Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics

Citation overkill

This is citation overkill, especially in the lead. In general, one should pick which of the citations best act as references for the statement and keep those in the article body, omitting the rest. Another method of reducing the excess of little superscript numbers would be to bundle citations which are not used anywhere else in the article into one ref tag. -sche (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, editing improvement now. A145GI15I95 (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite and Template Removal

Article rewrite and revert

I recently rewrote the article to attempt to move it closer to NPOV. But I'm not comfortable removing the problem template by myself. Do other people agree the problem is fixed, or is more work still necessary? LokiTheLiar (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The template was added by an editor whose reasoning was that it didn’t reflect what her friends thought. When sources were brought up she disappeared from the discussion. It probably could have been removed a while ago. The problem is that the radical feminist view gets more attention in the media and so what is the correct due weight is more complicated. AIRcorn (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I mean, as I found the article originally it was clearly correct, which is why I'm still not entirely comfortable removing it. For one, I don't think it's actually true that radical feminism (by which I'm assuming you mean the trans-exclusive position within radical feminism; as the article currently points out, many prominent radfems were trans-inclusive) gets more attention in the media. There's plenty of feminist media that talks about trans women in passively positive ways all the time. And then two, media is not the only reliable source and if you include pop feminist writing on the topic like Julia Serano's Whipping Girl, or academic feminist writing like any of what Judith Butler has written on the subject of trans people, it becomes clear pretty quickly that this is a situation with a clear consensus of acceptance versus a small (I would even venture to call them fringe) opposition. LokiTheLiar (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Where did you recently rewrite the article? All I see is that you removed unused references. As for the tag and your claims, I suggest you read Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics/Archive 2#Undue. Also read what I stated in the section #"Criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints" section above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Loki says in this edit summary that they are the IP who recently revised the article.
@ Loki and indeed anyone editing this or any other article: I know sometimes 'diff-busting' relocations-plus-revisions are unavoidable, but if at all possible it's helpful to make big changes via a series of smaller changes (remove one thing, then remove another thing, then move what's left to another place, etc) so that it's easier to see what's changed when comparing revisions, and agree or disagree with individual changes. I will try to go over the recent changes anyway so I can offer my own feedback on them. -sche (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I missed that IP edit. And I reverted per what I argued above. I'm not going over all of that again. The IP should propose changes here on the talk page and explain why, according to our rules, they made those changes. I suppose, just like with this other article that recently took up too much of my time, and endures all types of POV-editing about the intelligence of the sexes, I will have to edit this entire article soon. That means appropriate references and making sure that the article continues to adhere to WP:Due weight, not what folks want WP:Due weight to be. I am beyond tired of this article being edited based on the personal opinions of editors. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I read the talk page before editing and so I am aware that neutrality on Wikipedia is defined based on reliable sources and not on what the majority of the general public believes. However, in this instance, this doesn't matter, because the majority of reliable sources do not support the TERF position.

It's not terribly hard for me to prove that the majority of feminist discourse, including especially the majority of academic feminist discourse, is trans-inclusive if not explicitly transfeminist. Just take a look at that Google Scholar link: on the first three pages, there are only two TERF sources versus over half which are explicitly trans-positive. It's also pretty clear if you look through the work of major feminist media outlets like Jezebel or Feministing that they are trans-positive as organizations.

And even your assertions in the talk archive are not correct, because (as you can see from the same search I linked) the majority of academic feminist discussion on trans issues isn't about the TERF position at all. The majority of it appears to be using transgender people as an example into a feminist examination of what gender is (such as in Judith Butler's work, or the multiple articles about incorporating insights from queer theory into feminist theory). And then even if it wasn't, if the majority position in reliable sources really was trans-positive feminists arguing against TERFs, then we ought to represent that as the majority in the article and not the TERF position itself.

In light of all this, and in light of the fact that WP:UNDUE explicitly says "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects", this article clearly needs to be rewritten very significantly, because it currently represents the TERF position as the majority position within feminism when it is in fact a fairly small minority. LokiTheLiar (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You sound like StardustCat and the way you are trying to apply WP:Due is wrong. You definitely are not new, and I am very tempted to contact a WP:CheckUser acquaintance on this matter and other clear WP:Sock issues going on at this article. What I stated in the linked archived discussion, pointing to reliable sources on the matter, are facts. It is a fact that most of the critical debate -- from a historical aspect to modern aspect (but especially years past) -- concerns radical feminists' views and views on trans women. You can call the radical feminists' TERFS all you want to, but the vast majority of the literature does not. I stated, "there simply is not as much feminist commentary on trans men. Furthermore, although the term transgender is broad, the literature on transgender issues is usually about trans women and trans men, not non-binary people (although some people identity as both transgender and non-binary). I stated, "When one looks at the academic literature on feminists views on transgender topics, they mostly cover what this article currently covers. So I can't call the article undue." And no one has been able to disprove me on any of this. And that Google Scholar link you pointed also does not. I also pointed to a 2014 The New Yorker source that, when quoting Robin Morgan's anti-trans woman view, states, "Such views are shared by few feminists now, but they still have a foothold among some self-described radical feminists, who have found themselves in an acrimonious battle with trans people and their allies." In that same discussion, I pointed to this 2018 The Economist source stating, "What is a woman? Who can be a feminist? These questions have been central to feminist theory and activism since the 1970s, proving to be particularly controversial in the relationship between feminist and transgender activism. In recent years, these questions have returned to haunt feminism. [...]. By the 1990s multi-faceted gender identities and experiences were embraced by feminist scholars who wrote against a biologically-determined feminist theory that excluded trans women. Similarly, the development of several queer movements positively acknowledged difference and argued against the understanding of identity categories as fixed. I am deeply saddened that in recent years there has been renewed antagonism from a section of feminism towards trans people, and especially towards trans women." I noted that the source does state that there is a "small number of feminists loudly opposing changes to the Gender Recognition Act" and that "anti-trans viewpoints are a minority position within feminism," but the source doesn't state that these views are minority views within radical feminism. It also states that these views "are championed by several high-profile writers, many of whom reinforce the extremely offensive trope of the trans woman as a man in drag who is a danger to women" and "while anti-transgender feminists are a minority, they have a high level of social, cultural and economic capital." So despite all this talk about anti-trans views being a minority, it is clear that the literature is rife with the debate. In that archived discussion, even that "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" source that another editor pointed to in order to show diverse aspects of this topic states, "there has generally been an over-emphasis on MTFs in particular." The literature mostly focuses on trans women. That has been my main point. The literature mainly touches on the debate regarding trans women. That has been my main point. I have seen nothing in the literature, in my reading beyond the abstracts, that shows differently. Like I stated, I will be overhauling the article. I am working on a draft now, and I will present it on this talk page (via a link to my sandbox) when I am done...before implementing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I was a little bit active over a decade ago under a different account, and have since occasionally edited as an IP. (User:Snake712 was my old handle, if you really need to know.) Because of this I picked up some understanding of how to argue for a position on Wikipedia, how to cite Wikipedia policies, etc. But I think the accusation that I'm a sockpuppet just because I agree with someone else is pretty ridiculous.

I'd like to point out that even your sources say that trans-exclusive feminists are a minority within feminism. This article as it currently is presents them as if their view was equivalent to the trans-inclusive view, when nobody thinks they are. I'm not against talking about the trans-exclusive viewpoint and the debate between trans-exclusive and trans-inclusive feminists; what I'm opposed to is representing the trans-exclusive view as more prominent within feminism than it actually is. This is pretty explicitly what WP:UNDUE is about: articles should not present a minority view as if it is the majority. To use a more neutral analogy, the article on protectionism shouldn't be just a list of economists that are against free trade, because most economists are pro-free trade even though the argument over protectionism vs. free trade is a huge historical debate within economics. Covering the argument itself is totally compatible with WP:UNDUE, but covering the argument in a way that makes it unclear that one side is the clear majority position would definitely be against WP:UNDUE. (And to bolster my point, the article on protectionism does in fact say in explicit terms that most economists think it's a bad idea.)

I'm also wondering why you're trying to argue so hard that the article should focus on trans women. I'm not disputing that this debate is mostly focusing on trans women (and, y'know, feminism is a movement for women's rights) so this page ought to mostly focus on trans women. I agree that trans-exclusive feminists overwhelmingly focus on trans women, to the point that this is actually a major counterargument used against them by their opponents. I frankly think you are projecting your past arguments onto me. LokiTheLiar (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I indicated that you are very likely not new because it's obvious to any significantly experienced Wikipedia editor that you are not new. It is not about you disagreeing with someone. I did not call you a sock. For all I knew when making that comment, you could be a WP:Clean start account or other WP:LEGITSOCK account, but I knew you were not new.

