of second wave theory), and explicitly calls it a work in progress. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  According to Holly Lawford-Smith. This book is rarely cited by anyone (unlike “transgender-ideological” works) and therefore is not included in the core of sources on which Wikipedia terminology should be based. Reprarina (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  Although I disagree with the renaming: Janice Raymond's "The Transsexual Empire" (1979) was among the first (and also one of the most influential) works of gender criticism to be published during the second wave of feminism.The act of transitioning is described in the book as "rape" since it "appropriates this body for themselves, reducing the real female form to an artefact." The book additionally promotes the idea that "transsexualism would best be served by morally mandating it out of existence." The early theories of gender criticalism were based on the marginalisation of transgender people and their access to healthcare. The movement's foundations are anti-trans and "trans-exclusionary". Don'taskwhyImadethis (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  What exactly is "Transgender Ideology" to begin with? And how is this relevant to whether the term "TERF" or "Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist" is appropriate or not? BLACKCATFOXRABBIT (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  1) Transgender ideology says that everyone has a gender identity; trans people have a gender identity which is different from their biological sex; gender identity is more important than biological sex; gender identity should take preference over biological sex when it comes to legal rights, and, in particular, over women’s desire for safety, privacy, and dignity. In general, trans ideology says that what makes you a man or a woman is not the kind of anatomy that you have, but whether you conform to a masculine or a feminine gender stereotype. So, according to transgender ideology, a woman who is not feminine is not ‘really’ a woman. Transgender ideology has this in common with the (wrongly-named) ‘anti-gender’ movement. Gender-critical feminism, on the other hand, says that gender identity does not exist, and that gender is a social construct with the purpose of oppressing women. What makes you a man or a woman is your biological sex, and you should not have to conform to gender stereotypes.

  2) Name of article: Gender-critical feminism is a form for feminism which exists in its own right. Referring to it as ‘transexclusionary radical feminism’ in effect, defines it in relation to its opposition to transgender ideology. But this is a minor and incidental aspect of g-c feminism, which is equally opposed to the attitudes of the so-called ‘anti-gender’ movement. Sweet6970

  Sweet6970 (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  A bunch of bullocks. The statement "a woman who is not feminine is not 'really' a woman" has been attributed to trans activists. while idea is fundamentally anti-trans. Being transgender has nothing to do with gender nonconformity under the guise of gender expression. There exist feminine transgender males and masculine transgender women. It would be inaccurate to say that gender expression defines one's gender identity if one were to also misgender transgender persons whose gender identities don't fit into stereotypical gender roles. Furthermore, claiming that transgender identity is essentially a game of "gender stereotypes" misses the reality that, for the typical transsexual, "passing" might occasionally mean the difference between life and death—or at least harassment and abuse. For the typical transsexual, passing is also a safety precaution. Don'taskwhyImadethis (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  Where is this supposed evidence that "masculine women" are "not considered women" by Transgender "ideology"? This sounds like a strawman. You are purposeful conflating Gender Identity and Gender Expression; the latter does have to do with your appearance, but the former is psychological. BLACKCATFOXRABBIT (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: aside from anything else, the search criteria and reasoning are flawed.
  "gender-critical feminism" itself is described as a non-neutral term by reliable sources
  This is selective, when even this flawed search turns up results that explicitly state they avoid using TERF/trans-exclusionary radical feminism because they are inflammatory, and totally missing other WP:RS that disagree. All of these have been recounted on these talk pages many times. Must we collect a comprehensive list of all the same sources once again?
  In any case, the sources you rely on do not universally support your position, some using the term gender-critical, some avoiding it, some arguing that it is neutral but that neutral terms should not be used, because they believe the people being described are transphobic, and that it is important to use non-neutral terms for such people.
  • Pierce et al (in TERF Wars) use "gender-critical" throughout. This doesn't support your argument.
  • Bassi & Lefleur (in Trans-Exclusionary Feminisms and the Global New Right) use "gender-critical" throughout. This doesn't support your argument.
  • Amery (in Varieties of TERFness). Doesn't support your argument, and also supports argument that trans-exclusionary radical feminism and gender-critical feminism aren't even the same thing:

