Jump to content

Talk:TERF (acronym)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yilangren (talk | contribs) at 18:03, 17 December 2019 (→TERF is not a subset, nor a term that is used to describe people who are not TERFs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Self-published sources currently used

As far as I can see we're currently using five self-published sources:

WP:SPS says: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.[8] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.

We have enough traditionally published sources to establish the basic facts and to give a variety of viewpoints. In a situation like that, I don't feel there's a strong case for supplementing with self-published sources. But if we do then we should try our best to be even-handed about it. If Davis and McCready are worth a paragraph-length summary then Allen et al. probably are too. Those are the most detailed academic sources on the 'slur' question and I can sympathize with wanting to use them. Haukur (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, The Allen citation is probably unnecessary because the IHE article contains the same quote. It might be worth pulling a brief, substantive argument from that article though, since it is cited by a secondary source. Serano's glossary entry is very similar to her argument in an editorial for The Advocate (see footnote), which is, in turn, cited by the TransAdvocate. Davis and McCready, and Deborah Cameron are the real edge cases, in my view - because neither is mentioned by a secondary source, and neither is a particularly central figure in the debate. Nblund talk 19:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, Davis and McCready is not an edge case because, as far as I know, they are the only ones involved in this debate who have demonstrable academic expertise in semantics, which is the relevant discipline (or one of the most relevant disciplines) here. Given this fact, I don't think it is necessary for them to be cited by other interlocutors for their contribution to be significant in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Cameron is cited here (p. 19): [6] I guess we could add this as a source. Haukur (talk) 10:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for Marxist publications, I also just found this piece which turns out to be one of the most even-handed discussions of trans/feminist tensions that I've seen. Haukur (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
HaukurthDo you have a readable link or know how I can read it. When I click on it, the page is too small for me to read.Probably my lack of techno knowledgeThanx.Oldperson (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Haukurth Disregard. I figured it out,there was a download option at the bottom of the page. Took a look, the article is as you mentioned.Oldperson (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You say "we have enough traditionally published sources to establish the basic facts and to give a variety of viewpoints", but I don't think that's actually true. In the current version of the article we're citing mostly bloggers and opinion writers in the majority of the article.1There are very few actual academic sources on the term, and almost all of those are self-published. There are also few traditional news sources on the term (though there are plenty of editorials) and many of the exceptions go out of their way to say as little as possible.
I also want to point out: we cite the Guardian a lot in this article as a reliable source, but we have a reliable source (the American version of the Guardian) asserting that the editorial board of the British version of the Guardian is less reliable on this issue than its reputation would normally imply. And several other sources implying that the British press is in general uniquely bad on this issue, at the same time we cite the British press a lot. Which is to say, for several different reasons I think it's most accurate to say we have a bunch of consistently mediocre sources, as opposed to some good sources and some bad sources. All of our sources have problems and they are all roughly the same level of problem, which is why I don't think singling out the sources cited here is terribly helpful. Loki (talk) 04:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is definitely a split between UK and US sources here with trans-critical perspectives seemingly making more appearances in UK media. But I don't think we can frame that as the UK sources being less reliable. As for mediocre sources you are right that the problems are not limited to those that are self-published. Prestigious traditionally published sources that deal with the subject in depth – that's something we could use more of. Hopefully some of the academic research manages to make its way through the publication process. Haukur (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The issue that I have is that we have UK non-specialist and op-ed sources being elevated to the same level as primarily US sources embodying more expertise. A kind of false equivalency is reflected in the article; I agree that scholarship should have the final word, as it develops. Newimpartial (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The cite to Allen et al is particularly worth giving a critical eye because, by my reading, it is the only source used to justify the current wording in the lead that in academic discourse there is no consensus on whether TERF constitutes a slur (it previously said that academics had rejected this view.) I think there are serious problems with taking Rachel McKinnon's peer-reviewed paper and casting doubt on it using a self-published reply. --Aquillion (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be okay with dropping all self-published sources, including both Allen et al. and Davis and McCready. In that situation we would certainly have to come up with something different for that part of the lead. As for McKinnon's article, it's certainly published but it's far less detailed than either Allen et al. or Davis and McCready. I also don't think it's peer-reviewed but since that question keeps coming up maybe we should find out for sure one way or the other. Haukur (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we dropped them all, we'd basically be deleting the complete other side of the argument and letting the people this article is about determine everything that is said about them. Somehow their (typically unacademic) opinions merit RS, but those who oppose their control of the conversation (with typically more nuanced and academic writing) deserve to be wholesale expunged. One would wonder why we have an article at all at that point, because we'd just have anti-trans propagandists controlling their own page and saying "No it isn't" to anything they don't like. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 18:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add: Bettcher's article is peer-reviewed and so, at least arguably, our most authoritative source. It may merit more use than we are currently making of it. Haukur (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, Haukurth, that source is subscription-only to read based on current links, so someone with ECU or higher should probably add that url-access flag. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 07:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see what you mean – but our Byzantine guideline for this doesn't seem to allow it: Template:Cite_journal#Access_indicators_for_named_identifiers. Have you obtained the text for yourself? I can send it to you if you'd like. Haukur (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation Marks

@Aircorn: those quotation marks you removed really aren't "scare quotes". The term "gender critical" isn't commonly known. The quotes serve to let readers not already in-the-know that the terminology is a specific ideology or viewpoint. At least one to start out with to make readers aware of the terminology isn't scare quoting. Terminology that is widely-used and known would be scare-quoted in this instance. This is a very niche term most probably aren't aware of. I suggest putting the marks back. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 07:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwenhope:, are they from a specific source that is being quoted? If not, then no quotation marks, no matter how un-scary they are. I know of no MOS guideline supporting the use of quotation marks for the reason you allude to. (See MOS:QUOTEMARKS, MOS:QUOTATIONS.) Perhaps what you are looking for, is this: "Italics can be used to mark a particular usage as a term of art (a case of "words as words"), especially when it is unfamiliar or should not be reworded by a non-expert." —MOS:CONFORM Mathglot (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC) corrected WAW target, per aeusoes1 below; by Mathglot (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)While they might not be intended as scare quotes that is the way they come across. In controversial subjects we should avoid ambiguity. I would suggest using italics if you want to highlight the word. I don't think it is necessary though as whether it is commonly known enough is subjective and the sentence makes it clear how the term is applied. AIRcorn (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I was in the middle of adding this, essentially the same point as Aircorn: Even if it is a direct quotation, it shouldn't be quoted if it might be mistaken for scare quotes. See MOS:CONFORM Endangered example. Mathglot (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I knew as soon as I edit conflicted with you that we were both saying the same thing. Thanks for providing the links. I knew they were somewhere, but am a bit rusty. AIRcorn (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever it's an issue of terminology, we should definitely be using italics, per MOS:WAW (not per WP:WAW, which is about something else). I think the first two instances of it in the article should be italicized. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support italicization per above. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with italics. Haukur (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the MOS page implies we should have terf in italics too, as we did previously. I have no strong feelings about this. LGBT uses italics. Gay is not entirely consistent. Cuckservative uses scare quotes. Haukur (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I hadn't noticed that. The MOS page prescribes (not implies) that all of these articles should be using italics when referring to terms as terms. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a compound adjective, it should be hyphenated as gender-critical anyway.  — AReaderOutThataway t/c 09:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about gender critical being a compound adjective. Last I looked gender was a noun. Then again we live in a world constantly evolving language. Sick use to mean unwell, now it means something analogous to great.Oldperson (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie J. Morris article

  • Morris, Bonnie J. (July–August 2015). "The Hijacking of Lesbian History". The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide. 22 (4): 13–15.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)

I think this is a pretty good source. The author is a well-known scholar, the publication is reputable and the content is in depth. It's also not British, which adds some diversity to sources critical of the term. But before making use of this in the article I wanted to give people the chance to take a look. I can access this through ProQuest and if you can't I'll gladly provide you with the text. Just toss me an e-mail and I'll send you a pdf. Of course, if you subscribe to the journal itself you can also access it there: [7]