You stated that you would "like to point out that even [my] sources say that trans-exclusive feminists are a minority within feminism." How is there a need for that when I pointed it out? I also very clearly pointed to one source stating "but they still have a foothold among some self-described radical feminists, who have found themselves in an acrimonious battle with trans people and their allies," and another stating that the questions "What is a woman?" and "Who can be a feminist?" have been "central to feminist theory and activism since the 1970s, proving to be particularly controversial in the relationship between feminist and transgender activism." Do you not see the word "central"? Do you not see where a source states that these views "are championed by several high-profile writers, many of whom reinforce the extremely offensive trope of the trans woman as a man in drag who is a danger to women" and "while anti-transgender feminists are a minority, they have a high level of social, cultural and economic capital"? Notice "high level of social, cultural and economic capital"? Do you not understand that all of that is why the literature is mainly about this debate? That this is why the "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" source states that "there has generally been an over-emphasis on MTFs in particular"? It is why I stated, "So despite all this talk about anti-trans views being a minority, it is clear that the literature is rife with the debate." Their views may be the minority, but the trans woman debate is what the literature on this topic is mainly about, which is why the article covering so much of it is WP:DUE. I'm not seeing sources on the topic covering much of anything else. You asked me "why [I'm] trying to argue so hard that the article should focus on trans women," and stated that you are "not disputing that this debate is mostly focusing on trans women (and, y'know, feminism is a movement for women's rights) so this page ought to mostly focus on trans women." I argued that the topic mostly focuses on trans women just to be clear (in case you weren't) that this topic is not as broad some want it to be, and that it is WP:DUE in that regard. More below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Length of "TERF" section

A145GI15I95, you recently expanded the "TERF" section. How much of the "TERF" material do you think we should keep? I'm asking you because that is one section I will be looking to downsize. I will also be looking to remove some blow-by-blow material. The article shouldn't be so focused on incidents. I also will be looking to add academic sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Difficult to say. Re-summarizing from series of incidents to more academic prose is reasonable. Themes/points might be:

• Coinage;
• Evolution from all-caps acronym to lowercase word;
• Shift in application from persons of specific philosophy/politics to generally anyone of opposing views;
• Arguments regarding being a slur and/or hate speech, being used to shame and silence targets.
• Perceptions and actions in social media, conventional media, private companies/workplaces, educational institutions, and/or government.
• Opinions of philosophical and academic professionals.

Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

User:LokiTheLiar: In the interest of civility, may I ask you please to avoid characterizing writers and publishers et alii as "terfs"? Many persons (especially the subjects of this article and likely some editors here) believe the word to be a slur and/or hate speech, used to shame and smear dissenting individuals, and to silence and censor reasonable debate. Whether we each agree or disagree with that interpretation, it would better to avoid using or appearing to use the word in that regard. Thanks for considering, A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I could, and I will make an attempt from here on out, but please be aware that most feminists who are not trans-exclusive consider TERFs themselves to be a hate group, and this insistence that "TERF is a slur" to be basically gaslighting.

I can definitely call them "trans-exclusive" spelled out, following the article, and I will try to do so in the future, but the simple fact is that any terminology for this group is going to be taking some side or other, in a similar manner to "Holocaust denier" vs "revisionist", or "racist" vs "race realist". LokiTheLiar (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

That you compared using "TERF" to the Holocaust denial is asinine. Same goes for the race comparison. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Flyer, I don't think that is a WP:CIVIL response to that user and don't see a priori why the comparison is asinine. When people are seen as bigots, the issue of how to speak about them becomes contentious. Names that reference this perceived bigotry and ones that elide it often butt heads. Rab V (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

If you don't see the problem with that comparison then you should not be editing this article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL pretty clear speaks against acting superior and talking about editors instead of arguments...Rab V (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

We have the article speaking of how "TERF" is used very broadly and that this a problem. There are transgender people who have also spoken about overly broad use of that term and the term transphobia. Ask enough lesbian feminists about being called a TERF or a bigot simply because they are not sexually attracted to male-bodied people or people who have a penis, and it's clear just how the term has been used in an overly broad way. An IP linked to a published collection of tweets that highlight this topic. Of course, I will cover the topic with WP:Reliable sources. Like I stated at Talk:Transphobia, the "Is it transphobic if a cisgender person doesn't want to date a transgender person?" debate is part of the topic, and as some know, is very strong in the lesbian and bisexual communities because some trans women suggest being open with regard to genital preferences or that genital preferences shouldn't matter, while a number of cisgender lesbians argue that sexual orientation is not about sexual attraction to gender identity, their attraction is not really a preference, and that to insist that a cisgender lesbian should be sexually attracted to a person who has a penis is akin to conversion therapy and is homophobic. I have seen "TERF" and transphobic used in ways that even many transgender people do not agree with. So, yes, I find comparing "TERFs" to Holocaust deniers an asinine comparison. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your point of view, I think that is helpful in keeping a contentious topic more civil. WP:CIVIL also suggests using less intense language, trying not to come off as condescending and trying to remain calm in the talk page. It is hard to focus on bettering an article when comments get too heated. Rab V (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to remain as neutral as possible here despite the fact that it's increasingly clear that the two sides of the dispute over the content of this article also have opposing biases on the underlying topic. However, again, any use of language around this topic is going to be contentious because the fundamental debate underlying the language regarding trans-exclusive feminism is whether it's acceptable at all (/counts as feminism at all) or not. This isn't a scientific debate, it's a moral and political debate, and any use of language around it implies a moral and political position. If you want a slightly more neutral example I could point to "the ACA" vs "Obamacare", or "pro-choice" vs "anti-life" and vice versa. Any language I use here is going to implicitly take a side, and given that I would prefer to use the language of the side I believe rather than the side I don't.

I also would really like to talk about the article, but it's sort of difficult in this case because based on what I've seen in this discussion so far, the dispute over whether trans-exclusive feminism is given undue weight in the current article boils down to the underlying dispute the article is supposed to describe. I suspect that the surface-level "legal" debate over WP:UNDUE is in fact a proxy for a debate which is part factual and part political over the issue of whether trans-exclusive feminism is in fact fringe or not, and that this is the reason why what ought to be a pretty dry argument over the exact meaning of WP:UNDUE has gotten so contentious so quickly.

In particular, I notice that the argument Flyer22 Reborn just made is a fairly common argument among trans-exclusive feminists, which makes me suspect that Flyer22 has trans-exclusive feminist sympathies. I don't say this to discredit them; it'd be pretty hypocritical of me to think that having an opinion on the topic of this article discredited them, since I haven't exactly made a secret of the fact I'm a trans-inclusive feminist myself. But I do want to suggest that I don't think that the content of the article should require us to resolve the debate described in the article, and that maybe involving some kind of neutral party here to settle the questions at issue (especially the one about what WP:UNDUE actually means in the context of this article) would be a good idea. LokiTheLiar (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no need to WP:Ping to this page since it's on my watchlist. Let's get your I "just made a fairly common argument among trans-exclusive feminists, which makes [you] suspect that [I have] trans-exclusive feminist sympathies" out of the way right now. First, I do not identify as a feminist, although enough men's rights editors have called me one or implied that I'm one. Some feminists editors and those in between have also assumed that I identify as a feminist. This assumption has been due to me adhering to WP:Due weight at articles like Sexism and Domestic violence. Second, I am not trans-exclusive. I am also not one to go into my sexuality, or much of any other personal matter regarding me, on Wikipedia. Some editors have assumed that I'm heterosexual, lesbian, bisexual, or asexual. And the assumptions have always been based on what I've edited and how I've followed Wikipedia's rules. Third, it is a fact that many or most cisgender lesbians are not sexually attracted to male-bodied people or to people with penises, just like it is a fact that many or most cisgender gay men are not sexually attracted to female-bodied people or people with vaginas. Lesbians being repulsed by penises is as real as gay men being repulsed by vaginas. See this section of the Trans man article? The sourced text that I included there clearly states, "Trans men have less success fitting in with and identifying with the gay male community because it tends to be more cisgender-focused and body-focused (especially in terms of being phallocentric); as a result, gay trans men are likelier to partner with each other than with a cisgender gay man." I also added the sourced paragraph beneath that, which means that, yes, I also added the "many non-trans gay men have welcomed trans men into gay communities and have increasingly recognized trans men as potential sexual and romantic partners" piece according to one source. I was not trying to falsely balance material. I was simply giving a counterargument because it exists and the source seems okay enough.