• Although the moniker ‘TERF’ (‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’) is often applied to this variant of anti-trans activism, in practice the UK movement consists of an assemblage of radical feminists and liberal feminists [...]. Members of this movement usually define themselves as ‘gender critical’ and this is the terminology I use in this article. However, following Sara Ahmed I reproduce this term in scare quotes throughout

  Grinspan et al (in Varieties of TERFness). Argues that gender-critical is a more moderate term, but that that's a bad thing:

  we see the expression ‘gender-critical feminism’ – a self-definition by some individuals and groups labelled TERFs by others – as problematic because it serves specific actors to ‘rebrand’ their anti-trans activism and to legitimise their own positions by presenting them as more moderate

  Accepting this opinion that the neutral term should be avoided to stop the people being described legitimising their positions smacks of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
  And I note again this is hardly a neutral source when it contains lines like this (with no supporting citation or justification for its juvenile and insulting inclusion):

  some feminists have recently started using the term ‘FART’ which stands for Feminism-Appropriating Reactionary Transphobe (instead of TERFs).

  Must we do this for every hostile academic paper? How many papers did you evaluate that did not support your position, can you provide an exhaustive list? Can you list the ones that resile from using your language, because they recognise it is inflammatory? What about books like "Gender-critical feminism" and "Sex & gender: a contemporary reader" and "Female Masculinities" and "Material Girls" and so on? How do we account for media reporting? Or the employment tribunals in the UK which have ruled "gender-critical" a protected belief, while also ruling that calling someone who is gender-critical "TERF" constitutes "harassment" and "derogatory name calling.".
  It is pretty clear that invariably the academics who use language like trans-exclusionary radical feminist and TERF are those who are highly critical of them. This is the kind of perspective that has to be included per WP:BALANCE, but is a long way from WP:COMMONNAME, especially with this over-reliance on niche academic sources.
  Have you considered the impact on all the articles that link to gender critical which will stop making any sense after this title change? The fallout from the TERF (acronym) debacle was non-trivial. Void if removed (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Pierce et al (in TERF Wars) use "gender-critical" throughout. This doesn't support your argument. That's not correct. In the introduction to TERF wars, with only one exception every instance of gender critical is in single quotation marks. Conversely that chapter also uses the full term trans-exclusionary radical feminist, and to a slightly greater degree than the quotation marked gender critical. TERF wars is also a multi-chapter monograph, subsequent chapters (accessible with WP:LIB) seem to primarily use either the acronym TERF, or one of it's full spelling variants (ie trans-exclusionary radical feminist(s), trans-exclusionary radical feminism) when referring to the subject of this article.

  Bassi & Lefleur (in Trans-Exclusionary Feminisms and the Global New Right) use "gender-critical" throughout. Not wholly correct. Bassi and Lefleur also use the terms trans-exclusionary feminism/feminist and trans-exclusionary radical feminism/feminist throughout. It also seems to be drawing a distinction that trans-exclusionary radical feminism and gender-critical feminism are either separate but related movements, or that TERFism is a subset of GCism, something that most other sources including those in the rest of the journal issue don't do. Also, as with TERF wars above, you are focusing on only the introduction within what PBZE has correctly identified as a full special journal issue about this topic. Not counting the introduction and erratum, there are 13 papers within that issue (all accessible through WP:LIB), and with only one exception the other papers within the issue primarily use the term TERF or its full spelling.

  Amery (in Varieties of TERFness). Doesn't support your argument, and also supports argument that trans-exclusionary radical feminism and gender-critical feminism aren't even the same thing The quotation you've highlighted doesn't support what you're asserting, primarily because of the content you've elided from the quotation. What Amery actually said was that those who use the terminology gender critical are a collection of radical feminists, liberal feminists, conservatives and others with little prior connection to feminist activism or thought. Amery is quite clearly discussing a broader gender critical movement (for lack of a better term), of whom feminists (be they radical or liberal) are only a part.