A search for 'TERF trans' on ProQuest yields more than 2000 results. I have not been searching particularly for sources critical of the term but that viewpoint does seem to come up more in this database than sources promoting or defending the term. On the other hand there are a number of sources which use the term without any particular caveats and thereby implicitly endorse it. As an example, here's one in Spanish: [8] Haukur (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Haukurth: I'm willing to review the source. Feel free to use the "email this user" link on my userpage. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 22:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! Sent. Haukur (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.glreview.org/wp-content/uploads/DigitalEditions/mtdownload7894_2015.07.01_11.55/files/assets/common/downloads/page0013.pdf
http://www.glreview.org/wp-content/uploads/DigitalEditions/mtdownload7894_2015.07.01_11.55/files/assets/common/downloads/page0014.pdf
http://www.glreview.org/wp-content/uploads/DigitalEditions/mtdownload7894_2015.07.01_11.55/files/assets/common/downloads/page0015.pdf.
Whoever uploaded the article didn't know how to upload all three pages together. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 04:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's terrific! I don't suppose there's a citation template that can handle three links so I guess we use some ad hoc solution? Haukur (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CITEBUNDLE:
<ref>Morris essay:
  • {{cite web|
  • {{cite web|
  • {{cite web|
</ref>
Pyxis Solitary (yak) 11:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Haukurth: I think this source is disingenuous, sometimes self-contradictory, and extensively WP:FRINGE. The leading paragraph literally bends over backwards to try to say while technically they're not anti-trans, that everything is de facto anti-amab and thus anti-transfemme. In fact, the festival is specifically anti-trans in policy. This is just one of a list of false claims and notions put forth, which are considerable:
  • Claims that criticism over the festival's trans-exclusive culture is thinly-veiled lesbophobia: Michigan’s critics view the festival’s impressive survival into its fortieth year as a trans-phobic failure rather than as a lesbian success.
  • Claims that TERF is a brand-new term meant to target festival-goers (factually untrue), inherently problematic, and will be applied to anyone who attends womens'/lesbian festivals (factually untrue). …the newly constructed term “TERF”—Trans Excluding Radical Feminist — will live on as the problematic definition of those who attended festivals in our time.
  • Claims that TERF ideology is inherent to the lesbian community TERF is an important new slur, emblematic of the unresolved tensions between our LGBT community’s L and T factions. and TERF is a unique new insult for non-transgender lesbians by other LGBT activists… (this latter claim is wholly false, the term TERF has nothing inherently to do with lesbians)
  • Claims that TERFs are every radical feminist from second-wave era (which is patently untrue) The TERF definition ends up being pretty much every radical woman from the era of radical feminism…
  • Claims of criticism of trans-exclusive behavior in modern festival activity as retroactive repression and erasure …shaming and silencing every woman who has experienced the Michigan festival effectively erases almost anyone who dipped a toe into lesbian culture in the 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s.
  • Claims historical significance makes one immune to modern criticism But instead of being thanked or celebrated (or written into history), America's festival artists are being attacked, threatened, and boycotted; they're being depicted as the enemy within by LGBT institutional leaders.
  • Claims that criticism of modern transphobia are akin to labeling lesbians/feminists as androphobes Too many progressives are simply reintroducing old right-wing attacks on lesbians as ugly, outmoded man haters.
  • Misunderstanding the term "TERF" completely like a conspiracy Blaming an imaginary cabal of old women for stalling progress… (TERF ideology is just that, an ideology. There are TERF groups which specifically try to out, shame, and remove trans people, especially trans women, from every sphere they can. However it talks about an ideology not an organization.)
In addition, the source hyper-focuses on one specific women's music festival instead of actually talking about the term. It's written more like an apologia for the festival than an actual examination of terf ideology. This source itself is a terf source. So it would be perfect for giving an example of their ideology, but it is not in any way reliable for anything outside of showing a window into terf ideology. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 07:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC) (adjusted point nuances Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 09:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Attributed the source is as reliable as any others used here. More so given it is from a decent journal. If there are specific criticisms published about her view then they can possibly be included too. I don't see how FRINGE applies here, there are plenty of sources that say TERF can be used as a slur. AIRcorn (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aircorn: Specifically, we're ideally looking for neutral secondary sources which examine the subject from an academic perspective. However, we are only really getting activist-based primary sources. We're experiencing a WP:PARITY problem, specifically. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 12:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am all for better sources. However, the usefulness of a source is determined by the reputation of the publisher of that source and the format the source takes, not whether or not we agree with what it says. I am still not following you on the FRINGE/PARITY thing. Are you saying that TERF being a slur is a fringe idea and therefor we can use non reliable sources to counter this idea? If anything that suggest that this should be used as it is as reliable as the countering viewpoints. FWIW I googled TERF and fringe and I mostly got links to a hairstyle. AIRcorn (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The hairstyle thing comes up so much that it actually might deserve a brief alluding to in the article as a part of the semantic widening of the term. There's a Slate article which seems like a decent source and puts it like this: TERF, as an insult, has become so far removed from its original activist intentions (rightly criticizing trans exclusion in feminism) that, at this point, it’s also a word for anything that queer millennials deem uncool. Things I’ve seen called “TERFy” on Twitter and Tumblr include tampon ads, the word “female,” the non-word “womxn,” Janelle Monae’s “Pynk,” the Venus symbol, bangs, Jill Stein, Cardi B, and … trans women. [9] We can use this in the "Coinage and usage" section. Actually, it might make sense to break that section into two - one on coinage and one on semantic development. Haukur (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jill Stein and Cardi B? Okay. Yeah could do with a brief mention. AIRcorn (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's real stretch regarding all those things. When queer millennials, specifically trans queer millennials refer to something as "TERFy" it means they're referring to terms, people, media, and such which portrays the same ideology of terfs - vaguely or explicitly being about womens' empowerment but also making the same sex-essentialist, gender-essentialist notions that claim that being born with ovaries, a uterus, vulvovaginal complex, and XX chromosomes is identical to being a woman. (A claim which necessarily invalidates trans people are all flavors.)
These actually make sense from this perspective. Many tampon ads make those claims. Many anti-trans groups (TERFs included) often use "female" instead of "woman" as an attempt to negate trans identity, which also happens with "womxn" (trying to say women with XX chromosomes) or other terms such as "wombyn" (trying to say women have or have had uteruses). Janelle Monae's song Pynk basically is a song about the color of vulvae, which we culturally associate with the feminine binary gender, along with the Venus symbol. Jill Stein and Cardi B are rather poor examples. Trans women, however, sometimes are terfs. These types of trans women specifically try to ingratiate themselves to the "real" (cis) women by purposefully owning a supposed second-class status of womanhood. This type of trans woman intersects with the trans medicalist (truscum) ideology which attempts to validate and elevate some types of trans folks over others. (Some, like Blaire White, even strip off the feminist vestiges and go full right-wing talking points.) Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 07:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean – certainly tampons have some connection with female biology so 'bangs' are probably a better example of this semantic expansion. Haukur (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see this was reverted. I don't really agree with WP:Neologism as that is more about article titles than content in an article which could arguably be a neologism itself. We have the evolution of the term from being an intended neutral separator to being deemed a slur by others. This just seems like another part of the story. AIRcorn (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, yes. Maybe User:Mathglot would be willing to explain their concerns in more detail? Was the neologism of concern specifically TERFy or TERF bangs? In addition to the Slate piece I was using[10] there is also an article in The Cut which goes into detail on bangs.[11] We're doing lexicography here and this seems like a part of the story. But maybe there are better ways to get at it than my initial attempt. Haukur (talk) 10:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of tampons, Venus symbol, and females: Always pads removed the biological sex symbol for female from their wrappers, because ....: 1, 2, 3. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 12:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pyxis Solitary Please self revert that post has nothing to do with the subject at hand. What was your intention on posting it and the links? And what has it to do with the word TERF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldperson (talk • contribs) 17:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These links that Pyxis posted pertain to transmen, not transwomen. Evidently it was transmen, some of whom still use tamponsl, that complained about the Venus symbol. IMO a non issue elevated to ridicule, but I am not a transman either, so don't know. Still think the post is a purposeful distraction, and has nothing to do with TERF's as one thing the TERF's don't discriminate against is Transmen.Oldperson (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out those links (the Telegraph articles were behind a paywall) and I don't really see how they're relevant to this article? The RT article mentions a "feminist vs transgender skirmish", so I could see an argument for mentioning the issue on another article, such as Feminist views on transgender topics, but it doesn't seem useful, and RT would be a bad choice of source, and it wouldn't fit here regardless. --Equivamp - talk 22:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, as Oldperson said, Always removed it to be inclusive to trans men and afab non-binary individuals. Yet most sources are acting like this is wholesale erasure of women and most terf-aligned sources are attacking trans people. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 00:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, Gwenhope and Aircorn! I agree that it's a source coming from a particular angle and should be treated as such. But I suppose the same is true for most of the sources in the article. Haukur (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Haukurth: I found a very good source I would like to recommend, but that would be a new section. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 12:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Looking forward to it. Haukur (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"I think this source is disingenuous." The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide and Bonnie J. Morris are "disingenuous". LOL! Pyxis Solitary (yak) 11:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pyxis Solitary: When I say "source" I'm saying Morris, not the journal. (Admittedly the journal has issues, but not as much as Morris.) She is deliberately misrepresenting facts in favor of her own personal anecdotes and feelings because she really loved MichFest. Her writing doesn't carry academic tone. It reads as a disgruntled fan upset over the aspersions and closing of one of her favorite institutions. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 12:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neither/Neyther. Your dismissal of Morris is equivalent to dismissals of Rachel McKinnon by others. What it all boils down to is that you don't like it. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 13:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You categorically misunderstand, Pyxis Solitary. Yeah I don't like terf ideology, that's rather obvious and I admit it. However I can still evaluate a source based on it's logical rigor and fallacious claims (of which this Morris article features a ton of). I listed legitimate issues with the logic and factuality of Morris's writing. Like it or not, those criticisms are still valid. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 07:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't like terf ideology." Well, shit on a shingle! If there's "terf ideology", then there must be "trans ideology", too. I can't wait to see what the THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS TRANS IDEOLOGY! circle jerk will come up with now. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 08:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gwenhope: Your claims on rigor are debatable. For example:
  • Claims that TERF is a new term (factually untrue). I fail to see how this is factually untrue. It depends on the time scale. In the context of feminist theory, dating back to almost two centuries, and radical feminism, dating back to about 60 years ago, a publication written in 2015 might consider a term popularized in 2008 as "new". This is not something you can label as "factually untrue", but you may disagree on the time scale.
  • will be applied to anyone who attends festivals (factually untrue). You just twisted Morris words and omitted context. Here festivals is not any possible form of festival, it refers to festivals like Michigan Womyn's Music Festival. In my opinion, your characterization of Morris point here as "factually untrue" is a straw man.
There are other questions that are subject of controversy, and Morris defends positions that you don't agree with, but are hardly characterizable as unequivocally factually untrue. --MarioGom (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I don't think we need to prove whether every single statement in the publication is a verifiable truth or not (hard with any essay) but if it is due weight in the context of TERF § Opposition to the word. --MarioGom (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioGom: I guess terms can be relative to some degree. Culturally, millennials like me exist in a digital space and tend to view terms over a decade old as far from new, but established, and even stale. I agree with you. I guess I should clarify that the context of Morris's writing also informs that statement. The tone and text of her writing treats the term "terf" like a new one specifically for berating lesbian festival goers/performers. That is inherently wrong.
Regarding the "festival" issue, we're talking in rigorous academic terms. Shouldn't an academic be absolutely clear instead of making open-ended statements? Especially if publishing in a journal no less. Regardless, in this context, I think it also relates to my point about her assigning terfiness to all radical feminists, political lesbians, and women's festivals. Not all of these festivals are "TERFy". I guess my attempt at nuanced point is needing clarification. I do appreciate your constructive criticism. Points have been adjusted above for more suitable nuance.
Anyway, regarding due weight for context of that section, we already know that people espousing ideology often labeled as "terf" don't like the word. Morris's essay lends no extra information or context regarding that disapproval of term. Her point is mostly the same, regurgitated. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 09:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Getting too repetitive is definitely a danger in this article since we have many sources that make quite similar points. We should probably be looking into removing or further condensing some of the quotes from less useful or prestigious sources – though I don't think that would be Morris. Anyway, I think you mentioned you had a new source to recommend. I'd very much like to see it. It's important to keep looking out for balance and I want to make sure I'm seeing your side of the story. Haukur (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does one describe a TERF without using the acronym TERF?