It is a fact that the aforementioned cisgender women have noted that they are not sexually attracted to people with penises and why, with some noting that they would be open to a romantic/sexual relationship with a trans woman who is post-op (having undergone sex reassignment therapy, including sex reassignment surgery). It is a fact that, as seen by the aforementioned "a published collection of tweets" link, some trans women have suggested or insisted that cisgender lesbians should be sexually attracted to trans women and that not being sexually attracted to trans women is bigoted or makes them TERFs. WP:Reliable sources cover this. It is a part of the debate, and should be mentioned on Wikipedia, which is why I mentioned it. Well, I also mentioned it because, yes, I find it illogical to compare cisgender lesbians not being sexually attracted to people with penises to Holocaust deniers. We know from research on biology and sexual orientation that not being sexually attracted to certain sexual characteristics is very likely partly rooted in biology. The reason that conversion therapy has been so unsuccessful is not due to gay men and lesbians not being sexually attracted to gender identities. It's because the researchers could not make gay men sexually attracted to female-bodied people and lesbian women sexually attracted to male-bodied people. There is nothing about Holocaust denial that is rooted in biology. I know that some trans women and trans men do not see their sexual organs or as male or female, or that a trans woman may think of her penis as female and a trans man may think of his clitoris as male (especially after undergoing metoidioplasty), but many other transgender people do see these sexual organs as belonging to the opposite sex and as things that should not be a part of their bodies; gender dysphoria is an aspect of that. Transgender people feeling like they are in the wrong bodies is why sex reassignment therapy exists. It's also why some cisgender lesbians question some trans women feeling that cisgender lesbians should be sexually attracted to bodies they themselves feel are wrong.

As for the rest, like I've noted before, I do my best stay as neutral on a topic as I can. The areas where it's hard for me to remain neutral are the pedophilia and child sexual abuse topics. Because, really, facing someone who is claiming that pedophilia is a normal aspect of sexuality or that child sexual abuse really isn't abuse is a trying thing (at least for those of us with common sense). What I don't like is advocacy on Wikipedia; it's why I commonly point to WP:Advocacy. I also don't like people structuring articles in a way that falsely balances a topic. I wouldn't state that this topic mainly concerns trans women and views on trans women if weren't true. I've already pointed to media sources being clear just how heavy that aspect is. I have looked at numerous reliable sources on feminist views on transgender issues, and I keep coming across the trans woman debate...more so than any other aspect of the topic. That is what I mean by WP:Due. I've already noted that I will be typing up a draft and will present it here on the talk page. I think you will appreciate the draft a lot more than the current state of the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Additional comment: And even if we drop the sexual attraction aspect, I disagree with comparing the view that trans women are not women to Holocaust denial. Like you stated, this (feminist views on transgender issues) is not a scientific topic. It's sociological/political topic. Science still is not definitive on the causes of transsexuality. So to state that a cisgender woman is in denial for not believing or accepting trans women as women is a sociological and political view rather than a "you don't believe in science" view. Holocaust denial is the denial of a horrific time in history that society has all the proof of having happened. I just can't see the comparison. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 Reborn, I believe what User:LokiTheLiar intended by that comment was not to compare TERFs to Holocaust deniers in any way, but to point out a conflict in terminology using one of the more recognizable arguments, as in "Holocaust denier" vs "revisionist." I hope you don't feel that it is a personal attack. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 03:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Mooeena, no need to ping me since this page is on my watchlist. I don't agree with the comparison regardless of what was intended. The comparison is there regardless of whatever was intended. As for a personal attack, I do not consider it a personal attack on me. I've been clear that I'm not trans-exclusive. If one wants to think that I am, oh well. I've noted other assumptions about me above. On a side note: Were you alerted to this talk page somehow? I see no alert to this talk page at WP:LGBT. And I hadn't seen you or Fæ here before. Treker explained how Treker got here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This page is also on my watchlist. I may enter the discussion in the future, but I stepped in to try to diffuse this sitution. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 04:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Back to the length topic: I think it got the way it is, because a now indef'd radfem editor kept expanding it by including every event that occurred anywhere regarding conflicts between radfems and trans women, so it got way out of proportion to the article topic in size. Since then, -sche and others have cut it back. I don't have a sense yet whether it's still out of proportion, or not. Mathglot (talk) 08:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

See also, the new {{Section size}} bar in the Talk header at the top. Mathglot (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Article split

Hi, I'm jumping into this since I saw the DRN, I think personally that it might be a good idea to split the articles, the mainstream view of feminists seems to be to support all LGBT people, but there is a minority among radical feminists that do seem to oppose Trans people in their communities, those people have gotten a lot of coverage and I think the topic might be fir for it's own article at Trans-exclusionary radical feminism.★Trekker (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Treker, I know you like to split articles. But splitting in this case would be a clear WP:POV fork violation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how it is. It's not a fork when it's a very very well known subject that has had tons of coverage.★Trekker (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:POV fork state, "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a 'POV fork' of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." The split you are suggesting can be argued as POV fork. Contributors disagreeing about the content of the article is not a valid reason for a split. That stated, it seems you are suggesting that we keep this article as a general article, with a section on trans-exclusionary radical feminist views that points to the main article on the topic. But like I stated above, "I have looked at numerous reliable sources on feminist views on transgender issues, and I keep coming across the trans woman debate...more so than any other aspect of the topic." As seen at Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics/Archive 2#Undue, I also noted that there are some transgender conservatives, such as Blaire White or this author from The Spectator, who have been critical of some transgender ideology. Like that transgender author from The Spectator, White has sided with the "you're not transphobic if you don't want to date a trans person" view. Dating-wise, she herself is only interested in dating cisgender men. There are trans women who are only interested in dating cisgender women; some of them are the same ones who talk about cisgender lesbians needing to be open to dating trans women. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, who does not appear to be trans-exclusionary, stated that "trans women are trans women," which (as noted in the Feminist views on transgender topics article) was taken by critics to mean that she was stating that "trans women aren't women." Adichie has been categorized as a liberal and is considered by critics as having engaged in transphobia with that comment, but she doesn't view her "trans women are trans women" comment as anti-trans/transphobic. To repeat, there are different perspectives from feminists on whether or not their views are anti, transphobic, or hate speech. As is clear by the Adichie case, it's not just radical feminists who have been considered trans-exclusionary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

So, we're starting to get to a place in the argument where I would like to be able to use the term "TERF" again, not for pejorative reasons but because it names a very specific thing which I think you are conflating with other things. "TERFs"/"gender critical feminism" is a fairly narrow faction within feminism with a set of views which is shared widely among themselves and basically not at all among other feminists. This is not to say that no other feminist has ever said a transphobic or trans-exclusionary thing, but trans-exclusive radical feminists like Janice Raymond and Sheila Jeffries are a very different thing from Adichie (who is not just a liberal feminist but also a LGBTQ activist), and both are very different from Blaire White (who is very sharply anti-feminist).

The thing I'm trying to argue regarding this page is that for one, the Raymond-Jeffries faction within feminism is quite small and most other feminists regard it as bigoted, and for two, this page portrays the trans-exclusive view as the majority even though it's certainly not, through both vastly overciting trans-exclusive radical feminist sources and failing to draw a clear distinction between organized opposition to trans women within feminism and any time any feminist has ever made an allegedly transphobic comment. LokiTheLiar (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

FWIW I think splitting the article could work. I at the very least think this article needs to be organized by overall ideological position rather than by topic, because the way it's currently organized makes conforming to WP:UNDUE quite awkward. The way it's currently formatted makes every debate look like a debate between equal sides, when in fact one side is quite a bit bigger and more influential than the other. In some cases, because the current page cites several trans-exclusive radical feminists but only one feminist who disagrees, it appears as though the trans-exclusive position is the majority, even though what's in fact going on is that the page is citing from a small faction within feminism multiple times, and from a larger faction fewer times. It's like if you cited every single anti-free-trade economist on an article about economics while both failing to mention they were a minority and failing to cite other more mainstream economists.

I have a big problem with an article that cites Andrea Dworkin, Gloria Steinem, Janice Raymond, Mary Daly, Germaine Greer, and Julie Bindel separately on a trans-related topic when the last four of those people are all trans-exclusive radical feminists. Trans-exclusive radical feminism is a unified ideology and there's simply no good reason to cite it four times on a single topic, particularly while prominent transfeminists like Julia Serano are barely mentioned in the entire article and when it's not hard at all to dive into any major feminist media source like Jezebel or Feministing or Autostraddle or Bitch Media and come up with boatloads of trans-positive takes. LokiTheLiar (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not conflating matters, LokiTheLiar. I'm aware of all sides of the issue. What I have stated to you is that the term "TERF" has been used broadly. So has "trans-exclusive." And our Wikipedia article currently states, "Feminists with exclusionary views have been referred to as "TERFs." So the two terms are considered synonyms. Often enough anyway. "TERF" has been used to describe anyone who is critical of transgender views or states something that doesn't fully align with transgender views. I've seen it. We have WP:Reliable sources in the article talking about the broad use. I know that "Janice Raymond and Sheila Jeffr[eys] are a very different thing from Adichie." But just like Raymond and Jeffreys, Adichie has been considered transphobic and trans-exclusive for stating "trans women are trans women." My point is that it's not just radical feminists who have made comments that some consider trans-exclusive. So how are we to craft the article when there are views like Adichie's that are also criticized as trans-exclusive? It's not like we should put Adichie under a "Trans-exclusive" heading when she no doubt does not consider her views to be trans-exclusive. I know that Blaire White is anti-feminist. I have occasionally brought her up because she is a prime example of not all transgender people thinking the same. She shares some views that some people have deemed a TERF view or a trans-exclusive view, including the view that a cisgender lesbian not being sexually attracted to a trans woman or not wanting to date a trans woman is not transphobic. She's also made comments that many transgender people consider downright transphobic; she, for example, repeatedly misgendered Riley Dennis when Dennis hadn't yet gone under sex reassignment therapy. She probably still misgenders Dennis. Above, in the #Length of "TERF" section, you argued that I "just made a fairly common argument among trans-exclusive feminists, which makes [you] suspect that [I have] trans-exclusive feminist sympathies." But transgender people like White have also made the argument. And either way, it wasn't really an argument from me; it was rather me addressing an aspect of this topic. There is certainly a rift between cisgender lesbian feminists and trans women who are feminists, and just lesbians and trans women in general. Like that Slate source states, "Even lesbians who aren't intentionally transphobic can still harbor fears and stereotypes based on their lack of familiarity with trans women (the same goes for trans women, who can be suspicious and fearful of cis lesbians). It also states, "While trans lesbians seeking romantic connections in the lesbian community are often frustrated by the knee-jerk resistance many cis lesbians have to dating trans women, hearing that one's individual reluctance to date someone may be based in transphobia can feel unfair and accusatory. Rumors of trans women who attempt to pressure lesbians to date them by insisting that it would be transphobic to do otherwise don't help matters—these stories may be apocryphal, but the fear of being pressured into a romantic relationship is hardly conducive to relaxed getting-to-know-yous."

