Talk:FiLiA

Listing history and campaigns sections

A previous (but now reverted) edit contained helpful details of some of FiLiA's campaigns, referenced against their website and externally. It also contained some history of how the organisation formed and the events it has organised, also well referenced.

Many other Wikipedia articles on campaigning charities (e.g. Fawcett Society, Liberty (advocacy group) and Women's Aid) have sections on their history and their campaigning activities, so it would seem appropriate to have these for FiLiA. Feminist Hulk (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. scolly69 (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

A note regarding recent POV edits

There have been attempts on Twitter to recruit (brand new) editors to make changes to this article to portray this group in the manner preferred by the group itself (e.g. "It is known for its opposition to the destruction of single-sex spaces in the United Kingdom" and removal of sourced content, e.g. The Daily Dot article). These attempts include a statement by the group's official Twitter account, specifically stating that the group "Will add it [making changes to the article] to the to-do list for tomorrow!" ([1],[2], responding to a now suspended Twitter account), followed three days later by extensive promotional edits by a new account portraying this specifically anti-trans group[3] as a "human rights campaign". I view this as an obvious case of undisclosed WP:PAID editing, and certainly a violation of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline, in addition to the POV issues. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello Amanda A. Brant. I was the editor who made the first substantive change for some time to this article on 4th November. I am unaffiliated with FiLiA in any way and I have added a note to my profile to this effect, including a declaration that I am not a paid editor (as you have suggested). My original expansion of the article was primarily to add in some information about the organisation, both in terms of its history as an event organiser and listing some of the notable feminism and human rights campaigns that they have run. All of these were properly referenced and yet you reverted them as "whitewashing and promotional content".

I am very much aware that because FiLiA operates campaigns that deal with sex and gender, this has attracted controversy and it is right that their article mentions that. However, it is vital that all editors remain committed to an NPOV and I see no reason not to list FiLiA's history, campaigns or to characterise them as an "anti-transgender and self-described radical feminist organisation" when they are first and foremost a charity and an events organiser.

Given the wide range of FiLiA's campaigns, would you agree that this article should be widened to include more than simply the transgender controversy which it currently concentrates on. Feminist Hulk (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Widening the scope of the page is uncontroversial, as long as the existing information is not removed. Whether you define trans-exclusionary feminism as anti-trans is moot, the organization openly and aggressively partakes in it and as such it should be treated as an important part of the org. If the language is too harsh and can be changed to be more neutral without changing the information it relays, those changes should be discussed to prevent section-blanking vandalism from happening by people who disagree with FiLiA's protrayal. Leopardg (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

As someone here as already said, FiLiA is first and foremost a self described feminist charity. Stating anything otherwise is simply not true and relays explicitly false information which should be corrected. Clearly your personal beliefs are getting in the way of your ability to relay information about FiLiA in a factual manner. I understand you obviously do not support the charity and personal nor do I, however that changes nothing about what should and should not be published on the page. Neutral language should always be used. Junehutter (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

FiLiA is very clearly a feminist organization with a focus on world women's rights. However, they exclude trans people, women specifically, and have engaged in political activism against trans people. It doesn't matter if they don't describe themselves as an anti-trans organization; they're actively participating in trans erasure. While I fully agree with expanding the scope of the article to include the good they do, we also have to acknowledge the bad. If there are changes that could improve the neutrality of the language while retaining the information, please put them into the new Draft page to give the community a chance to review them before they're published to a wider audience. Leopardg (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand that those are your personal beliefs. That is irrelevant to what should be included in the article. As you said, I did add information acknowledging the good they do, and did not remove "the bad," and you subsequently removed my edits multiple times, so to me it's quite obvious that you're not interested in expanding the score to include the good that they do. And once again, a charity holding views that you view as anti transgender does not change their purpose as an organisation. FiLiA's purpose is an organisation is to function as a women's rights charity and to promote feminist ideas mainly related to violence against women. Including information on controversy surrounding statements they have made related to transgender issues should obviously be included on the page and I have not suggested otherwise. However, stating that they are primarily an anti transgender organisation is vehemently false and should absolutely not be stated as a fact in the first sentence of this page. I will add my draft tomorrow. Junehutter (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no association with Filia or womens rights orgs. Worth noting also that UK law allows charities to work specifically for one protected characterist in the Equality Act 2010 (i.e. women's rights) and does not have to cater for others.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a78f58340f0b62b22cbe26d/private-clubs.pdf