WP:NOTFORUM -Crossroads- (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Mathglot, Gwenhope, WanderingWanda, and Crossroads: As regards Haukurth's post here. A trans exclusionary radical feminist is indisputably an accurate term to describe transwomyn exclusionary radical feminists. The problem so far has been stopping at trans and not continuing with transwomyn. Gender Critical says nothing at all. All kinds of folk and groups are gender critical. It is vague and non descriptive. If one was to ask a TERF if she is in favor of excluding transwomyn from women's "spaces" she would say yes, ergo she is a TERF. If one does not like the label,then one should stop acting in such a way. One can't stop being lesbian or gay, can they? They can stop their behaviors, at great damage I must say, but they can't stop their being. There is no state of being for a TERF,it is simply a volunarily acquired social position, whether they adopt the term as a self description is irrelevant,it is in fact an accurate description of their social position.Oldperson (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a twist on the acronym that we in the trans community use that can be used to accurately describe terf-ism without using that term. While it is ostensibly derisive, many trans communities prefer to use the term "FART" to stand for "Feminist-Appropriating Reactionary Transphobe", which a good start to understand the ideology. As I've explained before in this page, they aren't typically actually critical of gender itself, just the trans expressions of gender (transgender). Basically you just have to describe them in their anti-trans ideology wrapped in vestiges of feminism. (Also, you don't need to use "womyn". That's a linguistic example of terf attempts to other trans folks.) Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 22:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gwenhope It is probably unacceptable to hold my sides laughing, but I can't help it - F.A.R.T. Thanks for the word on using womyn. I had no idea just trying to be relevant. I believe I have seen feminists use the womyn spelling. Oldperson (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to remind people commenting on this thread that Wikipedia is not a forum. --MarioGom (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not just this thread, but much of this whole talk page, let's not be selective. The question still has not been answered. The problem is that Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists, don't like being identified as such, at least out loud or with an acronym. There is a solution if one does not like being identified with an ideology, activity, movement then stop. OK the last bit was a bit of WP:FORUMOldperson (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I remember making a thread about the specific phonetic sound of the acronym being a part of the reason TERFs don't like being called TERFs. I don't know if any sources out there mention this... not that it's particularly relevant and could only act as a distraction from the topic and issues at hand, even though I think it could be a reason. As for "gender critical" arguments, TERFs typically use that in a way to disparage trans women who use prominent femininity in their image. Or, in simpler terms, "dress girly". The irony of this argument when used by TERFs has definitely been pointed out in RS, somewhere, but that is perhaps beyond the scope of this article. --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the risk of derailing, yet again, and making this yet another WP:FORUM, youre comment about"dress girly" raises the issue of "lipstick lesbians" or is this yet another case of double standards by TERFs?The first being acceptance of Trans-men.Oldperson (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Source (Earles, Jennifer)

(Originally mentioned in § Bonnie J. Morris article, pinging @Haukurth: who was curious about the source.)

This 2017 dissertation delves deep into the online interactions and language of TERF and anti-TERF factions in various ways. It is written comprehensively, has a very academic tone, and is heavily cited. It also attaches ideological foundations for TERF-labeled ideology and situates them in the context of Lesbian Separatism and Radical feminism. Festival culture (such as mentioned by Morris) and other such histories are mentioned and arranged in context of Salon feminism. Unlike most of the activist sources, both sides are academically represented. Would be eager to hear other perspectives on this source. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 18:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! We have these perennial debates on the value of unpublished PhD theses. I'm on the glass-half-full side of that – they may not be 'published' and they aren't authored by established experts but they are usually pretty in-depth and they endure a level of scrutiny that I'd say is greater than the typical newspaper article that everyone thinks is fine as a source. So, at least at first glance, this looks like an acceptable source that could have relevance to several articles – though perhaps it doesn't have much about the word TERF as such. Haukur (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some guidance at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems, according to these guidelines, that provided it has been vetted by a accredited institution and accepted via dissertation peer review, it would meet RS qualifications. However, we would need to determine whether this is a primary or secondary source. Regardless, many of the sources already linked here are primary, so it wouldn't be out of place if it was the former. Based on the WP:PSTS standards, Morris (above) appears more primary ("insider view of an event") while this source appears much more secondary. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 17:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have used them before, but not as an actual source, but as a means to find better sources. Any semi decent PhD should have plenty of good references to draw upon. Just need to make sure you read the reference before citing it per "say where you read it". AIRcorn (talk) 07:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway there is this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Trans+exclusionary+radical+Femeinists. I haven't looked at it yet, but it would be better than their unpublished thesis if it has something suitable in it on TERFs. AIRcorn (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a potentially interesting source for feminist separatism and feminist views on transgender topics. Haukur (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, I take issue with the labeling of "unpublished" for the original source, publicly listed and published online on an official university page after having undergone review of many advising professors. Interesting to get more sources from her, however. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 12:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmopolitan article

Any opinions on this Cosmopolitan article? Or the response to it at AfterEllen? These have the virtue of being very new. Of course they mostly say things we already have and we don't need an endless parade of sources that say the same thing. But the Cosmo piece does have this:

So, to avoid all the confusion about slurs and names, let’s stop using the term TERFs and call them what they actually are – anti-trans activists. Giving them any association with feminism would be wrong, especially as many of their organisations are funded by anti-abortion and evangelical groups, and they rarely speak about anything other than denying trans people’s existence.

I don't think I've seen quite that point before. Haukur (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That reduces everything down to it's essence.Oldperson (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's something ironically perfect about Cosmo, the flagship of the How to Please your Man genre, pretending to define the boundaries of radical feminism. Alas, I don't think it can be used for these claims. The Cosmo author gives no evidence to back up these assertions, and that matters, because WP:RSP says "There is no consensus on the reliability of Cosmopolitan. It is generally regarded as a situational source, which means context is important. The treatment of Cosmopolitan as a source should be decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on the article and the information to be verified."
Also, Viv Smythe is not an idiot. She knew very well who she was debating with. We should be very skeptical of any source which implies that Viv Smythe (or the actual coiner of the term, or really anyone else in those debates) was ignorant of what the debate was about. -Pine457 (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Viv Smythe is an idiot or not is not up to you to decide and in that regard as to whether Cosmopolitan is a RS should be decided on a case by case basis. Who will be the decider? You. Another consensus vote? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not justification for deciding RS.Oldperson (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak source. The statements that by denying trans women are women one is denying trans women exist and that TERFs have no association with feminism need some kind of scholarly support not just an assertion in a magazine of this ilk. We could attribute it by why even attribute an opinion piece in a magazine of this quality for a topic like this. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A magazine of this "ilk". How pejorative. We aren't talking the Enquirer or the Globe, but a mainstream publication. Your proclamation that it is a "very weak source" is simply your opinion. Perhaps if it lended support the other way around,the source would be viewed differently. As to why attribute an opinion piece in a magazine of this quality. Who are you to judge the quality? The real question is the article valid or not. Disputing it's validity with ad hominems doesn't cut the mustard.Oldperson (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cosmopolitan, April 2019. "When Your Dog Is A Capricorn And You're A Scorpio: Yes, Pet Astrology Is a Thing—and It Can Be the Key to Learning What Your Fur Baby Really Thinks About You."[12][13] -Pine457 (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to state that most mainstream magazine sources have niche fillers. Horoscope-related things are common in most newspapers. We shouldn't focus on the fluff that most sources have. This is clearly not in the same category of articles. For example Teen Vogue used to be mostly fluff aimed at girls, but has become reputable in recent years for their coverage of serious topics. Does the magazine still have fillers, yeah? I think sources like these should be evaluated based on the individual article alone, but need not be discarded. As listed above by Pine457. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 02:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Oldperson: The real question is not "is the article valid", whatever that means, but is it a reliable source, and is it WP:DUE to include. I'd say no. Cosmopolitan is not academic material or serious journalism, but devoted to celebrity gossip, selling beauty products, and dubious sex advice. Pine457 was giving their evaluation of the source, as they should. Your defense of the source is simply your opinion.
As for Teen Vogue, it's still fluff aimed at girls, but with a new ultra-woke veneer so people don't notice it's a marketing vehicle. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Horoscope-related things are common in most newspapers. But serious newspapers do not include articles suggesting that astrology actually works, as Cosmo does. Regardless, Cosmo's opinion on "who counts as a radical feminist" is as relevant as if Breitbart were to opine on "SWP or CPUSA: which communist party is the true vanguard of the working class?" -Pine457 (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The writer of the piece is Grace Walsh. The same author of in-depth, authoritative Cosmo articles: "What shoes do men hate women wearing? Survey says wedges are a turn-off!", "ASOS is selling strap-on dinosaur tails and no one knows why", "The 23 creepiest dolls you've ever seen in your life", etc. I can't wait for the next groundbreaker Cosmo article: "Should you add lube to your dog's red rocket before mating with a kennel hottie?" Pyxis Solitary (yak) 06:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please stop scraping the bottom of the barrel. I thought we were looking for more academic sources. Anyway consensus seems to be that its use is situational. [14] AIRcorn (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, looks like we have a lot of opposition to citing Cosmopolitan here. I'll not pursue that further. Haukur (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you're not pursuing it. Despite opposition to citing Morris above, you still added it to the main article anyway. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 12:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sometimes it's just a numbers game. I'm positively inclined towards using that Cosmopolitan article and so are you and Oldperson. That's three editors. But Pine, DIYeditor, Pyxis and Aircorn have come out strongly against it. That's four editors. So I think it's probably not going to work out. For the Morris article, there seemed to be more support. But I do take your reservations seriously and I would like to work with you on making sure that the views you sympathize with are fairly represented, with the best available sources. Haukur (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC
@Haukurth and Gwenhope: Come on let's be fair. Transfolk are a real minority, totally outnumbered by their "opponents". Articles like this generally attact editors who have an interest in human sexuality, advocates and opponents. The opponents obviously outnumber the advocates, so saying that it is a numbers game is disingenuous (whether it is mean t to be or not..AGF) So you really can't use the numbers as a rational. It is not even handed or fair, as the advocates are apparently outnumbered.Oldperson (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Oldperson: Which editors do you think represent "opponents" of "human sexuality"? -Crossroads- (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to make sure to represent feelings of other editors that have been express to me about neutrality of writing and sourcing. This is a controversial article and since you started editing, some have felt slighted by the increase in anti-trans/pro-TERF sources and the removal of pro-trans/anti-TERF sources. Just trying to make sure our scrutiny with sourcing is meted out equally in accordance with policy and what is reasonable. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 13:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC) (P.s. It would be nice if you checked out those new source possibilities I've located in that new section below.)[reply]
I really am trying as hard as I can to evaluate sources fairly based on their prestige and relevance. To mention some sources I've been promoting that I think cannot possibly be construed as "anti-trans/pro-TERF", I added a summary of Rachel McKinnon's article, [15] I added a quote to Andrea Long Chu [16] and I've been saying an article by Talia Mae Bettcher is our best source and should be used more. [17] I've also been trying to understand more of the context by following up on slang you've used and YouTubers you've mentioned (I now know what 'truscum' means and I've now watched Blaire White hilariously visit the men's restroom). But it's true that a majority of the new sources I've come upon have been what you perceive as "pro-TERF" sources. Maybe there's something biased about the selection of sources in ProQuest, may main hunting ground. Maybe previous editors had already found most of the best "anti-TERF" sources so a few more voices from the other side were needed for balance. I don't know exactly. But I'm happy that you're bringing up new academic sources and I look forward to seeing what use we can make of them. Haukur (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gwenhope: I've never heard of this "some" in since you [Haukurth] started editing, some have felt slighted by the increase in anti-trans/pro-TERF sources and the removal of pro-trans/anti-TERF sources. This vague statement looks like casting aspersions to me. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing of the sort. Other users have, for example, posted things on my talk page and I have to remind them about WP:CABAL and other such things. So I'm just trying to do my best to balance their concerns with neutrality and good faith. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 18:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly who are these "other users"? Because of your comment I looked at your Talk page. I also took a look at its revision history.
You created your account on 23 August 2014. Since that date, 9 Users have posted a message on your talk page (bots are not counted): between 7 January 2015 – 15 February 2018, 4 Users visited your talk page. The next time a User left a comment was 3 August 2019. Between that August date and now there have been 5 Users on your talk page. Of these, User:Oldperson first appeared on 15 September 2019‎ and since then has been the most frequent visitor. Even if you delete comments or archive them, anyone can see what transpired on your talk page because it remains a permanent record in its history. The only editor you've offered advice to is O. And whatever you may be doing off-wiki with other editors, if you are, don't bring it here. Btw, I don't have User talk pages on my watchlist. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 13:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the linked diff, I will only say that everyone should stop personal attacks and conspiracy accusations. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Potential New Sources