As for "the trans-exclusive view as the majority"... Since I've been over that above and at the dispute page, I won't address that again. You have a point about "failing to draw a clear distinction between organized opposition to trans women within feminism and any time any feminist has ever made an allegedly transphobic comment." But the media has also failed to draw that distinction enough times.

I disagree with a split, per what I stated above in this section.

WP:Reliable sources-wise, I'm not sure about Feministing or Autostraddle. The community feels differently about certain blogs; see WP:BLOGS. But Bitch magazine (published by Bitch Media) is definitely a suitable source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC) Edit: Looking at Autostraddle some more, it seems that it will be fine to use in some cases. I've been aware of the site for years, but I hadn't considered it a source to use on Wikipedia. In terms of what Wikipedia considers a reliable source, it has improved over the years in that regard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

My choice of those particular sources was because they are all major feminist media organizations, in the sense that they are all both explicitly feminist and have a permanent paid staff that writes articles for them. Part of the problem here is that feminism is political advocacy, and political advocacy is usually published by the people who advocate it to one degree or another. But I don't really mind if we decide that, e.g., Bitch and Autostraddle count but Feministing doesn't. While we're here, although I couldn't find examples of them talking about trans-exclusive radical feminism/"gender critical" feminism at all, Ms Magazine also appears to be trans-friendly.

As for the rest of that, "trans-exclusive radical feminism" is a term which from the beginning was supposed to refer to the sort of feminism advocated by Janice Raymond, Shelia Jeffreys, etc. The reason the group is called "trans-exclusive" and not simply "transphobic" is that they specifically seek to exclude trans women as a whole from feminism. Or in other words, they are organized opposition to trans women within feminism, while Adichie or Steinem or Rose McGowan have only at worst said one transphobic thing. I think that if this article is going to reflect this topic accurately it's going to have to make it clear somehow that Raymond, Jeffreys, and company are all part of a unified ideology that Adichie, Steinem and McGowan are not a part of, and that the majority of feminists are not trans-exclusive and generally oppose trans-exclusive feminism even if they might have said something someone has characterized as transphobic once.

Now, it is sometimes the case that mainstream media is often a bit unclear on this topic, and will sometimes just talk about "feminist opposition" to trans issues without being aware of this distinction. However, for one, mainstream media only sometimes has such a muddled view and other times it is quite capable of figuring out what a TERF is, and for two mainstream feminist sources are quite clear on this distinction, and it seems to me we should trust what are effectively experts over otherwise-reliable sources with no particular expertise. LokiTheLiar (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

While I appreciate the suggestion, I currently think it's better to try to cover all the views, inclusive and exclusive, "radical" and otherwise, (at appropriate weight, etc) in one place. And the article is not so long as to require a split on size grounds (it's about as long as Feminist views on pornography, for example). -sche (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

NPOV terminology

[Originally an offshoot of the "Terf" section above, before content was subdivided in this edit.]

Please note that persons and groups whom some call "terfs" or "trans-exclusive/exclusionary" rebuke both terms, and instead call themselves "gender critical". Their focus isn't to exclude anyone who identifies as trans, rather to reject gender roles/stereotypes, and to reject the concept of social gender as being innate and essential. The usage of the first two terms within this article present an NPOV problem, and their usage on this talk page may be problematic. A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It's frankly a NPOV problem under WP:UNDUE to give the assertions of trans-exclusive radical feminists about the term "TERF" so much discussion. "Gender critical"/trans-exclusionary feminism is a fringe view within feminism. Major feminist media organizations all use the term TERF, and many explicitly argue against the term "gender critical" because they feel it gives cover to bigots. LokiTheLiar (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

A bigot is, by definition, a person who is intolerant of persons with differing perspectives.[1][2][3][4] To characterize gender-critical persons as bigots is arguably straw man and ad hominem, lacking NPOV, and bigotry itself. If you're inferring gender-critical persons to be bigots, please reconsider. Their criticism is against a theory or perspective of gender, not against persons who subscribe to such theory or perspective. Thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You are not going to convince me with dictionary definitions, because it's not me directly that is calling these people bigots. It's the consensus among feminists that 1) the proper term for what you are calling "gender critical" feminists is TERFs, and 2) "gender critical" feminists, or TERFs, are transphobic. If you want, I can link even more articles from even more writers for major feminist news and opinion sites.

Furthermore, although I don't think that this is directly relevant to the issue of the content of the article because WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE are based on reliable sources and not really on the underlying arguments made by those sources, I also think that claims from trans-exclusive radical feminists that they are not particularly focused on trans people are reasonably easy to disprove simply by going into their spaces. I am not the first person to notice that most "gender critical" spaces are overwhelmingly full of attacks on trans people and trans ideology. As an example, see the gendercritical subreddit on reddit, which has a comic mocking 'trans identity politics' in its sidebar right over a few paragraphs that explain why they don't believe trans women are women. It's pretty clear that "gender critical" feminism is in fact focused on trans women and the exclusion of them from feminist spaces, regardless of what they claim. LokiTheLiar (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Both of you are violating WP:RS and WP:OR to make arguments. I am not going to take a position here, but please remember what qualifies as WP:RS. ShimonChai (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Too hypothetical, convoluted, and not supported by the facts. TERF is not NPOV, it is descriptive. This sophistry over the meaning of words, is highly reminiscent of the arguments that people put forward to defend sales of gollywogs as they are harmless toys, nothing to do with black people and anyone that finds them racist is the extremist. With regard to OR etc., the burden of proof should be on demonstrating that "gender critical" is a real thing and the more encyclopaedic meaningful way of describing what is going on, compared to TERF which is massively represented in all basic searches for sources. --Fæ (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Another way "trans-exclusionary" doesn't fit GCs is their acceptance of FTMs/TIFs. Debate doesn't equate phobia. We've already covered how "terf" is directed at non-descriptive targets with intent to harm. However, I don't wish to convince anyone of these points here. My intention here is simply to request care for words when discussing these topics, to avoid name-calling. We're all human, with faults and strengths, myself included. Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

As proof that your rhetoric is too convoluted, please reconsider all those impressive abbreviations you are throwing in to the discussion, rather than using the full terms. If you want others to understand the views you are promoting here, try using more actual words and plain English, rather than rarely published abbreviations. As an example, I started to doubt myself not recognizing what "TIF" stood for, however as the term does not appear at TIF (disambiguation), and checking the internet background shows this was pretty much invented by TERF discussion forums to use language to push that hostile agenda, it's not surprising to discover you are being cryptic, or possibly deliberately pointy, rather than inclusive. A potential source is the Urban Dictionary which explains in its informal way "trans-identified male: A made up word that TERFs came up with in order to deny trans women their basic humanity and right to self determination. A direct attack on the humanity of trans feminine people for nothing more than being themselves." link

I am left with a nagging feeling that if you were to write out in plain English what you are trying to say, it would be instantly recognizable as offensive and discriminatory, rather than "logic". Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of the those referred to as trans-exclusionary, the leadoff comment of this subsection says that, Their focus isn't to exclude anyone who identifies as trans, that's right, not just anyone: they mostly exclude transwomen; a more accurate term would be transmisogynist-exclusionary, but most people understand trans-exclusionary as synonymous with that. One indication of that is the acceptance of transmen in spaces (like Michfest, and many others) that are in theory, womyn-born-womyn, only. You say this yourself in the comment immediately above: Another way "trans-exclusionary" doesn't fit GCs is their acceptance of FTMs/TIFs. Precisely. They are not trans*-exclusionary, they are specifically transwomen-exclusionary.