  Grinspan et al (in Varieties of TERFness). Argues that gender-critical is a more moderate term, but that that's a bad thing Yes, that is what that introductory editorial to the journal special issue appears to be saying. I would argue this is no different to how anti-abortion activists brand themselves as pro-life activists, or how scientific racists brand themselves as race realists. The purpose of all of these rebrandings is to present the movements they represent as less extreme and more moderate than they are.

  Accepting this opinion that the neutral term should be avoided to stop the people being described legitimising their positions smacks of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. That is not the argument that PBZE made when suggesting this move. The primary argument that PBZE has made is that the common name of the topic this article is trans-exclusionary radical feminism. Based on the sources provided, as well as the Google Scholar search results, that does seem to be the case. The primary name for this topic in academic literature seems to be trans-exclusionary radical feminism.

  And I note again this is hardly a neutral source There is no requirement in WP:RS or WP:NPOV that sources must be neutral (see WP:BIASED and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources. As RS states, non-neutral sources can be among the best possible sources for supporting information about different viewpoints on any topic. However the term feminism-appropriating reactionary transphobes does appear to exist, and is remarked on in at least one other research paper, and at least one academic book. Remarking that some feminists have started using the term does seem supported by other sources, even if Grinspan, et al.'s introductory editorial for the special journal special issue does not have a citation for it.

  What about books like "Gender-critical feminism" and "Sex & gender: a contemporary reader" and "Female Masculinities" and "Material Girls" and so on? While I don't doubt that these are important books to the followers of this ideology, they do not appear to represent the mainstream academic view of this topic.

  How do we account for media reporting? Per WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and WP:NEWSORG, they are typically given lesser weight than academic publications. As NEWSORG states Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics, and this is undoubtedly an academic topic given its intersections with feminism and sociology. And even if you wanted to include the results of a Google News search using the same terms as PBZE did above, it only accounts for a few hundred extra articles. TERFism is still ahead by an order of magnitude.

  Or the employment tribunals in the UK While there is certainly a place to mention tribunal findings, the views of the legal system of any one country do not represent the full view of this topic.

  It is pretty clear that invariably the academics who use language like trans-exclusionary radical feminist and TERF are those who are highly critical of them As I mentioned earlier in this reply, you could also make the same argument for the anti-abortion/pro-life movement or scientific racism/race realist articles, as the terms anti-abortion and scientific racist are typically used only by those who are in opposition to those who describe themselves as pro-life and race realists. However you'd still be wrong in doing so.

  Have you considered the impact on all the articles that link to gender critical which will stop making any sense after this title change? Not only can we easily leave a redirect behind after the move, we can easily account for this in the first sentence by simply changing the order of the words. Gender-critical feminism, also known as trans-exclusionary radical feminism or TERFism could easily become Trans-exclusionary radical feminism, also known as TERFism or gender-critical feminism. The topic of the article isn't changing, as we're still talking about the same ideological movement. We would just be using what appears to be the common name for this topic within high quality reliable sources.

  The fallout from the TERF (acronym) debacle was non-trivial. This proposed move is not comparable. The issue with the move from TERF to TERF (acronym) was that many of the incoming links to that article were already erroneous after this article was moved into the mainspace in June 2023. That article, per its first sentence from its creation, was about the acronym, not the ideological movement the acronym was used for. Many of the incoming links to it were correct, as they were intended to link to an article about the acronym. However many more were not correct, as they were used in a context where they were discussing the ideological movement. The "fallout" from that requested move was that manual intervention was required to figure out which links needed updating to point towards the acronym article, and which became correct as a result of the move because they were now pointing towards this article. The issue that you're worried about has already been resolved. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  That's not correct

  I make it 8x for "'gender critical' feminist/ism", 2x for "gender critical feminist/ism" and 3x for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist/ism". I don't see how putting "gender critical" in scare quotes changes that they use it more.