I've been scouring the web for new sources that might be useful for this article. Sadly, most are hidden behind paywalls and I cannot evaluate them. If someone with access would do so, that might be helpful.

Any help with these are appreciated. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 13:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific work!! The term TERF appears in the article by Hines and in both articles by Pilgrim. Those look like excellent sources. The others don't seem to have the term but they look like good sources for other articles. Is it okay if I send you some further information by e-mail? Haukur (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you may. We probably shouldn't obsess over the term as much as the ideology the terf describes and represents. Note: I am very hesitant to use Pilgrim without Summersell because the former is actively anti-trans and his points, while not a feminist source, does repeat some of same claims of existing TERF sources we have. His novel claim is that that critical realist philosophy is akin to terf philosophy, which Summersell disagrees with heavily. Also by directly listing replies, Summersell is necessarily talking about the same "terf" people that Pilgrim does. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 13:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll read through their debate and see what I can make of it. But we keep coming back to the issue that the current article is about the word TERF whereas you'd like to have more content on the people referred to as "TERFs". I'm not sure how best to address that. Haukur (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult, to say the least, to have an article about TERF’s without articles about people referred to as TERF’s After all the whole article is about Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs)who object to being called TERFs.Oldperson (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again I am having trouble following you. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We address it by sticking to what we have already done and decided - this article is about the word, only. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It obviously is more than that. It always has and it always will be. Because the word is loaded, controversial, and has a ton of meaning attached. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 06:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, going beyond should not be a problem as long as original research and WP:SYNTH are avoided. --MarioGom (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gregor Murray, a Scottish Nationalist Party politician, was sanctioned for, among other things, using the word "TERF" about and to a member of the public. The Dundee councillor was issued with a two-month suspension by the Standards Commission for Scotland for breaching the Code of Conduct; the term "TERF" appears 23 times in the "Decision of the Hearing Panel" (here). "The report was made by the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland (the ESC)":

The ESC’s representative noted that the Respondent’s position was that the term ‘TERF’ was a descriptor and was not in itself abusive or offensive. The ESC’s representative contended, however, that the Respondent’s use of the term ‘TERF’ to describe the complainer in the circumstances where the complainer had asked them to desist from doing so, where the Respondent had responded indicating that it was warranted, and where the Respondent had previously publicly identified ‘TERFS’ as being “scum”, “hateful” and “vile”, demonstrated that the Respondent accepted that ‘TERF’ was a term of abuse and was using it as such.
In response to questions from the Panel, the ESC’s representative accepted that the use of the term ‘TERF’, in itself, was not necessarily insulting or disrespectful. The ESC’s representative noted that it was a controversial term and apt to offend although this was the subject of ongoing public discourse. The ESC’s representative argued that the Respondent should have known that the expression was controversial and apt to offend the public, and therefore they should have been careful about how they used it in a public forum. The ESC’s representative further argued that the Respondent’s use of it required to be considered in the context of the associated abusive terms used when directing it towards a member of the public.
The Panel considered that while the term ‘TERF’ was apt to be controversial and could be seen as one of abuse, it could also be used or perceived as simply a descriptor. The Panel was of the view, however, that it was evident from the Respondent’s description, over an extended period of time, of ‘TERFS’ as being ‘scum’ and ‘hateful and vile’, that the Respondent intended it to be an expression of abuse. The Panel further considered that the Respondent’s use of it in the context of their reply to the effect that it was deserved, when the complainer had indicated that the use of the term was abusive, demonstrated that the Respondent was aware that the term could reasonably be taken to be offensive. The Panel was further satisfied that the Respondent had directed the term at the complainer as an individual and that it was about her as a person, rather than simply being a descriptor of her alleged views.

(Three separate, non-consecutive paragraphs in the report. It also says the use of the term was "a personal attack" and "gratuitously offensive".) As far as I am aware, this is the first time that an official body has made a ruling and issued a sanction that hangs largely on the use of this word. The case was reported in The Courier and Advertiser, the Evening Telegraph (and with a response), The Sunday Times, The Courier, the BBC, STV, and The Scottish Sun. All of these news reports talk about the councillor's use of "abusive language" (or similar) and most give a sentence or a paragraph to explaining "TERF". The Scotsman asked Joan McAlpine, an SNP Member of the Scottish Parliament, to comment (here):

Ms McAlpine also welcomed the panel's judgement that the councillor had abused the complainer by referring to her as a TERF (which stands for ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’). "I welcome the Commissioner's ruling that TERF is an insult," she said. "It is a sexist term used to silence women asking reasonable questions about the wisdom of allowing any male to declare himself legally female without safeguards, medical treatment or psychological assessment. It is not transphobic to ask these questions."

I'm not sure how best to integrate this information, but the case seems significant as a lengthy and nuanced analysis by an official body (NB not a political party's internal mechanisms, but a standards commission), resulting in a real-world sanction (two months' suspension from the job). I'll let others decide what to do with this, as I'm not feeling BOLD at the moment. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting but not relevant. Situation is British political and it has already been discussed how the acronym has bled into society as slang. See also the usage of "sick"to mean something new and great. EnglVar uses many slang and words not used on the other side of the pond. Puff is an insult in England, but use it in America and you get a blank stare. The list goes on,Oldperson (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How terms are actually used is relevant. This is currently an article about a term. Also, Wikipedia is international. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your reasoning that this is a good source and the article may benefit from including it. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looks like we should probably say something about this. But it's a pretty nuanced ruling and we need to make sure we don't oversimplify it. Haukur (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What else has been said about this? Is this the only source reporting on it? We have to keep WP:DUEWEIGHT in mind. I don't think the fact that it is "official" has any bearing, other than than the fact that it tends to indicate that it is reliable; but reliability can be achieved in lots of ways, and "governmental officialdom" should not be artificially puffed up as more reliable than something else. Mathglot (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The incident was not just about the word TERF and some of the reporting doesn't mention that part. But some of the reports Carbon Caryatid listed do go into it, including the BBC which quotes Murray as "extremely worried by the precedent that this has set that TERF is an offensive or abusive term." Haukur (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Without reading Murray,and based on above comments it does appear that hers is a lack of balance. A one sided plaint that "TERF is an offensive or abusive term", what then of those offended and abused by TERF ideology and behavior. Oldperson (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the article is construed as about the word TERF then feminists being mean to trans people just isn't on topic. It's like the Netflix and chill article tells the reader very little about Netflix. But I sympathize with your position to some extent because it's quite possible that some people who come upon the TERF article are looking for information about feminists being mean to trans people. The current idea is to point them towards the article where that is on topic – Feminist views on transgender topics. Of course that may not be a perfect solution and that article certainly needs some work. Haukur (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I actually contacted the ESC about this. They said that the councillor was specifically *not* suspended for using the word TERF, but for other insults to McAlpine. They also clarified that while McAlpine *said* that they had said TERF was an insult, they themselves had actually not said it, and that it was simply McAlpine's opinion. Scribe451 (talk) 12:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can come up with a published source that says that, that's clearly original research, so we can't use it. Loki (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A minority of feminists who ...... ??

Newimpartial, this restored text is problematic in a number of ways IMO.

Firstly, and most simply, it is clumsily and ambiguously phrased. If TERF is the word used to describe "a minority of feminists who espouse sentiments that other feminists consider transphobic", what word is used for the majority who espouse such sentiments?

Secondly, and probably most importantly, it is inherently PoV to ennumerate how prevalent such beliefs are at the beginning of, and as part of the definition. What purpose - apart from implying marginality - could such an inclusion serve in such a place? "Atheists are a minority of people who ...", "Protestants are a minority of christians who ..." and, most appositely in the current context "Transsexuals are a very small minority of people who ...". Even if assertions about how numerous atheists/protestants or transsexuals - or any other human group - could be 100% reliably sourced, including how numerous they were in their definition would be PoV. Therefore, even if sourcing is 100% RS, assertions about how numerous "TERF"s are need to be meaningfully seperated from who they are, and what they believe. This is normal in articles, especially ones about beliefs and ideas.