This has been further built on by recent high profile court cases which have put Gender Critical Beliefs in the protected characterists alongside religious beliefs.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/employment-tribunal-rulings-on-gender-critical-beliefs-in-the-workplace/

Filia is therefore not being exclusionary in its actions in law, only considered to be so in belief for those who believe 'trans women are women' in all circumstances, which is not the case in UK law and any article about this charity should not be dominated by being told what it 'doesn't' do or 'excludes'. A section on 'controversies and threats' would seem appropriate, separate from its core principles. scolly69 (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Where are the references

Why is there no reference before 12th October 2022 for an organisation that was established in 2012.

Why is Heather Brunskell-Evans noted as being a 'key figure' when she isn't even a Trustee? (https://www.filia.org.uk/our-team)

Why is there no link to FiLiA's own web site, for any reference - such as what it actually does? Say https://www.filia.org.uk/topics

Why is the reference to FiLiA promoting 'noting that the group has promoted George Soros conspiracy theories' not actually accompanied with a quote for the reference at the supplied link https://transsafety.network/posts/filia-2022-transphobia-harassment/

Why is this page in its current form a hopeless embarrassment for Wikipedia? 78.145.97.215 (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree! It's been hijacked by one particular viewpoint. John O'London (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree - hijacked page. All of the content on it deserves to be condensed under "Controversies", further down a genuine page detailing who they are and what they have achieved since 2012 Mfjachambers (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with everything said so far in this section, the article has no resemblence to the subject, more a diatribe against it from one particular user who dislikes their belief system. Why are there not ref's to their own statement of what they do:

https://www.filia.org.uk/about-filia

Their works reported in media:

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/feminist-group-filia-stages-international-hunger-strikes-free-nazanin-zaghari-ratcliffe

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/marks-and-spencers-slammed-sexist-window-fancy-little-knickers_uk_5bf3d4b5e4b0d9e7283cbf75

And if the 'trans' issue needs prominence, putting a) the views of its chair per the guardian newspaper from before this debate became heated

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/19/gender-recognition-act-reforms-six-legal-views-transgender-debate

and b) some of the dangers they've faced

https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2022-10-04/police-investigate-online-threat-to-burn-filia-womens-rights-conference-venue scolly69 (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree, Filia isn’t a "hate group" ffs. Why do these people think that an international conference of (mainly) feminist women discussing issues that affect us on the global stage such as FGM, rape, prostitution, domestic abuse etc. is "hate" is beyond me. Why are you so frightened and incensed by us meeting to discuss our issues? I wouldn't think of disrupting males meeting, however they present. Thats their business. This Wikipedia entry is libellous. Not that Dave (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Picture

Why is the picture of the page of a charity promoting global feminism currently that of a group of trans rights campaigners, outside its annual event. This sums up everything wrong with & the biases contained within this article. scolly69 (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Trans Safety Network

The Trans Safety Network—which is not a blog, but is described by reliable sources as an organization[4] or research network[5]—is routinely cited as an authority on transphobia in the UK by major media organizations including The Guardian,[6] Vice[7] PinkNews[8], NBC News[9], The Independent[10], the BBC[11] Hence the source is reliable (which was also the conclusion when we discussed it previously elsewhere). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It is a WP:SPS and a blog, with no known editorial oversight or corrections procedure. They have been quoted by those sources on stories that are notable enough to be covered by those WP:RS. That does not mean their own unverified opinion or every blog post meets notability criteria, especially when making exceptional claims about a registered charity. They are potentially fine for direct quotes to augment a story reported in WP:RS but not as a sole source for inflammatory wikivoice claims in the second sentence of the lede. Void if removed (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2023