  The debate is whether to change "gender critical feminism" to "trans-exclusionary radical feminism". Counting instances of variants like "trans-exclusionary feminism" is irrelevant, because that's not the proposed title.

  This is a common theme in these academic texts, many of which drop back to saying "trans-exclusionary feminism" instead, and precisely beacause trans-exclusionary radical feminism is both contentious and largely false (since the "radical" part is disputed in these sources as I quoted above.

  But that is not the proposal. You can't just add up lots of vaguely similar terms and say they count as your preferred common name. The whole point is which of the many variants is the most common.

  The purpose of all of these rebrandings is to present the movements they represent as less extreme and more moderate than they are

  That is, again, opinion, and disputed.

  And even if you wanted to include the results of a Google News search using the same terms as PBZE did above, it only accounts for a few hundred extra articles. TERFism is still ahead by an order of magnitude.

  A news search for "gender critical feminism" (the current title) brings back 1600 results.

  A news search for "trans exclusionary radical feminism" (the proposed title) brings back 20 results.

  the views of the legal system of any one country do not represent the full view of this topic

  The views of trans studies does also not represent the full view of this topic.

  racist

  I suggest not using this comparison, and that doing so merely makes it look like this is about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

  we're still talking about the same ideological movement.

  No, it means that a whole lot of people who are never called "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" anywhere in any WP:RS will become "trans-exclusionary radical feminists" even when they have specifically rejected it and when that makes no sense to call them such. You keep ignoring that you

  The search results that have been used here are on the sole basis that lots of people use the word TERF, because if you exclude that from your search results none of this holds water, since trans exclusionary radical feminist is a niche term with almost no impact outside of academia. But TERF is a widespread term of abuse. The page for Jo Phoenix describes her as a gender critical feminist. She has just won an employment tribunal on the basis that calling her a TERF was harassment and abuse. You cannot both link her to "trans exclusionary radical feminist" on the basis that that is a neutral descriptive term AND use the prevelance of "TERF" to do so when it is so well established that it is widely used as a term of abuse.

  Establish WP:COMMONNAME with the exact proposed new title. Void if removed (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  I make it 8x for "'gender critical' feminist/ism", 2x for "gender critical feminist/ism" and 3x for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist/ism". You've excluded the 25-27 times the introduction uses TERF outside of the title and citations. Not that it really matters however, as TERF Wars: An introduction is only an introduction to the other chapters in the monograph.

  That is, again, opinion, and disputed. Disputed by whom? As far as I can tell it has not been disputed nor has there been mention of a dispute within peer reviewed literature on this topic. If you're saying that it's disputed by the adherents of this ideological movement, then a large degree of Mandy Rice-Davies applies. Are there academic sources that dispute this? And do they represent the mainstream view on this topic, or the viewpoint of a significant minority?

  The views of trans studies does also not represent the full view of this topic. The TERF Wars monograph was published in The Sociological Review. The research paper about the FART acronym was published in the European Journal of English Studies. Then there's the Encyclopedia of Queer Studies in Education that I linked below. In a reply above I have linked to a trio of papers that were published in Sexualities, Women's Studies in Communication, and the Journal of Lesbian Studies. The scholarship we've been discussing here is very broad, and not limited to trans studies.

  I suggest not using this comparison Why not? It is a perfectly legitimate comparison to make when discussing the differences between the names that adherents or members of a movement or ideology use, versus those who are describing the group from the outside.

  doing so merely makes it look like this is about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS I would strongly suggest that you re-read that essay, because it does not say what you think it says. To right great wrongs, as the essay states, one has to be writing or proposing content that is not verifiable to secondary and independent sources, or does not represent the mainstream view on a topic. Making a contextually appropriate comparison, as I have done, about groups that name themselves something different than the mainstream accepted name of the same group, when that comparison has already been made in a peer reviewed research paper published in Sexualities, is never righting great wrongs.