Thirdly, currently there is a real ambiguity in this article as to whether it is about the term, or the set of beliefs and people who are the target of the term. If the article is about the term, there is neither need nor benefit in quantifying how numerous such views could be. We don't quantify how many people are considered snowflakes - there would be no point in quantifying something which is inherently unquantifiable, ie how many people could legitimately end up as targets of a subjective, and largely abusive term. I realise that this encroaches on the "is it a slur?" question, but even if it is not technically a slur, it is certainly the case that "TERF" is not used by any of those targetted by the word. Thus, the term is somewhat akin to "heretic" or "infidel", ie defining people, not according to their self-descriptions of what they believe, but according to how their ideological opponents have characterised those beliefs. In a sense, it is a pity that this article has been written, rather than one about gender-critical radical feminists, or some other term which those espousing such views would actually use. Apart from being inherently more balanced, such an article might be able to say somewhere in it how numerous such persons are.

Lastly what does "minority of feminists" actually mean - and how well is it sourced? If I were to assert "A minority of atheists believe XYZ", is it reasonable to assume that I have conducted research on a randomised sample of those people - worldwide - who self-describe as atheists before making this claim? Or is the truth much closer to, "well I'm an atheist blogger in country X and practically all the other bloggers in country X agree with me?" I really don't see how anyone could possibly make this claim for feminists worldwide (which is what WPVOICE implies), and even on a country-specific basis, the claim could only be at best a vague impression of those "public feminists" - ie bloggers, journalists and academics - who had actually made public pronouncements on the matter. I haven't seen any sources which pronounced on how prevalent these views are with any plausible authority, such is the extent of partisanship in many of the sources used.

If sources are intrinsically partisan, the opinions expressed should be attributed, and if they are inherently locale-specific, the countries which they are speaking about should be named.

So, IMO, the claim that TERFs are "a minority", fails WP:NPOV, (certainly as currently phrased), fails WP:V, and frankly isn't a claim worth making, since the targets of the term would still be called TERFs, regardless of how few or numerous they were deemed to be by those who disagreed with them. Pincrete (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Pincrete, I do hear you but I don't agree with you, though the one thing we do agree about is that NPOV issues are involved.
My reasons for restoring the text, apart from it being (1) stable and (2) discussed at length on this talk page in the very recent past, have everything to do with my sense of what NPOV means for this article in this context, along with FALSEBALANCE and FRINGE issues.
In relation to the term TERF, I believe that essentially all parties agree on what the term denotarively means, and disagree about its connotations (whether it is perjorative or not, whether it perjorarive its use can be justified or not, etc.).
But what is problematic in your proposed phrasing - that the term "is used to describe feminists who espouse sentiments that other feminists consider transphobic" - is the FALSEBALANCE of presenting the term as the label one half of a divided group uses for the other half. In reality, it is the term that part of the trans-inclusive majority of feminists uses to stigmatize a trans-exclusionary minority. This is what the reliable sources tell us about the term: the debate is whether it is appropriate to use the label, but not whether most feminist organizations in 2019 include or exclude trans folks (most do). Meanwhile, the debate over the term has been co-opted by cultural conservative non-feminists as part of a broader pushback against trans inclusion, just as the term itself has been applied to and by non-feminists as part of that same cultural conflict. But to pretend that the term was not initially deployed by representatives of a feminist mainstream to label what they perceived as a FRINGE position would be a rather POV interpretation, and not ENC at all.
As far as the alleged grammatical ambiguity is concerned, it seems obvious to me (just as one native speaker and editor's opinion) that it is describing "a minority of feminists, who X" rather than "a minority of the feminists who X". However, I am entirely comfortable with ways of resolving this that would not be dependent on an added comma. What I am not comfortable with, is throwing away painfully discussed consensus text for no good reason. Newimpartial (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, or anybody else watching this page. I hope to reply to the above sometime soon, but in the meantime (as I have a stinking cold) - I'll just alert people to the fact that the lead says "The term was coined in 2008..... It was originally applied to a minority of radical feminist espousing sentiments that other feminists consider transphobic .... The sense has since expanded to refer more broadly to people with trans-exclusive views." (ie original usage + more recent expanded usage)
Whereas the Coinage and usage section says: "It is used to describe a minority of feminists who espouse sentiments that other feminists consider transphobic" (ie what the lead says is the original usage, but in the present tense).
Having more detail in the lead, rather than in the body, about coinage and subsequent development, seems perverse! Pincrete (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is possibly original research. The red flag is the excessive cites following the statement. It often implies that editors believe something to be true and then find multiple sources that say it, but use them to make a general overarching statement that is not actually supported. Just about every use of "widely regarded" here follows this pattern. Much better to look at what the actual sources say and how strong they are.
  • USA today glossary that doesn't mention minority at all.[18]
  • New York Times opinion piece which basically divides it between the US and the UK. In regards to the UK they say There, the most vocal trans-exclusionary voices are, ostensibly, “feminist” ones, and anti-trans lobbying is a mainstream activity.. Contrasted with In America, however, TERFism today is a scattered community in its death throes. Considering it is a opinion piece (I don't know how much of an expert she is, most of the stuff I can find about her is in regards to surrogacy) it is only really useful if attributed and then even it is not strong enough to say minority unless you divide it on geographical grounds.[19]
  • LGBTQ nation news piece which may be relevant. In response to a famous lesbian site being taken over by anti-trans ‘feminists’ other Lesbian publications released a statement in support of trans women. It doesn't obviously cover all feminism and I am not even sure it is strong enough even say a minority of lesbians, but it is definitely useful.
  • Indy100 article, which says Feminism is about inclusivity and empowering women – all women – which is why TERF ideology is so at odds with most forms of feminism. A clickbait site, a lot of the top content seems to be about mocking people. Thi is a very poor source and should probably not be used.[20]
  • An outline article that again bemoans the difference between the Uk and US. Maybe this is something we should be mentioning? Although it is again an opinion piece and not anywhere as good as the New York Times one.[21]
  • The daily dot. TERFs are a small minority within feminism, and they are shrinking as gender is becoming more commonly accepted as a spectrum, rather than two distinct categories. Probably the best source which specifically mentions minority. The site seems to more cover memes, streaming and other internet culture. We do get TERF bangs again though.[22]
I don't know if this is enough to say minority in Wkipedias voice, especially twice as we now do for some reason. The sourcing is weak at best. It is usually better to expand on these references in the body and let the reader decide. AIRcorn (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly, my claim is not mainly that sourcing for 'minority' is questionable and highly partisan (though I think it is both of these), rather that the claim is irrelevant to understanding the term and its use - especially as the term is 'grapeshot' targetting an amorphous group of individuals who share little more than a tendency to question one or more aspects of trans claims or who assert the right to one or more "female-only" spaces (literal or metaphorical spaces). To me arguing that "TERF"s are/are not a minority of feminists, is a bit like arguing about whether "commies, reds and pinkoes", really were numerically dominant in 1950s Hollywood. Since both the term itself and the threshold for being classed as a "a pinko" were framed by the persons using the term, asking to quantify prevalence is at best going to supply a loose impression either way.
I agree that many sources appear to endorse a UK/N.America difference. Pincrete (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete, we have high-quality academic sources that explicitly observe that trans-inclusion is the majority position among feminist organizations in the United States and in Canada. We also have sources that generalize this observation globally, perhaps because it is also the situation among global feminist organizations. Even in the UK, the actual configuration of forces favors inclusionary feminist organizarions, although in that case the media landscape seems to see a more even division among feminists than elsewhere, which the article ought to recognize. But the term was coined in the US and it would be unENCyclopaedic to obscure its original and still prevalent connotations because of your own preference for certain media outlets. Newimpartial (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"feminist organizations" is not what the article says, it says feminists. The article is about a word and how it is/has been used - what I don't understand is why it matters at all whether more people agree with one position or the other regarding the targets of the word. FALSEBALANCE and similair policies are about matters that largely factually based. They may be many individual elements of this dis-agreement that have a factual base, but the ultimate question - should feminism (a movement traditionally concerning itself with female-born persons), embrace trans women and does it feel comfortable being asked to do so, is simply not ultimately a factual question. Pincrete (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the parenthesis "(traditionally concerning itself with female-gendered persons)" alteady begs the question, since feminism since the 1960s has defined itself as concerning itself with female-gendered persons to an equal or greater extent. So please watch your blind spots.
Secondly. regardless of the normative question raised above, there is an equally or more significant question of what feminists actualy do, whether in our events, our spaces, our networks or our efforts to make change. And contra what you write above, Pincrete, this question of practice is played out primarily in feminist organizations, whether that be Dyke march organizers or national women's organizations or the Vancouver Rape Crisis Centre or the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival. And so the factual assertion that the great majority of these organizations (at least in North America) include trans women as women is more important as an expression of what "feminists" think and do than any hypothetical survey of feminist opinion would be. The state of things on the ground is as critical to the term now as it was when it was coined - which already reflected a trans-inclusive majority in the speech community of origin. Newimpartial (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, contra Aircorn, it is not necessary that the reliable sources include "minority" as part of the definition of TERF (and also per NOTDICT). What matters is the reliable sources - found here and in the feminism and transgender issues article from which this was split - that show that trans-inclusion is the prevalent orientation among feminist organizations. It is only in this context that the creation of the term TERF and its stigmatizing connotation make any kind of sense; therefore, it is necessary per ENC to provide this context to our readers. Newimpartial (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't know whether it is a minority or not and I don't really care. I just care that we use the sources accurately and correctly and I don't feel we are doing that in this case.
@Pincrete I agree in general that applying a broad prevalence to a diverse group with diverse opinions on a complicated topic is seldom helpful or accurate. Human nature is to do this however and I have no problem that if the reliable sources exist we state whether some view is in the minority or majority. It needs to be a very reliable source however otherwise we have to attribute it. Nothing above reaches the level where we can say so in wikivoice.
@Newimpartial. we have high-quality academic sources that explicitly observe that trans-inclusion is the majority position among feminist organizations in the United States and in Canada. Well where are they? I have watched this area on and off for over a year now and in all my time here (editing some pretty knarly topics) I have never seen such a lack of high quality academic sources (or academic sources in general). It doesn't seem to stop editors from stating with absolute certainty their view is the correct one though. Why are we citing indy 100, persona blogs, youtube, and a bunch of opinion pieces if we have these high-quality sources out there? One high quality source is worth more than any number of poor or average ones. Also this is not the American wikipedia, so we can't use something that may be true in America and extrapolate it to include the whole world.
Also, contra Aircorn, it is not necessary that the reliable sources include "minority" as part of the definition of TERF Yes it is. This is the whole point of writing an encyclopaedia. We use the sources and say what the sources say; taking into account reliability, due weight, and how much attribution is needed. If we say it is the minority in wikivoice, then we need some very good sources to say it is the minority. Our own feelings and opinions on the topic matter not at all.
FWIW I would expand on each of the cites given here and attribute them accordingly in the body. In particular highlight the geographical difference. I would remove the Indy100 one though. Then we can argue over how to present it in the lead, because as Pincrete says above the lead should summarise the body, not repeat it. AIRcorn (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The trans-inclusive majority is documented here, here, here, here and here - all of which are currently cited in this article or Feminist views on transgender topics - as well as this article, this one and this book - even this UK source - all seem quite clear on where the feminist majority resides.