Please note: The page is spreading misinformation. The organisation is for women's rights and campaigns against violence against women and girls. It has no links with transgenderism in any way shape or form and has nothing to do with 'hate'. It would seem that transgender activists are spreading this misinformation to actively target this women's rights organisation. 82.46.2.80 (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: see WP:V Cannolis (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2023 (2)

82.41.194.235 (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)FiliA is not a hate group that is a lie it is a group of women who discuss issues from Female Genital mutilation to oppression of women in third world countries where infanticide of baby girls is common

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. It's not impossible to be both feminist and transphobic, there's a pretty well known term for that Cannolis (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Weakly sourced material

I have gone through and made a series of single edits of weakly sourced material, with justifications.

Please discuss them individually here, don't ignore and mass revert. Void if removed (talk) 10:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Please obtain consensus on the talk page for removing reliably sourced material that has been in the article for years. You cannot mass delete reliably sourced material without consensus. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

You have reverted a mix of content and restored new additions you made within the last 3 days, and removed content improved with new WP:RS. And what was there was not reliably sourced.

For example this edit:

Removed as WP:UNDUE - gossip about attendees from WP:SPS

If there is a WP:RS covering this about FiLiA then it is a story, else this is someone writing a blogpost about people who went to FiLiA. It is gossip.

This was an improvement to new material you added in the last few days. Don't revert this and claim it is part of some years-old consensus.

This was again removing new material, in this case an unbalanced multi-sentence quote that didn't add anything of note except a confusing mix of tenses.

This might be old but it is badly sourced. As I said:

Citation is a 2020 blogpost which makes reference to a 2018 petition to Stonewall which made that claim, not FiLiA. Void if removed (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

That may be the case, and some edits may be (partially) fine (although I don't agree with the deletions here[12] either, but the new content could be included in addition, or the content could be rephrased to take both versions into account), but when you make these massive content deletions of thousands of bytes that has been in the article forever without prior discussion it's very hard to distinguish between them. [13] is reliably sourced and relevant. Regarding [14], the sourcing for the statement could be improved, although the material itself is quite relevant, so I will look into that later. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This is:

• A non-neutral self-published source
• Repeating unverified hearsay from social media
• About random, unidentified or pseudonymous people who may have attended a conference in 2022
• Either getting in some vague conflict in a pub, or complaining in a shop
• Recounted by other random, unidentified or pseudonymous people who may or may not have been at the conference

It is neither notable nor strong. It is gossip barely related to the article subject. The only other source I can find for this trivia is Spiked, which is scarcely better. It is so tangential to FiLiA - if it involved representatives of the org or was endorsed by them or happened in the conference itself or was actually reported somewhere half decent then maybe, but this is just padding. Void if removed (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This is the position of a third party (a 2018 letter/petition to Stonewall) as described in a blogpost, being ascribed to FiLiA merely because they are hosting the blog.

FiLiA is a charity. They have charitable objects. They have an about page. When decent information is so easy to find, it is both unnecessary and inappropriate to go sifting through random blog posts describing other peoples' opinions and saying that this is what FiLiA stand for, let alone in the first paragraph of the lede.

Here are their charitable objects:

Mission: To host a world-renowned annual conference, bringing together women from all around the globe. To advance the education of the public in the subject of sex-based rights and equality. To promote human rights, especially women's rights. To promote women artists, feminist and activist art, and to give voice to minority and disadvantaged women through art.