  No, it means that a whole lot of people who are never called "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" anywhere in any WP:RS will become "trans-exclusionary radical feminists" even when they have specifically rejected it and when that makes no sense to call them such. Again, high quality reliable sources consider gender critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism to be alternative names for the same thing. This is why the very first sentence of our article states Gender-critical feminism, also known as trans-exclusionary radical feminism. That the adherents of this ideological movement dispute that is immaterial to us at this time, unless that dispute is covered within high quality reliable sources and that dispute represents the mainstream view on the topic. To paraphrase William Lenthall Wikipedia has neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak but as reliable sources are pleased to direct us.

  The page for Jo Phoenix describes her as a gender critical feminist. No, in the current revision it states that she is known for her gender critical views. It does not state that she's a gender critical feminist. The article doesn't even contain the words feminist or feminism.

  You cannot both link [Jo Phoenix] to "trans exclusionary radical feminist" on the basis that that is a neutral descriptive term AND use the prevelance of "TERF" to do so when it is so well established that it is widely used as a term of abuse. There are two answers to this point. First, regardless of the outcome of this move request, Phoenix' article will continue to state that she's known for her gender critical views. That isn't going to change, for Phoenix or any other article that wikilinks to the term. Secondly, the link between trans-exclusionary radical feminism and gender critical feminism that you're concerned about is already established within the first sentence of this article. This is no different a situation than how our articles on Focus on the Family or Kristan Hawkins describe them as anti-abortion, where they would instead use the term pro-life. And like this article, our article on anti-abortion movements states in its first sentence that anti-abortion, pro-life, and abolitionist are different names for the same topic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• support per nom, particularly the bit about NPOV—blindlynx 15:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• support per WP:COMMONNAME and NPOV. "Gender critical" is a term that multiple RS have noted is a politically motivated rebranding. Places that use it often note it's a rebranding and self-selected term and do things like reproduce it explicitly in scare quotes. We are under no obligation to call trans-exclusionary radical feminists "gender critical feminists" just because sources say that's what they started calling themselves a few years ago. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support The Google Scholar searches are useful as a quick sanity check and trend, and are supported by JSTOR searches using the same terms (gender critical, TERF), however they don't tell the full story. What I find far more convincing are the three journal special issues highlighted, and tertiary sources like The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies (pages 822-825), and the Encyclopedia of Queer Studies in Education (pages 695-698), all of which use the term TERF or one of its full spelling variants as the primary name or term for this topic.
  I have tried searching to see if there are any journal special issues or tertiary sources published by reputable academic publishing houses that use "gender critical" or one of its variants as the primary name for this topic, and have not been able to find any. If opponents to this move are aware of any such sources, it would be immensely helpful for those to be linked for comparison. However, in the absence of such sources and with the plethora that demonstrate the inverse, I am minded to draw the conclusion that the primary name for this topic is trans-exclusionary radical feminism as proposed above. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Support, on the following points:

1. Calling it "Gender critical feminism" is like calling racism "race realism". It's a rebrand that happened fairly recently and entirely because "terfism" had too much bad publicity.

2. "Gender critical feminism" is a vague and non-informative moniker adopted specifically for this vagueness as to be more palatable, whereas "trans exclusionary radical feminism" makes very clear the beliefs held.

3. "Terf" is not a derogatory word, anymore than "racist" is. It's simply a descriptor that accurately and neutrally characterizes a hateful ideology. Gender critical, neither accurately nor neutrally does such a thing.