But we didn't create the terms, they are what they are: but let's understand them for what they mean. You might have a better case with terf, but in labeling the term "trans-exclusionary" as name-calling, I think you are going way out on a limb; this is a descriptive term. It may be uncomfortable for some, as nobody who considers themselves enlightened wants to think of themselves as "exclusionary", but nevertheless, as a purely descriptive term, it is accurate. And I know you're aware of the genesis of it, as a neutral descriptive term. I see very little likelihood that an appeal to label "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" as WP:NPOV would gain consensus. On the contrary, it is the neutral term. An alternative might be, "transphobic radical feminist", but that is far less common, and in any case, sounds harsher to me than the merely descriptive term. Mathglot (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Please again, "phobia" is an irrational aversion, not a logical concern. Hyperbole here isn't helpful.
• I abbreviate here to prevent this discussion of language and my own contributions from growing overly large. "TIF" means "trans-identifying female", and it's considered by GC RFs (gender-critical radical feminists) to be more accurate than "FTM" ("female-to-male"), as they argue sex is immutable. Note this "accuracy = neutrality" argument is the same put forward by proponents of the word "terf".
• I'm not promoting either view, I'm asking we attempt to respect both views. Is it not our policy to honor self-identity? GCRFs identify themselves "gender-critical rad fems", not "terfs". A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a false equivalence. Denying the right of others to exist, is not a "self-identity", nor is it a point of view that you can expect others to "respect". What you are very clearly doing is disrupting discussion about improvement of this article by repeating nonsensical anti-trans rhetoric with no sources whatsoever.

Reliable sources and practical suggestions for improvement please, or go do something else rather than using this page to deride transgender people. This is not Twitter or Facebook where rambling on with your offensive views might be seen as amusing. Thanks. --Fæ (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

GCRFs don't deny anyone's right to exist (that's more hyperbole); their position is against theory, not persons. I'm deriding no one (that's a personal attack); my request has been for civility and mutual respect, not disruption. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

You said, "phobia" is an irrational aversion. Nobody used the word phobia above, so your comment is irrelevant. If you're going to reply to someone, reply to what they said, not to your inference about it. Mathglot (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The word has been used twice above: (1) "gender critical" feminists, or TERFs, are transphobic, LokiTheLiar (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC). (2) An alternative might be, "transphobic radical feminist", Mathglot (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC). A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Lol, "'phobia' is an irrational aversion" waa an etymological fallacy even back when it was homophobes who were pushing it. -sche (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not even an etymological fallacy, it's just being wrong. "Phobia" can mean fear or hatred. Here's a fun fact: the word "racism" was invented in the early 1900s. Do you know what people called 'hating black people' before that? "Negrophobia". LokiTheLiar (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Debate of issues isn't fear or hatred of any kind. Again, please honor the be polite call at the top of this page. Name-calling and mockery (lol, fun fact) get us nowhere. A145GI15I95 (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I am trying to be polite to you as a person, but the idea you are supporting is just bad. Both major feminist media organizations (like the several I linked before) and mainstream news organizations use the term "TERF". Even sensationalist anti-trans news organizations like the Daily Mail use the term "TERF". None of them uses the term "gender critical". By the rules of Wikipedia there is just no argument for the thing you are trying to argue. It'd be a clear NPOV violation to use a term that literally nobody but TERFs themselves use. LokiTheLiar (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Note that although they object to the term "transphobic," A145GI15I95 has no issue with the usage of the term "detransphobic" as seen here, here, and here. I am sure that they would not claim that the terms "homophobia" or "Islamaphobia" refer to irrational fears and not forms of prejudice. The MOS very clearly states that referring to transgender men as females, "trans-identified" or otherwise, is bad practice. It seems that this user is operating under bad faith regarding this topic, especially regarding their close personal connection to both the gender-critical subreddit and "TIM" Urban Dictionary entry mentioned above. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 05:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Your linked diffs are of different context. I'm not against acknowledging phobic actions; we're talking here about labeling groups. The nature of this page is to cover two sides. I'd expect we'd not favor one side's language for the other here. I agree that some terms are offensive, which is why I advocate honoring each group's self-ID. Phobias exist, and they're irrational whether for homosexuality or Islam or anything. Prejudice is separate from and related to phobia. I didn't link Reddit or Urban Dictionary. A145GI15I95 (talk) 05:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@A145GI15I95: "GCRFs don't deny anyone's right to exist (that's more hyperbole)"

1. you just made up "GCRF", which makes me believe even more strongly that your purpose here is to troll and disrupt the discussion.
2. there are not "two sides", this is like expecting every article on politics to give any unsourced fringe conspiracy theory the same weight as all other views.
3. still no reliable sources. You may as well just be repeatedly shouting "Swans!" in the park, if you are never going to produce a single reliable source for anything you write here.
4. you are repeating a demand for respect, but show none for trans people by promoting offensive terms that deny their existence. Terms like "trans identified male" are simply a deliberate way of calling transwomen men.

If you are here to promote deliberately transphobic language, playing the broken record rather than doing any work to find or logically challenge the use of reliable sources, then you are misusing Wikipedia to target trans and genderqueer people. --Fæ (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• I didn't just make up anything. My purpose isn't to troll or disrupt. I've stated repeatedly and consistently my only purpose in this discussion is to ask we not refer to groups by terms they refuse, and rather to honor each group's self-ID.
• There are at least two sides to the content of this article: Those who support trans women as having a right to feminism, and those who don't.
• All content I've added to the article is reliably sourced.
• I've promoted no known slurs. I didn't say trans-identified male, that was Fæ above at 11:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC). I used "FTM/TIF" as an example of two terms for one group that each side finds offensive, in my plea to honor self-ID.
• Please, again: Assume good faith, be civil, be polite. You don't see me attacking or smearing any editor here. Please extend the same basic decency. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Immediately provide:

1. Reliable sources for the abbreviation "GCRF" used for TERFs that you claim you did not just make up.
2. Reliable sources for the offensive terminology that you claim is used by TERFs instead of transwoman or transmen.

If after you 13 major edits to this talk page, you are still ignoring multiple requests to provide reliable sources, then your purpose here is clearly to make stuff up and you have zero reliable sources to contribute. The false equivalence of repeating "there are two sides" when really this means that on one side we have reliable sources related to TERFs, and on the other 'sides' we have anti-trans stuff you are lobbying for. Insisting that Wikipedia accepts "GCRF" as a real word, is not to "honor each group's self-ID", that's just screwing around with making the term "transwoman" equivalent to whatever word you want to make up next.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Is it common or even permitted to make such demands of other editors? Is it necessary to cite talk-page discussion?
• "Gender-critical radical feminism" is a widely used term (7,220,000 results on Google). "Rad fem", "RF", "GC", and "GCRF" are common abbreviations, though I spelled them in their full form above before abbreviating.
• A previous editor has already explained the offensive terms, and I got blamed for it. I'm not going to repeat their explanation and get blamed again.
• 13 major edits? Why are you counting? What makes them major? My first edit was an answer to a ping that requested an opinion. My second was a request for more civil language. Every subsequent reply has been to answer your questions. A call for polite language doesn't deserve such pushback.
• I'm sensing an inordinate degree of hostility from your previous two contributions on this talk page. I'm replying calmly and respectfully. I ask you do the same. A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Zero reliable sources = Nothing to discuss. --Fæ (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

User:A145GI15I95 wrote,

I've stated repeatedly and consistently my only purpose in this discussion is to ask we not refer to groups by terms they refuse, and rather to honor each group's self-ID.

Yes, you've stated that repeatedly. No need to continue repeating it, as it carries no weight here, unless you can find a guideline or policy about it. If people don't agree with you, then they don't. Just to be clear, in social interaction, I aspire to your approach as a matter of politeness. But this is an encyclopedia, and here we refer to groups by terms that are found in reliable sources, irrespective of what the group may like or not like.

Secondly, if you want to influence others to follow your preference, then add a link to a policy or guideline that supports your thesis. Otherwise, it's just, plain, personal preference, and nobody needs to go along with that, just because you've requested it politely several times. For one thing, that you claim a term is polite (or impolite) doesn't mean people will agree with you, and absent a guideline, they don't have to, even in response to a polite request. This seems to be a corollary of Fæ's comment above: Zero policy/guideline links = Nothing to discuss. Mathglot (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I've repeated my request for considerate language because each reply seemed to miss it—and seemed strangely instead to accuse me of being inconsiderate in making this request.

There appear to be 12 reliable sources in this article stating that targets of the word "terf" object to its application. Four of them include the self-ID "gender critical". I think it's excessive to paste them here, yet I'll oblige.