And no, it isn't necessary for sources to include "minority" in the definition of TERF for it to be relevant to the lede here. It is quite sufficient for the majority to be Verifiable, and for it to be relevant to the origin and use of the term. It is a matter of reliably sourced evidence and weight - when all of the most important organizations and the majority of all organizations are trans-inclusive, as is already documented in both articles with RS, then the majority is established and is relevant context. To insist pedantically on regurgitating only the definitions certain sources provide is a violation of NOTDICT and ENC policies at the same time. Newimpartial (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I went through every source presented at this article for that statement. That is how we cite information here, by putting the source next to the statement it is supporting, paticularily for definitive statements. We don't rely on other sources from other articles. Can you give me the relavent text from those sources that support minority/majority so we can add them. If we say something is a minority then we need sources to support that. Sure it doesn't have to exactly say "minority" but it still needs to support us using minority. I have no idea where you are going with the NOTDICT or ENC arguments. Using sources to write an article is exactly what we should be doing in this encyclopaedia. AIRcorn (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To take the fiest source as an example, Aircorn, I am not going to copypaste the entirety of pages 6. 7 and 8 of the paper in order to provide the information you seek-you can read it for yourself. Those pages describe the methodology (who the interviewwer spoke to) and a summary of what the interviewees said about trans inclusuon in feminist organizations. There is no requirement that a short sound-bite of text be provided to document that the paper says what it in fact says. Actually, if you are wondering in good earnest why this WP article depends so heavily on shoddy op-ed souces, it is largely IMO (1) because those are essentially the only soueces objecting to the term, as so many POV editors want to do and (2) because many editors are too lazy to read actual LGBT and feminist scholarship and are therefore dependent on media reports and sound bites. Of course YMMV. Newimpartial (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I will look through the links above provided by you and also the ones from Gwen above. Since the poor sourcing is coming from both sides it is probably more a case of editors looking for sources that match their pet theory, opinion or POV and inevitably finding it in blogs and biased opinion pieces. Then the other side tries to counter that using equally poor sources. We end up with the mess we have at the moment since objecting to one source means rejecting ones you agree with as well. Anyway that is really by-the-by and I feel we are making improvements. I will add that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with using opinion pieces and media reportscan be very useful, its more that they should not form the bulk of an article and the structure should not be based on them. AIRcorn (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Read the first article. It is an essay that interviewed five participants of feminist organisations in Canada. The interviewers themselves are personally very inclusive of trans people, but do bring up some issues within the various organisations. The interviews themselves are primary, but there is a conclusion at the end from the author. It says Feminism in Canada as embodied by national feminist organizations, still has a long way to go towards clearly stating that the ‘women’ that it speaks for may include transgender and transsexual women; however, it seems that given the responses of the interview participants there is much potential for the realization of trans-inclusion in national Canadian feminist organizations so long as they can overcome the challenges posed by generational divides, theoretical challenges, funding, and indulgence in debate rather than meaningfully moving forward. AIRcorn (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would interptet the paper's findings differently, given that all five subjects agreed on both the principle and the practice of trans inclusion. While they noted that there was work to be done (back in the mid 200s) to promote trans inclusion, note this paragraph Thus, the general consensus amongst interview participants was that trans-inclusion at the organizational level should not be a major issue at all. One participant simply said of transgender individuals that “…if they self identify [as women] and I’m able to reach them with my emails, my call outs, then they’re included [in the constituency of my organization].” As such, she stated that general inclusion simply should not be of concern at the national, organizational level, but rather should work at an individual level, enabling those women who self identify as women to be included and organizations to facilitate their inclusion as necessary and appropriate. The recognition in the conclusion that "there was still a long way to go" in 2007 should not be read as undermining the two key points identified on pages 7 and 8: theat there was a generational divide within their organizations about the inclusion of trans women as women, and that the way thus was being resolved was to include trans women in the basis of self-identification going forward. It is clear from these interviews that the majority was already trans-inclusionary back in 2007, and this has only developed since that time (e.g., Quebec's largest and most visible feminist organization is now led by a trans woman). Newimpartial (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to get a global picture here and I don't think we have any source that really tries to give one. We have some sources that play up the strength of "TERF" perspectives in the UK, which I suppose is something to take into account. We have very little information so far on the state of play outside the English-speaking countries but the term TERF has been picked up to some extent in other languages. Haukur (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We do know per RS that all major North American feminist organizations include Trans women. It may be harder to get a picture of the rest of the world (and the UK and Australia may be different), but this is already a not insignificant fact. Newimpartial (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is probably getting off topic for this article and would be better discussed at the views one. I just want to reiterate though that it wasn't my interpretation of the essay I presented, but the authors own conclusion quoted verbatim from their last paragraph under conclusions. This is kind of a case study for why we have to be careful when using Primary Sources. Analysing them yourself is great when writing your own paper, but as Wikipedia is a tertiary source we really should present other peoples analysis of the material. It is probably one of the more difficult things academics struggle with when they edit here. AIRcorn (talk) 07:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that reading academic sources and presenting their findings impartially can be hard. What I am also saying is that a verbatim quote from the "conclusions" section is not always the best way to do this. In the specific case, the barriers to "meaningfully moving forward" in 2007 posed by generational divides, the need for additional theoretical work, "indulgence in discussion" and funding limitations does not undermine the point that the paper is cited here to show: that the feminists interviewed and the organizations they represented all agreed that trans women are women and that feminist organizations included them as such. Which was what I was asked to show with scholarly sources. Newimpartial (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mindful of the fact that the article is (necessarily) about the word, not about the people targetted by the word. If the article were about the people, all kinds of nuance and detail would be apt about what their beliefs/doubts/questions actually are, rather than a summary of how they are perceived by their 'ideological opponents' - which is what we mainly currently have and which is wholly apt for an article about a word and how that word is used. IMO, apart from sourcing considerations, it doesn't in any way help to understand either the word, nor the nature of the dispute(s) to know which party is more numerous - that is incidental info on THIS page IMO.
I completely reject the idea that supported by feminist organisations = supported by most feminists. It's pure SYNTH and we wouldn't make such assumptions with a religious or political group, so it seems even more inapt to do so with a loose group like feminists. I also reject the idea that 'minority' should have 'pole position' in the definition, even if it were better sourced. Would we do that to any other 'belief' group .... "Atheists are a minority of people who ..."? I don't think so, it reeks of NPOV to do so. Pincrete (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not SYNTH to point out that the debate about trans inclusion and feminism, in which the term TERF originated, has always taken place within feminist organizations. Anyone who "conpletely rejects" recognizing this reality simply should not be editing these articles: literally dozens of sources show this and none take the contrary position. Newimpartial (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It meets our definition of WP:SYNTH though. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. AIRcorn (talk) 07:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very little of the debate in the UK has taken place within feminist organizations, I've no idea whether what you say is true about US+Can, but do know that "the Pope says", does not = "most christians think", ditto any 'belief' organisation, even the most doctrinaire and authoritarian. As said, it's pure SYNTH to imply that the two are synonymous. I think it probable, given the breadth of US sources, that the "trans inclusive" position enjoys greater sympathy among the left than the "TERF" alternative. That does nothing to alter the fact that no source says this explicitly - even regarding US - and no precedent justifies putting 'minority' in 'pole' position in the definition. I unapologeticly admit that I am inexpert in both 'trans' and feminist matters, I understand NPOV though. Pincrete (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have said "within or among feminist organizations", but that would have sounded rather pedantic to my ears. Most of the UK debate has consisted in organizations confronting one another, either in their competing submissions to parliamentary or other government bodies or in their conflicting participation in organizing and demonstrations. But this is most definitely an "organizational" matter in the UK and Australia, as it is in the United States and Canada. Newimpartial (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And Aircorn, I am not opposed to reformulating the text to more nearly approximate what the sources actually say, e.g., that most feminist organizations take trans-inclusive positions and that the term TERF originated to label those dissenting from those positions. What I am opposed to is restating the lede based on the FALSEBALANCE implication that feminists are equally divided between trans-inclusive and trans-exclusionary positions, a description of the situation that is not given in any RS I have seen. Newimpartial (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is all I really ask. We tend to do these backwards and write the and fight over the lead first before developing the body. That is why in my early comments I suggested expanding on the sources in the body and then working on the lead. FWIW I added what I think is a better source for "minority of feminists". Still not quite the academic one we are searching for, but at least it has a higher quality of journalism. AIRcorn (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, to summarise, not a single RS says that "TERF"s are a "minority of feminists", but not only must it remain, but it must hold 'pole position' as the first thing said about "TERF"s in the definition. FWIW, I think that it could well be true - but this is essentially a moral dispute (should non-trans feminists embrace trans-women as "sisters"). Including "minority" has always seemed to me to be intended as a clumsy, way of minimalising one side of the dispute and what you say confirms that suspicion Newimpartial.
You cannot invoke WP:FALSEBALANCE on an issue that is fundamentally non-factual - you might as well argue that any more numerate group is always right, whereas the number of adherents - is at best an incidental detail if a dispute is non-factual and the intention is to understand the dispute rather than 'take sides'. Besides, failing to enumerate which side of a dispute is the "minority", doesn't present them as equal, it simply sidesteps the issue by treating WHAT is being disputed as more important than HOW MANY adherents each side has.
I honestly can't be bothered, I came here initially for the RfC and have only the same interest as I would have in any other WP article. That it should be informative, NPOV and contain only WP:V info. Apart from being unsourced, largely meaningless (who knows what a "majority of feminists" think? ditto atheists/liberals/gay people/christians or any other broad human group, and are there no feminists who are "undecided" or "torn" or who have "never given much thought to" an issue?). Apart from all these considerations, the text is clumsily PoV IMO, but so be it. Pincrete (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Pincrete, you can disagree with me if you like whether the majority position of feminist organizations can or should stand for the majority position among feminists, but you really ought not pretend the argument hasn't been made or attribute heavily discussed, multi-partite editing decisions to an editor's POV. If you can't see the difference between "minimalising (sic.) one side of a dispute" and documenting the power dynamic in which a label was coined and was originally used, then perhaps you should not be writing articles about political labels. Just saying. Newimpartial (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We really don't have strong enough sources for how this is worded. My issue is that the wording of minority here seems to be used to justify not just falsebalance claims, but also parity, fringe and oddly exceptional. If we have a good source that says most feminist organisations then lets just say that. Let the reader decide if this equates to most feminists. AIRcorn (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is difficult. And it's not clear that we have the sources to back up our current wording, "a minority of radical feminists". It's important to note, however, that not all radical feminists hold the positions in question and if we just remove "a minority of" we could accidentally give that impression. Maybe we could have something like "a faction of radical feminists"? The Guardian article that is our first source uses "cohort" (one cohort of feminists who self-identify as radical). Another source uses "sections of the left". Maybe we can take a closer look at how the best sources put this. Haukur (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CfD

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_October_31#Category:Trans-exclusionary_radical_feminism Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion pieces used for "violent rhetoric" paragraph.