4. Even if it was derogatory, which it's not, that doesn't necessarily discount it. The Nazis considered the word "Nazi" derogatory. They called themselves National Socialists. We still call them Nazis, and their ideology "Nazism". Snokalok (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Snokalok: Your comparison of g-c feminism to racism and Nazism is misconceived. Forstater won her appeal because the judge said that g-c feminism is not unworthy of respect in a democratic society. He specifically referred to g-c feminism as not being comparable to Nazism. And in the case of Jo Phoenix, the judge said that comparing her to a ‘racist uncle’ amounted to harassment. It does not aid civil discussion to compare feminists to Nazis. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this point as well. @Snokalok what you have just written is none other than immature polemics. "neutrally characterizes a hateful ideology" is solely your own opinion, and clearly one that is not neutral. Zilch-nada (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Weak Oppose, I agree with User:LokiTheLiar that there isn't a huge advantage for either name. The main problem is the perception that those who still use the "TERF" acronym tend to be opposed to the movement, since "Gender Critical" Feminists gradually abandoned "TERF" beginning in the mid 2010s. Also, despite the fact that "Gender Critical" feminism started as an offshoot of Radical Feminism, not all GCs agree that "Radical" is an appropriate label for them, instead arguing that their movement is "moderate" compared to the supposedly "radical" transgender rights movement.

I agree that the timing of the "rebrand" was suspicious, as it happened around the time where Transgender issues started to get mainstream attention, so I understand why some users are scared of legitimizing or normalizing their talking points. There is also the fact that we can't always take what "Gender Critical" Feminists say at face value, given that they are not neutral actors in this supposed "debate" and have an incentive to portray themselves in the most favorable light possible. At the same time though, they have been largely successful in "rebranding" themselves, particularly in the UK. Much of the journalist/media/pundit commentary refers to them as "Gender Critical" leading to somewhat of a divide between the academic literature (who stil use "TERF") and the media reports (who use "Gender Critical")

Arguably, it doesn't really matter since we seem to be using "TERF" and "Gender Critical" virtually interchangeably on this article, but I think keeping the current title would be a little better for clarity purposes. BLACKCATFOXRABBIT (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I think that "Gender Critical" is the COMMONNAME, at least for now. It may not always have been and it may not be forever but that is what the right wing newspapers currently call it when they promote it on their front pages. I understand that a rebrand to "Sex Realist" (yes, really) is in progress but we need to wait and see whether they can make that stick before we adapt the article accordingly. If we are going to change anything at all, I wonder whether the name should be capitalised as "Gender Critical" to make it clear that it is a name not a description. I'd also suggest dropping "feminism" from the title because it is clear that not all in the Gender Critical movement consider it feminist. In fact, my tentative suggestion for the name would be "Gender Critical movement". --DanielRigal (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I agree that gender-critical movement could be a viable alternative if the article is not moved to trans-exclusionary radical feminism. Gender-critical and GC are often used alone (without feminism), both by the movement itself and in descriptive use. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. We looked into this before[18] and found that trans-exclusionary radical feminism (including its abbreviated forms) was the most common name in academic literature by far. There are hardly results for gender-critical feminism before around 2020, so it's a rather recent term. Both terms are used today. Gender-critical feminism is, however, primarily a UK term, whereas trans-exclusionary radical feminism (TERF movement, ideology etc.) remains a widely used term elsewhere, including the United States. Gender-critical feminism has also been criticized, as noted, for being somewhat like "race realism". It's important to note that trans-exclusionary radical feminism was conceived as a neutral term and is used in a descriptive fashion by academic sources; the "radical" part only refers to its genealogical roots in radical feminism, itself a neutral term. Also, there is no requirement that every supporter of the ideology must identify with a specific term for us to use it. Compared to a term like white supremacism, trans-exclusionary radical feminism even goes out of its way to be as neutral as possible. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  Though TERF was created to be a "deliberately technically neutral description", the term is now typically considered derogatory or disparaging. People labeled TERFs often reject the label, instead describing their beliefs as gender critical.