So, again, I merely ask we each consider avoiding calling writers "terfs" when possible, please. It comes across as biased and dehumanizing. Ignore the request if you will, I don't intend to report or hound or whatever anyone regarding this plea. Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The thing in question here is not whether TERFs object to being called TERFs. They clearly do, and nobody here is claiming that they don't, but that's not how Wikipedia decides the proper term for a group of people. The issue at hand here is whether reliable sources call them "TERFs" or "gender critical feminists", and what reliable sources overwhelmingly do is either to call them TERFs or to spell out "trans-exclusionary radical feminists". So, this group of people is trans-exclusionary radical feminists on Wikipedia whether or not they object to being called that. If this wasn't the rule, Wikipedia would have to call neo-Nazis "identitarians" or whatever other euphemism they're using these days. LokiTheLiar (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the connotations of the term "TERF" and the adjective "trans-exclusionary" can really be quite different. "TERF" has been deemed pejorative by many of those to whom it is applied. However, "trans-exclusionary" is objectively accurate for those who situate themselves within feminist movements and who attempt to construct a requirement for belonging based on some version of biology rather than gender. So not only is the term sourced, it is also accurate from a NPOV. As far as the self-designation "gender critical" is concerned, it strikes me as one of those transparently misleading terms like "white nationalist" that simply obfuscate the well-understood, conventional labels of the positions concerned, for transparent political reasons. In looking at "gender critical" literature I have never seen anything written that was critical about gender, but more a kind of defiant gender fundamentalism. It is certainly a FRINGE position, in any case. Newimpartial (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Feminist Current and counterpunch aren't WP:RS. ShimonChai (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, not reliable sources. Both removed from the article and should remain removed unless a case is presented for specific inclusion as is reasonable for any extremist publication or publication that promotes conspiracy theories. --Fæ (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

User:A145GI15I95 wrote,

I've repeated my request for considerate language because each reply seemed to miss it...

You seem to confuse other editors ignoring or disagreeing with you, with unaccountably "missing" your repeated requests, and now you've repeated yourself again. In the hope, I suppose, that if you repeat yourself politely enough times, other editors will finally see the light and will either agree, or feel obliged to go along with your request if only due to an abundance of politeness. In reading the responses here, however, have you considered the possibility that other editors do indeed understand your repeated requests and have understood you from the very beginning, they simply don't agree with you?

When challenged about your irrelevant comments about "phobia" since no one had mentioned the word (other than you) up to that point, you said,

the word has been used twice above...

and you cited two examples, but neither example uses the word phobia. Do you need an explanation why phobia and transphobia have different meanings, and why you cannot always define a compound word from its constituent parts? It's already been explained to you why various compound words like homophobia or xenophobia are not phobias but prejudices. Later, you said:

"Gender-critical radical feminism" is a widely used term (7,220,000 results on Google).

Contrary to your assertion, "Gender-critical radical feminism" is not a widely used term. I don't blame you for thinking that your search phrase has millions of results, because most people have no idea what the search results estimate value means, especially for multi-word searches, and would probably agree with you. Being somewhat of an expert on search, however, I can tell you that the actual number of de-duped results is closer to 55. I don't want to derail this discussion with a long explanation about this, but if you want to prove it to yourself, search again with your phrase inside double quotes, and "next" through the result pages to page 5 (and possibly 6) of the results. If that doesn't satisfy you, ask at my Talk page.

With respect to trans men, you said:

"TIF" means "trans-identifying female"

quoting a fringe group; and

I'm not promoting either view, I'm asking we attempt to respect both views. Is it not our policy to honor self-identity?

If you say you are respecting both views, where one view is a major (probably the major) view, and the other is a small minority ("trans men are 'TIFs' "), then that is WP:FALSEBALANCE, and it is the kind of thing that groups that hold extreme fringe views typically try to do in order to promote themselves as equals at the table.

As for the second part of your comment, and despite the sly, back-handed appeal to MOS:IDENTITY, the quick answer is "no": we do not allow groups to identify themselves if it goes against what reliable sources say. Fringe and extremist groups often try to do this; as one example, consider the American College of Pediatricians, which call themselves a professional association, but reliable sources call them an anti-LGBT advocacy group, and therefore, so do we. We do not honor their self-identity, because the sources do not. Mathglot (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

No need to ping me, Mathglot, please, as I'm obviously following this page.

You seem to confuse other editors ignoring or disagreeing with you, with unaccountably "missing" your repeated requests

No, I've been answering unfounded inferences of trolling, phobia, and bigotry.

In the hope, I suppose, that if you repeat yourself politely enough times, other editors will finally see the light and will either agree, or feel obliged to go along with your request if only due to an abundance of politeness.

No, I specifically said this is a request, not a demand. I've obliged, however, to respond to demands.

When challenged about your irrelevant comments about "phobia" since no one had mentioned the word (other than you) up to that point

No, the first person to use the word in this thread was LokiTheLiar, on 21:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC).

but neither example uses the word phobia

Yes, they did, and I already gave those timestamps when this was first contested.

phobia and transphobia have different meanings…homophobia or xenophobia are not phobias but prejudices

This isn't true. I've already stated that they are different, related terms. Phobia is an extreme or irrational fear or aversion,[5] prejudice is a preconceived opinion.[6]

"Gender-critical radical feminism" is not a widely used term

It is, relative to this context.

most people have no idea what the search results estimate value means

I cited initial Google results as a cursory indicator.

Being somewhat of an expert on search

I prefer humility.

the actual number of de-duped results is 55

And for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist", it is 119, not a huge number either.

I don't want to derail this discussion

Then why do you?

if you want to prove it to yourself

I seek not to prove myself. Again, I merely request consideration.

quoting a fringe group; … If you say you are respecting both views … typically try to do in order to promote

You misunderstand, and this is why I repeat myself. I presented the two terms ftm/tif not to promote the latter term, but to show an example of two words for one group that each side insists on using, yet each side insists the other is being rude.

sly, back-handed appeal

This is just plain impolite, uncivil, and not assuming good faith. Please re-read the top of this page.

It's amazingly bizarre the energy and space put into dogpiling, point-by-point, inferences, and lies against me, when I merely commented on another editor's repeated usage of a word that is known to be considered a slur by the targets of the word and by reliable sources, and I asked we each (myself included) take note to consider more courteous language where possible. I expected merely an acknowledgment of the request, not such resistance and personal attack. A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

A145G, let's put this simply. "FTM" is a term used by a significant number of people to label their own gender identity. "TIF" is a label applied to those people by others specifically to deny the key aspect of that identity, i.e. as a form of erasure. TERF is a label used by a significant number of people as a label for others to characterize a political ideology. "Gender critical feminist" is a term developed by some of those committed to that ideology, to label their position in a more positive light. Your attempt to run these labelling issues in parallel, implying that the same norms of politeness should apply in each case, is an example of false parallelism that runs in interesting tandem with the FALSEBALANCE that characterizes some of our articles on these topics. Newimpartial (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I am removing references to "gender critical" from the article. As very succinctly explained above, its inclusion gives undue weight to a fringe group and shouldn't be there. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 04:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Such a large deletion of reliably sourced content would warrant a new discussion thread. This thread is about a request to reconsider possibly cavalier usage of the word "terf" on this talk page. A145GI15I95 (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Such a deletion does not warrant a new discussion thread. Although this thread began with your asking people not to use the term "terf," it is very clearly consensus in this thread that "gender critical" is not an acceptable substitution. I will ask you to not revert this deletion again, as your reasoning for continued usage of the term is obviously WP:IJDLI. The prefernece for "gender critical"/"gender critical radical feminist"/GCRF/etc. is an opinion that you hold, not the most widely used terminology for that group, no matter how many citations you append to it. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 04:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Mooeena, I realize you like to follow me and delete what you perceive to be my content. What you're pushing now is a new topic. Our fellow editors who stopped following this thread deserve to weigh in on this sudden and broad change. Please honor bold (you deleted), revert (I restored), discuss (you're welcome to start a new discussion). A145GI15I95 (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion is in the minority. Every person in this thread but you (if I've counted correctly) disagrees with usage of "gender critical." Continuing to add the term back into the article against the advice of your fellow editors is edit warring. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 05:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Quotes from this section on "Gender critical"

"Gender critical"/trans-exclusionary feminism is a fringe view within feminism. Major feminist media organizations all use the term TERF, and many explicitly argue against the term "gender critical" because they feel it gives cover to bigots. -LokiTheLiar The false equivalence of repeating "there are two sides" when really this means that on one side we have reliable sources related to TERFs, and on the other 'sides' we have anti-trans stuff you are lobbying for. Insisting that Wikipedia accepts "GCRF" as a real word, is not to "honor each group's self-ID" -Fæ As far as the self-designation "gender critical" is concerned, it strikes me as one of those transparently misleading terms like "white nationalist" that simply obfuscate the well-understood, conventional labels of the positions concerned, for transparent political reasons. ... It is certainly a FRINGE position, in any case. -Newimpartial "Gender-critical radical feminism" is not a widely used term. and the quick answer is "no": we do not allow groups to identify themselves if it goes against what reliable sources say. Fringe and extremist groups often try to do this; -Mathglot As very succinctly explained above, its inclusion gives undue weight to a fringe group and shouldn't be there. -Myself.