Do you genuinely think the current lede is a fair, WP:NPOV representation of this that would educate an impartial reader? Void if removed (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

TERF and anti-gender movements' co-optation of "human rights" language has been widely commented on by experts, so that they portray themselves in this manner doesn't say anything about whether they are transphobic. It's just a WP:MISSION statement (mission statements rarely tell us much and should generally not be transcribed in full in Wikipedia articles). The Soviet Union also had a Stalin-era constitution – or "mission statement" – that portrayed the country as a wonderful democracy. Yes, I believe the lead accurately summarizes what kind of organization this is and how it is perceived by observers. This year's conference featured every prominent anti-trans activist in the UK, anti-trans books were showcased and sold, all the significant anti-trans organizations in the UK were there, and so on. That's why the organization has routinely been met with protests, not just this year. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying copy their mission statement - I'm saying you can summarise what they're about with stronger sources than misattributed direct quotes from a guest blog. Void if removed (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to elaborate on [15]: I don't think the quote, which is reliably sourced, is unnecessary. When we discuss what you changed to "pressure from anonymous activists" (which doesn't seem like a very neutral wording, and the initiative also had a name), we should cite their rationale for this "pressure", not just the claims by anti-trans activists ("discrimination protections under the Equality Act"). But including both views is fine. The cancellation and protest received a huge amount of media attention. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Can we start again?

Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:No legal threats
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I came across this article a few days ago. One of my old friends said she was going to Glasgow for the FiLiA conference. I'd never heard of FiLiA so I looked it up on Wikipedia. I was horrified - I'd never read such a single-minded, slanted, vicious and frankly slanderous "hate-piece", masquerading as a Wikipedia "NPOV encyclopedia entry" in my life!. Checking the history I discovered it had been originally created and then further edited and updated by a single contributor - and checking that individual's other contributions revealed a pattern and a specific bias @Amanda A. Brant:! I've contributed in my own fields of interest to Wikipedia over many years - I've never understood the rules and regulations, and avoided contributing to "controversial" topics. But shouldn't there be a ban on contributors deliberately creating a topic in order to be totally negative/anti about it? I tried to delete what I regarded as the most irrelevant references to create some balance. Not sure if my changes have survived the recent edits! Agree with @Void if removed:- many of the refs are weakly sourced - either quotes direct from "special-interest groups" (Well, they would say that wouldn't they) or media reports of such claims. Funnily enough one of them https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/10/24/the-trans-movement-has-a-problem-with-women/ takes you to a well-balanced report which makes it very clear who the "hate-group" (with threats of violence and intimidation of women) actually were! Like the Glasgow meeting - one SMP inside speaking, one outside protesting - only the latter was cited in Wikipedia by @Amanda A. Brant:! Suggestions: Either appeal to Wikipedia to DELETE this article - until someone who is able to express NPOV on the topic can create an NPOV article, then leave it either side to maul it to pieces. Or contact FiLiA to suggest they take legal action against Wikipedia and its contributors for slander - and they obviously have good lawyers. Although frankly I don't think they will be bothered - they've got far more pressing problems worldwide about the rights of women than this. But perhaps we should be optimistic. Just looked at LGB Alliance. This started as a very similar "hate-fest" piece written by an individual contributor who specialises in articles on "hate-groups". After a thousand or so interventions it's settled to something that is at least relatively balanced. J O'L John O'London (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC) See Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It's still pretty WP:UNDUE

The current version of the article isn't quite as terrible as some earlier versions, but it's still highly slanted. The organization deals with numerous women-related issues, as discussed here in their news section, only a few of which have anything to do with the transgender issue. That page has articles on Sudan, trade unionism, rape in Zimbabwe, hunger, parental alienation theory, prostitution, surrogacy, Kathmandu, lesbians, bisexuals, Islam's ban on dancing, and more... along with a few that have to do with trans issues, so it's true that this is covered, but from the look of the Wikipedia article it's all the organization focuses on, in the most obsessive way. And there's enormous space devoted to critics and protests against it, and very little to what the organization does itself. Certainly the criticism needs to be noted, but it doesn't deserve almost the entire space of the article. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes - as I suggested until it got "hidden" by Wikipedia - "appeal to Wikipedia to DELETE this article - until someone who is able to express NPOV on the topic can create an NPOV article, then leave it to either side to maul it to pieces." John O'London (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Can we start again? version 2