  It is not correct to say that "TERF" lacks contention, nor "to be as neutral as possible". Even if TERF was originally neutral, we cannot use the same logic now, given that virtually no self-proclaimed GCFs describe themselves as TERF; GCF is a rebranding. My personal opinion is that the rebranding is significant enough such that we should have two articles. Zilch-nada (talk) 07:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  Numerous TERFs call themselves TERFs, there are TERF groups that call themselves TERFs as part their names featured at major TERF conferences, TERFs widely use the term as a self-description. The term is descriptive and neutral in mainstream usage (scholarly, media). But all of this doesn't matter. TERFs don't get to dictate how we refer to the TERF ideology, just like white supremacists don't get to decide that our article on their ideology must be named in accordance with their preferences ("race realism"). TERF and the self-description GCF, invented around 2020, used by some mainly in the UK refer to the same thing, and we don't have separate articles for the same thing just based on their preferences regarding the name. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  Comparing this to white supremacy is utter juvenile tripe. Take a break. Zilch-nada (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose, nominator's WP:COMMONNAME analysis is flawed as the Google Scholar results for trans exclusionary feminism includes the terms "TERF" or "TERFs" which includes articles unrelated to this topic. For example, on page 10 I see an article relating to a chemical with "terf" in the name, O3/H2O2 Treatment of Methyl-terf-Butyl Ether in Contaminated Waters: Effect of Background COD on the O3-Dose. Removing "TERF" from the search results, we get 2,260 results, which is a third of the results nominator found for "gender critical feminism". —Panamitsu (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. But investigating further, I've noticed that "gender critical" also has false positives, like:

• Sex and gender: critical variables in pre-clinical and clinical medical research
• Reproducing gender: Critical essays on educational theory and feminist politics
• Gender, critical mass, and judicial decision making
• General introduction: gender-critical turns in the study of religion

If we only include the full names, both having the word "feminism" in them, we still get "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" outnumbering "gender-critical feminism":

• ("gender-critical feminism" OR "gender-critical feminist" OR "gender-critical feminists") - about 836 results
• ("trans-exclusionary radical feminism" OR "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" OR "trans-exclusionary radical feminists") - about 2,260 results

PBZE (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

There were plenty of still reliable sources in which the term “gender-critical” is used not related to the subject of the article. This is an appropriated term. People who called themselves gender-critical just 10 years ago meant that they are against gender binary, against discrimination against non-binary people, against gender stereotypes, against gender policing. Just do a contextual search on ten-year-old sources and see that Cristan Williams is reliable for this claim. And even today only a very small number of scholars use the term “gender critical feminists” unironically in relation to TERFs. I can even say that opponents of the renaming keep calling the same names, such as Holly Lawford-Smith. They do not name anyone who is actively cited, who writes actively cited third-party source. Wikipedia should not give the impression that “gender-critical feminism” for those feminists who say that trans women are not women is mainstream academic terminology. It is not mainstream one, it is peripheral one at best and fringe one at worst. Reprarina (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support. 1. The core of reliable sources from which Wikipedia is written is the most cited academic literature, and only this core can establish dominant terminology for Wikipedia. 2. If academic enviroment is captured by activists disliked by Wikipedia editors, see paragraph 1.Reprarina (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think these should be two separate articles to avoid contention. The article TERF (acronym) could be moved to Trans-exclusionary radical feminism, whereas this article should remain. I must indeed admit that this article absolutely should mention the "GCF" terminology's relationship to "TERF"; these two are not synonymous - GCF as being often known as TERF - and certainly mostly by opponents - does not make them synonymous. But the two are closely linked, as other editors have said, given that GCF is a sort-of rebranding. But I think that it is a "rebranding" that is important enough for its own article, given the numerous sources citing "gender-critical beliefs" associated with the movement.

Zilch-nada (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

And I would additionally be open to the idea of this article being moved to "gender-critical movement" as another editor has suggested, given that most of the contention against GCFs in this article engages with their views on feminism ("not real feminists" etc.) as opposed to actual gender-critical views themselves. GC"F" is encompassed by a much broader movement, clearly beyond feminism. Zilch-nada (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Support per nomination, I agree that neither gender critical feminism or trans exclusionary radical feminism are currently neutral LunaHasArrived (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)