(edit conflict)A145G, you don't get to police the scope of threads, and anyway, you opened with, 'Please note that persons and groups whom some call "terfs" or "trans-exclusive/exclusionary" rebuke both terms, and instead call themselves "gender critical".' That claim already raises the question whether the views of such people can be reliably sourced and whether they are FRINGE. Also, have you never read WP:BOOMERANG? Newimpartial (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Since I have been watching one thing that has become apparent in the talk page is the lack of sources being presented alongside arguments. All of our perspectives are shaped in some way by our environment, culture, upbringing and peer groups. No matter how sure we are that we are being neutral this will influence how we think the topic should be covered. The way around this is to look at mainstream, reliable secondary sources that cover the mainstream feminist view of transgender and use them to base the proportioning of these views within the article. We can expand out with other more primary sources, but the general balance of the article should reflect the secondary sources. This is the only way to determine due. So far only one or two editors are bringing these types of sources to the table. Statements using fringe, consensus, most, facts, undue etc don't really mean much without the secondary sources to back them up. AIRcorn (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Heartily agree. The only tiny quibble I have with your statement, is "...to look at mainstream, reliable secondary sources that cover the mainstream feminist view of transgender...". Yes to all of that, except mainstream. We don't need to stick with mainstream sources. If by "mainstream views" you meant non-fringe, then yes; if it means "majority views", then no. We should present the majority and minority views in proportion to their prevalence in reliable secondary sources irrespective whether they're mainstream or not, and we may ignore views of a tiny minority (or relegate them to a footnote). I think we probably agree on this, but didn't want anyone to misinterpret you, so this is probably merely a clarification. Mathglot (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Also agreed. I do have a clarification to ask for, though, which is that I'm a little unclear which sources exactly we are gathering. From a quick Googling, I can find only a few secondary sources which are not opinion pieces, such as this NBC News article, this Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry, and some position statements of feminist organizations like this one and this one.

However, other than those, the vast majority of the sources I can find are opinion pieces by trans-inclusive feminists. Many of them are from quite mainstream news organizations (such as the New York Times) or by prominent feminists (such as Julia Serano) or both, but they are all editorials. To what extent should we use these sources? I think that it would be somewhat of a waste not to use them at all, but I'm unsure of whether we should count a trans-inclusive feminist describing trans-exclusive feminism as fringe as evidence that it is fringe, or not. Similarly, I'm unsure of whether we should take a feminist theorist using the word "TERF" in the NYT opinion section as evidence that the term "TERF" is widely accepted or not. LokiTheLiar (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Loki, thanks for trying to keep us on the straight-and-narrow with respect to sources. But don't forget, that in an article specifically entitled "Feminist views on transgender topics", editorials, opinion pieces, and the like are perfectly valid as far as stating a view. Of course, if we want to include a statistic or an assertion about something factual, such as what proportion of feminists are trans-inclusive, say, then we would either need a reliable, peer-reviewed source and not an opinion piece if we want to state it in in Wikipedia's voice, or else, we could simply attribute it to the writer. Mathglot (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

A search on JSTOR shows few relevant matches. I do find "Constructive Feminism: Women's Spaces and Women's Rights in the American City" (Daphne Spain, 2016) defines and uses "TERF" in a section on the value of women-only spaces, p.169. --Fæ (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposals To Rework

On the DRN, sche suggested breaking out the discussion into concrete proposals about particular parts of the article. I think this is a very good idea, and so I'm making this section with several subsections to attempt to get discussion going on particular issues with the article: LokiTheLiar (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

General Structure

Currently, the article is organized very messily. It has a few sections on particular areas of dispute, a section on an overarching position (transfeminism) and a section on conflicts. All of these are somewhat repetitive, and inadvertantly make trans-exclusive feminism to appear more prominent than it is because it appears from multiple different people across the article, which obscures the fact that it is a single coherent ideology whose adherents all largely believe the same thing about trans people. In my proposed rewrite I re-organized the article into sections based on overarching position (trana-exclusive radical feminism, trans feminism, other), and I still think that something like this is the best way to do it. Failing that I would at least strongly suggest that the article should be reorganized so that each section is parallel to the others (they should be either all ideologies or all topics of debate). LokiTheLiar (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I do think the current structure is weird, a hybrid of sections on generic "feminist exclusion of trans women", "feminist support", and "trans feminism", and then also sections on specific issues cis feminists support / exclude trans people based on, like "differences in socialization and experience", or support or oppose trans people accessing, like "sex reassignment surgery". But the non-issue-specific sections are needed because so much opposition and support is generic (see how many people cited in the "feminist exclusion of trans women" section don't (in the quoted/reported/RS-covered portions) base their positions in anything in particular like "differences in socialization and experience"), and while e.g. Feminist views on pornography puts specific anti-porn arguments into (or as subsections of) a generic "anti-porn feminism" section, this article presents multiple points of view on some of the issues (e.g. that socialization differences are vs aren't distinguishing or meaningful), so it would be hard to apply a structure like that here and remove the issue-specific sections without introducing more repetition. (Although you made an admirable attempt, I don't think it succeeded: simply moving where the "Patricia Elliot argues that this perspective..." sentence was, for example, made it unintelligible, as if the "this perspective" referred to was transfeminism. While that could be fixed by rewriting, I'm not sure introducing a response to something in an entirely different section from the thing being responded to is the clearest approach.) Basically, I agree that the current structure is weird, but I'm not sure how to improve it. :/ (I will say that the "feminist and trans issues" section seems like a wastebasket section for a two-sentence quotation of Steinem that no-one managed to fit anywhere else, which we ought to be able to improve upon somehow...) -sche (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and there's also some consolidation that needs to be done, with Steinem in two places currently, one short section entitled Feminist and trans issues, and another called Sex reassignment surgery. Then again, discussion of Dworkin's support in the SRS section, as well as lower down in Feminist support.

The other thing I find odd, is that many articles which discuss evolving views on some topic, especially one where the views evolve as quickly as on trangender topics, often have an arc of history that is easiest to comprehend when it is presented chronologically. But that doesn't seem to be the case here, and the jumping back and forth among the decades from one section to another, makes it hard for me to have a global picture of the evolution, or even see whether there is a trend or not. There are other ways to present things than chronological; thematic, for example, but in that case, perhaps there should be a section "Evolution of views" or some such, specifically to provide that overarching view of chronological development over time. Mathglot (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I like the idea of changing it to chronological order. Does anyone object to me rearranging the article that way? I want to do some rearranging because before we do it there's not a lot of point in editing the subsections. LokiTheLiar (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Too many lists and too few summaries

As the article currently stands, most of the sections are lists of opinions of specific feminists, or incidents. I think it would be more informative to describe the trans-exclusive position as a whole, and the trans-inclusive position as a whole, rather than simply listing things individual feminists have said about some particular topic. E.g. instead of listing Janice Raymond, Mary Daly, Germaine Greer, and Julie Bindel separately, I would say "Trans-exclusive radical feminists such as Janice Raymond, Mary Daly, [etc] believe [such-and-such]. One influential work within trans-exclusive radical feminism is The Transsexual Empire by Janice Raymond, which [...]" LokiTheLiar (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Citation issues

Over-citation of trans-exclusive radical feminists, and of radical feminists in general

In each of the lists in the current topics, there are disproportionately more trans-exclusive citations than there should be under WP:UNDUE. When the sex-reassignment section cites Andrea Dworkin, Gloria Steinem, Janice Raymond, Mary Daly, Germaine Greer, and Julie Bindel, that immediately causes me to wonder why we are citing those last four people separately. They believe largely the same thing because they share largely the same ideology (trans-exclusive radical feminism) which has a single position on this issue, so it's my opinion that that overall ideology should only be referred to once. Furthermore, in this list five out of these six people are radical feminists when that itself is a matter of active debate within feminism. I wouldn't be opposed to a section on positions within radical feminism, but portraying positions within radical feminism as if they're the only positions in feminism is clearly not correct. LokiTheLiar (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Under-citation of trans feminists, trans-inclusive feminists, and modern feminists in general

That same list causes a few more questions in me which hopefully go some way towards fixing the citation problem.