Sorry @Amanda A. Brant: I didn't realise you were allowed to close down discussion because you were personally offended. I apologise for my tone - please reply to my queries anyway. Even if Wikipedia can state that FiLiA is primarily a "gender critical" organisation this needs to be supported from external sources - eg their constitution, their stated objectives, evidence that the major part of their time and energy is spent on this topic. As far as I'm aware from my friend who went to the Glasgow conference they have many other worldwide concerns to keep them busy. John O'London (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources, not WP:MISSION statements. We already mention that they describe themselves as feminist. Reliable sources have described them as gender-critical, and several critics have described them as anti-trans/transphobic. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Can't find a programme, but FiLiA's website suggests the following topics were to be discussed at their conference "Anti-racism; Class Politics; Disability; EcoFeminism; Feminist History; Global; Health; Lesbian Rights; Peace; Representation; Reproductive Rights; Secularism; Sex-Based Rights; Sexual Exploitation Industries; Violence Against Women" - sorry, how does that make them in the very first line nothing but "a gender critical organization"? It's as if the Wikipedia article on the Conservative Party was to say in its lede "The Conservative Party is an organisation established to destroy the National Health Service". That may be what we think it is doing, but it's not a fair definition!

Specifically on gender issues though, if Wikipedia is going to give such space to FiLiA's critics we need at least to cite a statement from FiLiA available on the web: "FiLiA is a wide-ranging feminist organisation. Although we do not exist solely to address the fight to protect and expand women's sex-based rights, the unfolding of events over the past years has made it clear to us that we have a duty to take a stand. Therefore, we stand in support of sex-based rights, because those are much-needed victories that thousands of UK women have fought for, over decades." They are responding to what they see, rightly or wrongly, as a threat to the people they represent. John O'London (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

We already mention their focus on "sex-based rights". We don't include long WP:MISSION statements. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The organization itself doesn't seem to be nearly as heavily focused on that one subject than its critics are. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Times says: "FiLia is a voluntary organisation and part of the women’s liberation movement." AndyGordon (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Lede

The current lede is:

FiLiA is a British feminist organization established in 2013. It describes itself as feminist and states that the organization supports "sex-based rights", but has been described by critics as anti-transgender or transphobic. It hosts an annual conference, which claims to be the largest of its kind. One of its key figures is Heather Brunskell-Evans, the founder of Women's Declaration International (WDI). It is known for its opposition to transgender rights and is described by The Daily Dot as "openly transphobic" and "opposing the idea that you can even be trans".

• Why is the conference - the primary function the org was founded to achieve - relegated to the third sentence, after criticism? I had a change here that was reverted that moved the conference forward and cited the times to make clear it is a women's conference.
• Why is the same dailydot article cited twice for criticism in the lede? The first criticism merely repeats the second. It is repetitive.
• Why is the dailydot cited at all, let alone twice, and credited for its opinion? The article is 90% tweets, and dailydot aren't a high quality source. Why does the random dailydot writer's opinion matter here? This is WP:UNDUE.
• Why is Heather Brunskell-Evans prominently featured in the lede? She doesn't seem to be notable beyond being their spokesperson at one point, the source isn't exactly great, and it is unclear that she is still in any way connected to the organisation. Their CEO and co-founder is Lisa-Marie Taylor (and here). Their current spokeswoman is Raquel Rosario Sanches (and here).
• "It is known for its opposition to transgender rights" the citation here actually says:

When Theresa May proposed changes to the process of obtaining a gender recognition

certificate under the GRA 2004, it seemed a relatively uncontroversial move [...] the ball was rolling on a new and, at the time, UK specific iteration of trans-exclusionary feminism, bringing together long-time trans-exclusionary figures and newly concerned individuals.

This single-issue movement quickly gave rise to campaign groups in the UK (e.g. Women's Place UK, Fair Play for Women, Filia, Resisters, Sex Matters, LGB Alliance, to name a few), and found some support from columnists, media and press figures, mainstream publications, politicians, peers and social media users.