This paragraph is far to strident for one cited solely to two opinion pieces:

British journalist Catherine Bennett has described the word as "a bullying tool" which has "already succeeded in repressing speech – and maybe even research".[1] She cites incorporation of the word into insults and violent rhetoric such as "fucking terf scum"[1] and "I punch terfs!".[2] British columnist Sarah Ditum wrote in 2017 that "the bar to being called a 'terf' is remarkably low."[3] Feminist blogger Claire Heuchan[4] states that the word is often used alongside "violent rhetoric" such as "stab a Terf" or "kill a Terf". She says language of this type is used to "dehumanise women", often lesbians, "who are critical of gender as a political system".[5]

References

  1. ^ a b Bennett, Catherine (19 November 2017). "Bullies everywhere delight in coming up with new insults". The Guardian. the advance of terf, as a bullying tool, has already succeeded in repressing speech – and maybe even research ... ugly terf, fucking terf scum
  2. ^ Bennett, Catherine (29 April 2018). "Violent misogyny is unfortunately not confined to the internet's 'incels'". The Guardian. Photographs of one vitrine, featuring a red bespattered T-shirt reading: "I punch terfs!" (trans-exclusionary radical feminists/women who disagree with me), may have struck a chord with anyone following the current UK debate about the government's self-ID proposals. To date, threats, from one side, which echo, inescapably, some of those in the pro-Rodger playbook ("die in a fire terf scum") have yet to generate comparably widespread concern, even after a woman was punched. Her assailant had earlier expressed the wish to "fuck up some terfs".
  3. ^ Ditum, Sarah (29 September 2017). "What is a Terf? How an internet buzzword became a mainstream slur". New Statesman. Retrieved 13 April 2019. On the other hand, if you are a feminist, the bar to being called a 'terf' is remarkably low. Woman's Hour presenter Jenni Murray achieved it by writing an article in which she pointed out that someone born and raised male will not have the same experiences of sexism as a woman; novelist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie likewise made the grade by answering 'transwomen are transwomen' when asked whether she believed that 'transwomen are women'.
  4. ^ "Claire Heuchan". Glasgow International. 30 January 2018. Retrieved 5 October 2019.
  5. ^ Heuchan, Claire (6 October 2017). "If feminist Linda Bellos is seen as a risk, progressive politics has lost its way". The Guardian. Terf stands for trans-exclusionary radical feminist. Online, it often it [sic] appears alongside violent rhetoric: punch a Terf, stab a Terf, kill a Terf. This language is used to dehumanise women who are critical of gender as part of a political system.

The only cites here are opinion pieces by non-experts, yet their personal opinions on how the term is used are presented as fact (She cites incorporation of the word into insults and violent rhetoric... If this connection is genuine, we should be able to cite it to non-opinion pieces. If it hasn't been made outside of such opinion-pieces and quotes, we need to tone our coverage of it waaaay down; the claims being made here (linking the term with violence) are extremely WP:EXCEPTIONAL and require far higher-quality citations than this. I'll also note that this paragraph, despite its extremely weak sourcing, is currently in the lead, which seems patiently undue for what amounts to two people's opinion (the opinion piece in the middle seems unrelated to the paragraph's thesis.) --Aquillion (talk) 09:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion pieces by noted journalists can have their place in the article... I think it would definitely give a false balance towards the idea that the term is intrinsically linked with violence, however. The whole "kill all" stuff was meant to highlight how people would care less about actual trans people being harmed Vs. non-literal physical threats being made against those (or, in this case, not? it's a got-em tactic by not aiming at anyone in particular!) perceived as causing an increase in anti-trans sentiment. Ditto kill all men, kill all white people, kill all meat eaters, etc. --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This goes both ways. As most of the article is opinion pieces, you can't just remove the ones you don't agree with. Anyway I am not sure what sort of experts you are looking for. Bennett and Ditum are notable journalist and Heuchan has reasonable credentials as well.[23]. It is also clearly not presented as fact, each comment is attributed to each author. It comes up enough in other media to deserve a mention and is not "extremely EXCEPTIONAL". For example in just the sources I looked at in the section two above we have someone proudly holding a "fuck TERFs" sign[24] and a posted tweet "If any TERFs like or retweet this, I'm shoving my foot up your arse".[25] The second one is played down by the articles writer as a joke. While I like a good "I am going to hurt you" joke as much as the next person, this shows the use of this language is still getting coverage in a range of media (those two are very much pro trans). We also have the APPG on Hate Crime which says Several of the submissions also included screenshots of social media posts (predominantly Twitter) that contained threats and encouragements of violence towards ‘TERFs’ with the summary It can easily be argued that this constitutes hate speech under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which people have been successfully prosecuted for. However, under the legislation as it currently stands, it would be difficult to successfully report this as hate speech as it is not completely clear if the abuse refers to lesbians (sexuality is a category of hate crime) or women (sex is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 but not a hate crime category under the Criminal Justice Act 2003).In fact I will add that source in now and see about reducing some of the others as it is probably the best one we have that covers this issue. AIRcorn (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Guardian and the New Statesman are explicitly anti trans. Is it valid to only include opinion pieces from biased sources? Scribe451 (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We should certainly use the best sources we can find and I think Aircorn's addition of the APPG report is reasonable. Also note that Gwen dug up some academic articles which we have yet to make use of, including one that says ‘Trolls’ on social media are using phrases like ‘Kill a TERF!’ or ‘Punch a TERF!’. [26] Haukur (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like Aircorn said, much of the article is opinion pieces, so there is no basis for just removing personally disliked ones. The way that paragraph stands now looks good to me. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking that maybe we don't need four quotes saying "fucking terf scum", "I punch terfs!", "stab a Terf" or "kill a Terf".. The two given above get the point across, and it also adds a better source. AIRcorn (talk) 06:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay added the source. It also has some disturbing information about Art exhibitions, contemptuous of TERFS, are displaying bloodied baseball bats. and A dark cartoon of a woman hanging from the gallows is sometimes helpfully supplied, with the caption ‘Dead TERFS’. That is quite a few steps beyond internet trolling. I would be surprised if there is no response from trans organisations condemning some of this that we can add. AIRcorn (talk) 06:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits all look reasonable to me. Thanks for putting in the work. Haukur (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also support such inclusions, especially when documented criticism of the term comes from people objecting to it being used in a "snarlword" type fashion and to endorse violence, irrespective of their views on trans topics.--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"TERF is accompanied by violent rhetoric" is a core argument of the crowd that says that TERF is a slur. It seems like we're taking this debatable point and removing it from the context of that debate to treat it as a fact. Why not just integrate this in to the slur discussion? Nblund talk 21:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nblund. Any pejorative is sometimes going to be accompanied by violent rhetoric. "Asshole" obviously is; even theoretically descriptive words that are pejorative in practice like "fascist" are too. But a notable part of the slur debate is not just whether it's ever accompanied by violent rhetoric but whether that's characteristic of its use. By listing instances we seem to be taking a side in that broader debate without actual evidence for the broader position that side is arguing.
Or, put another way: we don't list individual instances of "TERF" being used in a nonviolent context, and we obviously wouldn't. We don't list examples of the word "asshole" being used in a violent context (even though they wouldn't be hard to find if we tried). So, why are we listing individual instances of TERF specifically being used violently? Loki (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"why are we listing individual instances of TERF specifically being used violently?" Because it is. Comparing it to calling someone an "asshole" is absurd.
To wit: The Degenderettes: The Transgender Hate Group Taking Aim at Women: "The Degenderettes don’t stop at the bats and axes that are presented in the San Francisco exhibit. They have recently made their intentions clear on social media, where they detail a lengthy menu of weapons they intend to employ against TERFs, including AR-15s.";  What happened at the SF Dyke March: "assailants threw two lesbians carrying signs to the ground—one of them three times, the other, walking with a cane, once. Attackers pushed them, tripped them, and deliberately stepped on their heels, repeatedly...They tarred us all with the same brush of TERF.";  The madness of our gender debate, where feminists defend slapping a 60-year-old woman: "The Edinburgh branch of Action for Trans Health tweeted the day after the attack: “Punching TERFs is the same as punching Nazis. Fascism must be smashed with the greatest violence to ensure our collective liberation from it.”)";  Queer-identified women physically assault lesbian at a gay bar: "I walked out the door into the fists of 2-3 (not totally clear who was hitting me—I was heavily intoxicated)(one nb [nonbinary]-identifying woman, Natalie or “Nat,” her girlfriend, Katy, and the aforementioned transman, Caleb) women who hit me over and over again in the face and pushed me onto the ground.” Her attackers also screamed slurs at her, yelling “bitch” and “terf” throughout the attack." Pyxis Solitary (yak) 05:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Erm yeah, and the actual SF Dyke March condemned the trans exclusionary radfems for chanting transphobic rhetoric and using aforementioned cane to physically attack other marchers. Witnesses have also stated that the protesters were not pushed over, but tripped over their own feet. One of the protesters also hit and choked a trans woman. Pride staff asked them to leave because they were being violent, at which point they hid behind the police. The march is explicitly trans inclusive, those protesters were not welcome.
Can I also just point out that Public Discourse, New Statesman and After Ellen are all explicitly trans antagonistic, typically condemned by the LGBT community, and not remotely reliable sources? Scribe451 (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On a second note, Maria McLachlan was 'slapped' because she was filming people against their will, and physically attacked a teenager who objected to being filmed. She (Redacted) was even condemned by the judge who upheld her accusation, so it's pretty disingenous to act as though she is somehow 'proof' that there is violence being committed against TERFs on a regular basis. And again - The New Statesman is an anti trans publication and Helen Lewis is vociferously anti trans. Weirdly, they just might be a bit biased against trans people. Scribe451 (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For readers and editors who are factually inclined: Maria McLachlan was attacked by 26-year old Tara Wolf while she was filming a radical feminist event in Hyde Park. While testifying at the assault trial, the judge warned McLachlan to refer to Wolf as "she" (The Telegraph). Tara Wolf was found guilty of assaulting McLachlan and fined £150 + a £30 surcharge + £250 towards costs (£430 total) (Evening Standard). Bad blood on both sides, but only one side got physical. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 07:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trans women in the U.S. murdered so far in 2019: at least 18.[27]
TERFs murdered: 0. WanderingWanda (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are suggesting TERFs murdered the Trans women that is not really relevant. AIRcorn (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is relevant that rather than just making threats, a TERF group called the Gorgons showed up at a concert with guns because one of the band's sound engineers was trans? Or when two lesbians got beaten up because they wouldn't let TERFs attack trans musician Beth Elliot? Or perhaps we could talk about the 16 year old girl whom TERFs threatened to murder at Michfest. If it's relevant that McLachlan experienced violence (in self defence) for being a TERF then it should certainly be relevant that TERFs have *literally* tried to murder people for being trans. Scribe451 (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I too found it a little odd that there does not seem to be much in the way of condemnation of this from the trans community. Usually when someone says or does something outrageous other members affiliated with them at least try to distance themselves from it. A couple of daily dot articles, which is twitter journalism at its finest, seem to just double down on defending it.[28][29] As far as I can gather the thinking is that TERFs deserve this because they are TERFs, which sort of contradicts the TERF is not a slur reasoning.
If anything the current presentation in the article underplays the presentation in the sources. Which incidentally are provided by two of the better ones. Whether it belongs in the slur section or not I don't know. Context is everything and while saying "Fuck TERFs" is just mean if TERF is not a slur, it takes on a whole other meaning if TERF is in fact a slur. AIRcorn (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I made a couple of changes to the paragraph to address some of the WP:NPOV issues that I saw. As it stands, it still seems odd to me that we have a paragraph on the "slur debate", but that we also have an "opposition to the term" section that more-or-less discusses the same stuff. Obviously Heuchan is one side that is already well covered in the next section, so why are we separating her out like this is a unique argument instead of more-or-less exactly what everyone else already says? Nblund talk 16:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the APPG summary of the tensions On one hand, there are clear examples of threats and calls to violence against women, whilst on the other vulnerable people are being made to feel unwelcome, that they are viewed as a threat and that their identity is invalid. equates closely enough with us saying with reports on both sides detailing incidents of extreme or abusive language. The hate speech removal is interesting. It specifically mentions threats threats and encouragements of violence towards ‘TERFs’.. If this article is just meant to be about the term then there could be a case for removing it, but if it is also about the people the term is meant to identify then it fits.
The headings are not still not ideal, but are getting better. Part of the opposition to TERF is that it is perceived to be a slur, which in turn relates to its usage. I wonder if part of the problem is that it was split out from the views article too early and basically just moved the mess to a different location. Much of the stuff being discussed here fits better in that article, but is still very much influencing this one. AIRcorn (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The report states that "there are trans activists and their supporters who are reporting similar attacks" (pg. 26) right after the paragraph on "hate speech". I think its pretty clear that they're trying to avoid taking sides here. Regardless of the focus of the article as a whole, the section we're using the report in is all about the debate over the term "TERF". They don't really offer any commentary on the term itself other than to mention that some of the groups that made complaints said it was being used as a term of abuse. Nblund talk 00:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The text you deleted was in another section. You are not quoting from their summary detailing the tensions. Generally we give more weight to the summary/conclusion when deciding how present information from a source. AIRcorn (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which specific text you're referring to, but the edits I made were to the sections titled "Opposition to the term" and "Slur debate". Both of those sections are about the word. The portion I quoted here is the only sentence in the entire text that directly references the usage of the term "TERF" itself. Nblund talk 00:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The quote is fine. Well I don't think we need to quote it and the "report, noted, report" tautology should be finessed, but that is all relatively minor. My main issue is with the description leading into the quote. As to the removal, I think the hate speech part is interesting, especially the explanation that it depends on whether the targets are women or lesbians. But it maybe fits better somewhere else. AIRcorn (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't hesitate to copyedit me! As for the summary: I sort of think the APPG report as a whole doesn't really fit here because it ultimately isn't about term. However, I do think that is an apt description of what they say when they remark that there are some on both sides of the divide who are resorting to extreme measures and tactics. I'm open to an alternate suggestion, but it is pretty clear to me that they are being extremely careful to avoid giving the impression of taking a side on this debate, and so we shouldn't portray them as taking a side. Nblund talk 15:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TERF is not a subset, nor a term that is used to describe people who are not TERFs