I don't think "known for its opposition to transgender rights" is a fair summation of that section, and certainly not one to be presented in wikivoice.

You could perhaps say that FiLiA campaigned against the Conservative Government's 2017 proposals for reform of the Gender Recognition Act. That is more specific, and more accurate.

I suggest something like this:

FiLiA is a British feminist organization established in 2013. It hosts an annual women's conference, which claims to be the largest of its kind. FiLiA states it supports women's sex-based rights, and campaigned against the UK Government's 2017 proposed reforms of the Gender Recognition Act. It has been described by critics as transphobic. Void if removed (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

We cannot describe it as feminist in Wikipedia's voice. Fairly neutral RS have described it as gender-critical, which is the term this movement uses itself and which is the most specific and relevant target article (feminism is an incredibly vague term and broad article). Gender-critical simply describes this movement that considers itself feminist specifically. We can have a sentence after that mentioning how it (i.e. its mission statement) describes itself as feminist (which is clearly not accepted by everyone), and then mention the critical description as transphobic. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll support @Void if removed:'s version until something better comes along - so if we're looking for consensus count me in. However, I was glad to see the Claire Thurlow quote set out, since it's behind a paywall - I'd originally assumed she must have written an extensive breakdown of FiLiA's activities if she was being quoted as a reliable source on the organisation (she's a PhD student at Cardiff University). But what she says doesn't make sense - she only lists FiLiA among a number of "campaign groups" that she says Theresa May' proposal "quickly gave rise to". Sadly, we're told by Wikipedia that FiLiA was founded in 2013; Theresa May didn't become PM until 2016. So nothing that Theresa May did could have "given rise" to FiLiA (though it might have inspired them to take a particular stance). Just shoddy writing. The best we can derive from Thurlow is "FiLiA has been listed among a number of campaign groups that protested against the Conservative Government's 2017 proposals for reform of the Gender Recognition Act." I've no doubt they did campaign against the changes, but surely it needs a truly independent source and one that specifically describes FiLiA's role - eg national newspaper, BBC, or even public copy of FiLiA campaign statements. John O'London (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We call the Women's Equality Party feminist in wikivoice. Not sure the objection. They actually call themselves a "Women’s Liberation" org, though they do mention their "feminist" conference.

TBH I'd favour "women's liberation" over feminist, as that is how they term it, backed up by this, though that refers to them as "feminist" more times. More for feminist here, here, here and here. But I would still prefer their self-description as "women's liberation" per WP:ABOUTSELF (it is not unduly self-serving or exceptional).

I don't see gender-critical anywhere in their self-description. Most press mentions of gender-critical are about speakers or attendees views. I can find only one source that actually calls them a "gender-critical charity". Void if removed (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We should mention that they describe themselves as "women's liberation", but it's best done in a sentence like "it describes itself as part of the women's liberation movement" (which is how they phrase it). The current version "is a British feminist[1] organization established in 2013.[2] It describes itself as feminist" makes no sense and unnecessarily repeats the same description. Then the first (wikivoice) description should be changed to something more neutral. The feminism of the Women's Equality Party has never been called into question, whereas this organization is described by many critics as transphobic rather than feminist. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry - aren't even TERFs feminists first and foremost? I'm changing it again - unless you can PROVE from unbiased sources it is not primarily a FEMINIST organization. John O'London (talk) 12:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Stop unilaterally adding feminist twice without consensus. It's ridiculous to have the same description twice. Wikipedia is also based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources and there are plenty of sources cited in the article that describes it e.g. as transphobic, gender-critical etc. While gender-criticals consider themselves a feminist movement (which is disputed by critics), the word feminism in itself is so broad and vague that it makes no sense to have it twice in the first and second sentence. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'll delete the second one. John O'London (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

... or perhaps "women's rights organization" ? John O'London (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)