A subseet of radical feminists? How many subsets of RadFems are there? From what I've seen on this page and elsewheres, TERF's are indeed a minority. Calling them a subset enlarges and obfuscates situation and the population. Trans(women) Exclusionary Radical Feminists may not like being referred to as TERF's, but TERFdom is not a physiological or psychological issue, it is an attitudinal issue. And attitudes can be adjusted and even reversed. I know so from personal experience. So tough on Trans(women) Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs)

Since TERF is an acronym that includes, specifically, radical feminists. It is illogical to claim that the termTERF has come to apply to persons who are not RadFems.

I see where the acronym has taken on meaning as a derogatory term, so has the word gay (i.e. that is so gay (stupid)), amongst others such as "sick"there is nothing one can do about changes in the popular language. Trans(woman) Exclusionary Radical Feminist is an accurate description of those radical feminists who exclude transwomen. TERF is simply an acronym. TERFs who resent the acronym have the option and ability cease and desist from their behavior.Oldperson (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with this revision but mostly because there's plenty of sources in this article already that say they're a minority and not merely a subset. Calling them a "subset" instead of a "minority" is not WP:NPOV because it artificially makes them sound larger than the sources say they are. Loki (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through the sources and can't find any mention of this term being used against a minority of radical feminists. Can you or someone else please point out exactly where it explicitly says this? Otherwise it should remain "subset" per sources. Thanks. Yilangren (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sources don't exist, or at least have not been presented here, in any way like the proponents of this wording suggest. The best source previously was a daily dot article which was far too poor to use without attribution, and probably even with. Another source brought up was a Canadian interview of six people from feminist organisations where the editor promoting it as one of the best sources drew their own conclusions that were in opposition to what the interviewer concluded in the paper. This is all detailed above at #A minority of feminists who ...... ??. I added a New Yorker article, but even that doesn't really say minority. Vague handwaving and pontificating counts for nothing here. Present the sources which support the wording so we can judge it. AIRcorn (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is basically that you're applying an insane standard to these sources. We have by my count seven sources, including some quite high quality ones, that all say or imply that TERFs are a minority. We have at least one source (the Daily Dot) that's listed as reliable on WP:RSP saying explicitly "TERFs are a minority". This is opposed by exactly zero sources of any strength that say or even imply they're a majority. Even when they're interviewed in the New Yorker piece they themselves agree they're a minority.
Look, here's even another one: "Though TERFism got its start in the US in the ’70s, the ideology has largely fallen out of favor as the country’s mainstream feminist movement has continuously battled against the religious right for abortion access and LGBTQ rights."
These sources in favor are balanced against zero sources against. This is the real kicker for me: even if you somehow think that all these sources are flawed, who's saying the opposite? Can anyone find even one opposing source to prove this is a real controversy and not just motivated by a desire for WP:FALSEBALANCE? Loki (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am applying a normal standard if we want to make a generalisation using wikivoice. You are the one that insists on using subpar sources and a major reason why we have so many poor self published sources in this article. The WP:ONUS is on the editors wanting to add information to provide the sources that back up the information in the form they are presenting it, and no the daily dot (reliable for "internet culture", which explains why every article seems to call on random twitter users) does not do it. There is no requirement to prove the opposite unless editors are trying to say that TERFs are the majority. So far nobody is even remotely suggesting that. AIRcorn (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Aircorn. Loki, note how that Daily Dot source you mentioned said that "TERFs are a minority" of feminists as a whole, not of radical feminists in particular. If you (or anyone else) can't find a source that explicitly states that this term is applied to a minority of radical feminists, then it needs to be changed back to "subset" or some other wording that matches the sources. I expect an encyclopaedic article to be accurate, so asking for a source for such a claim is not being "insane" or unreasonable. Yilangren (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it back to subset, in both occurrences of the sentence. I remember the previous discussion on the word linked by Aircorn, and no sources supporting it turned up in that extensive debate. None have done so now either. The Vox piece was only about the United States and is about the "mainstream feminist movement", not everyone who identifies as feminist. And as Aircorn pointed out, no, the Daily Dot is not an RS for this purpose. WP:RSP states that Daily Dot is generally reliable for note this! Internet culture. It also states, Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. It is obviously not at all scholarly, so it does not. As Aircorn also notes, the Canadian interview of 6 people actually reached different conclusions than the claim being made. And no, it is not necessary to find sources that use "majority" unless that is being claimed, which it is not. Either claim is problematic, because "feminist" is vague - is it referring to everyone who identifies as feminist in a survey, to feminist organizations, internet activists, or what. And crucially, the source would need to be not specific to just one country, since the claim being made is a general one that applies everywhere.
WP:NOR is policy and overrides any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that it is sourced because 'I just know it is true', or that synthesizing sources together merits inclusion. If there is a source that supports it, then it should be trivial for one of the small handful of editors who really really really want it included to turn up a quote from an RS that says it. The WP:ONUS to create consensus for this is on those who want to include the stronger wording. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But the sources presented above do plainly indicate that they're a minority; your personal opinion that that reading is WP:OR isn't policy. If you disagree with the people who say the sources support the current wording, you need a consensus for that, too. Obviously every experienced editor always feels that their arguments are supported by policy, but that doesn't mean you can just ignore a consensus that says otherwise. --Aquillion (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at this point seems to verge on trolling. As mentioned repeatedly here, none of the sources state that the term applies to a minority of radical feminists. Either provide a source that says so, or leave it as "subset" (or some other word supported by the sources). Yilangren (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:TERF_(acronym)&oldid=931217485"