1. Where is Julia Serano or other trans feminists? Why is the most trans inclusive voice in that list Andrea Dworkin writing in the 70s? This problem plagues the entire article: trans-positive views are shoved into a single small section when by their prevalence they ought to be the majority of the article.
2. Where are the modern feminists? The feminists on that list appear to have been chosen either because they're trans-exclusive (Raymond, Daly, Greer, Bindel) or because they were major figures in feminism at the height of the second wave (Dworkin, Steinem). But it's been a long time since second wave feminism, and there are now many modern feminist activists who ought to appear in a list of opinions of prominent feminists if we are going to be including that sort of list in the article. LokiTheLiar (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that may reflect the nature of feminist commentary on the subject, which had one peak in the 70s, and then went mostly dormant for a while, before popping back up a couple decades later as transgender awareness grew. I believe that Transcamp at Michfest had a lot to do with it, but it wasn't the only thing. But as far as views, clearly Serano needs to be there, as do many others. I think part of the problem is something Flyer alluded to earlier; most feminists are merely accepting, and it's just human nature that people who are against something, will be the most vocal; you don't have people marching in downtown in huge parades saying what a great job society is doing keeping the lights on, and having the snow removed promptly. Feminists who are happy with trans-inclusion, never thought it necessary to write about what a great thing it is to be trans-inclusive, until someone came along with the opposite attitude, and needed to be responded to. There is a vocal minority on this subject, and as Flyer already stated, per WP:DUEWEIGHT they are going to get an amount of coverage here proportionate to their writings, even if that's disproportionate to the views of a larger, feminist public that isn't writing. Mathglot (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

It's worth noting a lot of the people fighting against transphobia in 70s feminism were other feminists. They don't get as much modern coverage, but they are present in books that discuss histories of the movement the. Andrea Long Chu covers a bit about how this part of the history is often elided in modern retellings in this essay, particularly around the Beth Elliott incident. I've noticed also several big feminist figures like Angela Davis, bell hooks, Kimberle Crenshaw, Roxane Gay etc have spoken against trans exclusion but they don't get as much press write up, likely since more controversial takes get more attention. Rab V (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

In addition to what Rab V said, it's not hard to find position statements from large feminist organizations. For example, NOW resolved in 2018 to explicitly support trans inclusivity and had previously supported pro-LGBT causes including pro-trans causes. I think that this is a reasonably good proxy for what the "average feminist" believes in the absence of actual polls of feminists (which unfortunately don't appear to exist, as far as I can tell). LokiTheLiar (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to Mathglot for understanding what I mean about WP:Due weight. That's it exactly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

False balance in individual statements

This is related to the issues above. When the article says things like "Some feminists such as Judith Butler and Jack Halberstam believe that transgender and transsexual people challenge repressive gender norms and that transgender politics are fully compatible with feminism, while others such as Janice Raymond and Sheila Jeffreys believe that transgender and transsexual people uphold and reinforce sexist gender roles and the gender binary." that makes it appear that Judith Butler and Janice Raymond are two equal sides in a debate. However, in fact Butler's position is much more widely held in academia than Raymond's, and outside of academia, positions such as that of Julia Serano, a well-known transfeminist activist, are more common than either.

Instead of the line above I would write something like: "Most feminists are inclusive of trans people, and believe that transgender politics are fully compatible with feminism[several citations here]. However, a minority position believes that transgender people uphold and reinforce [etc]." LokiTheLiar (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

As above, it's not about what position is more widely held, but rather, which one is attested more in reliable sources. That may skew against public opinion, but that's the way WP:DUEWEIGHT works, for better or worse. Mathglot (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

That skips any potential for a 'walled garden' effect among notable academics and public facing academic pundits. There is scope in this article to discuss and distinguish between the balance of views in academic papers (i.e. verifiably peer reviewed) and the balance of most widely published op-ed views in, say, the EU or US largest newspapers and magazines. --Fæ (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot, I'm aware of that, which is why I said we should put a bunch of sources after that claim. We already have a few sources like this Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article which fairly clearly backs up the point that trans-positive feminist views are common and have become increasingly more common over time. I'm reasonably sure that if we had someone who could get past the paywall on academic articles we could find more (so, for example, I'm reasonably sure this academic piece is trans-positive even though I can't access it).

There's also stuff like position statements from large feminist organizations: for example, NOW resolved explicitly to support trans inclusivity in 2018, and have said in a previous resolution that "the issues that are included in NOW’s multi-issue structure include ... women who identify as straight, lesbian, bi, or transgender" (my emphasis). This might not technically be a reliable source for what the majority of feminists believe, but we can certainly say "The largest feminist organization in the United States, NOW, has resolved explicitly to support trans inclusivity." LokiTheLiar (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Alright, based on some of the stuff we've discussed here I went ahead and rewrote the intro. Is the new intro acceptable to people? The next change I want to make is some sort of restructure, and we haven't really talked about that enough to make that kind of sweeping change, but supposing the intro is acceptable I would like to rewrite other sections on the page in a similar fashion. LokiTheLiar (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments in the #Recent changes to the lead and drafting section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lead and drafting

Regarding this, "the largest feminist group in the United States" needs a WP:Secondary source. We are not supposed to just take their word for it that they are the largest feminist group in the United States. See WP:YESPOV and WP:REDFLAG. One might also argue that it is WP:Undue to prioritize a group from the United States or another country in the lead. But then again, the vast majority of the sourcing on this topic has a United States origin (second-wave feminism) or is centered on the United States. So maybe it's fitting, but, per WP:Lead, the lead is meant to summarize the article and should generally not include anything not covered lower. And that piece still needs a secondary source.

Feminists who have argued that transgender and transsexual people uphold and reinforce sexist gender roles and the gender binary are not all radical feminists or are all called TERFs. In other words, the "reinforcing gender roles" argument has been questioned or argued to some degree by feminists who are not radical and by some trans people as well. Some trans women and trans men have made it a point to challenge the gender binary because they are expected to behave in a manner, and wear clothing, that is stereotypically feminine or masculine. In other words, they are expected to "behave like a woman"/"behave like a man" and "dress like a woman"/"dress like a man." So I made this edit.

As for having included "Judith Butler and Jack Halberstam believe that transgender and transsexual people challenge repressive gender norms and that transgender politics are fully compatible with feminism" in the lead, it wasn't really a false balance matter to have that alongside the "uphold and reinforce sexist gender roles and the gender binary" piece. This is because these are central points of the debate (well, the "fully compatible with feminism" piece more than the "challenge repressive gender norms" piece), covered quite thoroughly in the literature. In the #Under-citation of trans feminists, trans-inclusive feminists, and modern feminists in general section above, Mathglot understood what I was stating about WP:Due weight.

Lastly, as noted at the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard, I am still working on a draft for this article. I have access to sources that others do not. This means more academic-based sourcing, and not just relying on media sources, which are mainly opinion pieces. I'm not going to rush the draft. And since it appears that LokiTheLiar does not want to wait for the draft and is "a bit" skeptical of it, I will likely need to incorporate changes made to this article in the interim into the draft I'm working on. That's more work on my part, but I understand that editors shouldn't feel like they can't work on an article in the meantime. I can't promise that I'm going to keep everything that is seen in the current state of the article. But if something is removed from the current version, I might re-add it or retain it unless there is WP:Consensus to exclude it. For anyone wondering why I don't work on the draft out in the open, which also allows others to work on the draft with me, I typically work on drafts alone, and I don't like being on Wikipedia as much as I used to in years past. This is because of the number of contentious topics I work on or mainly just watch. So being on Wikipedia more often than I would like just to work on this draft means that I will be involved with other articles at the same time, consistently being pulled away from the draft. It will also mean WP:Notifications for whatever. So I prefer to work on the draft alone without distractions. But, like I noted, I will post it to my sandbox when I am done and then here on the talk page for review. So others can state what what they like or don't like about it, or what about it they feel can be improved. Before I post what I've done, it might also be best for some here to work on a public draft of the article, which will better help editors work out things before they are implemented. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Can we drop "transgender and transsexual" and consistently use "transgender"? I am aware that people writing in the late 20th century were using "transsexual", but I do not think there is any logical reason for the article itself to emphasize "transsexual" when transgender is the modern and most widely accepted term for all types of transgender people. Emphasising the two words comes over as if some slightly offensive point is being made about surgery, which is a distraction as the sources are not explicitly making the distinction (especially the pre-1990s sources). --Fæ (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks glaringly poor practice to start the first section with "Some feminists argue", just because a journalist in the Washington Post used those exact words two years ago; we are not obliged to cut and paste from other publications. It would at least be more encyclopaedic to start with "Feminist authors such as X and Y have argued". --Fæ (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

One footnote that sources a long quote, just says "Hill et al. 2002". Without a link to the actual book (and preferably a page number), this is meaningless. Hill et al. is not explained in another section. --Fæ (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

There are a lot of highly selective quotes. This is worrying as it is a back door to including radical or offensive statements with hardly any context. I suggest the number of quotes is trimmed down to quotes that have been widely cited or at least requoted by journalists as part of the public discourse. We should be avoiding extremist bloggers or extremist pundits who are simply known for being controversialists on the topic of transgender rights, and preferably stick to notable people with Wikipedia articles to link to. For example although Germaine Greer had a lively career as a radical feminist pundit on TV shows ten years ago, this was mainly because she would be deliberately provocative in her language, such as her "d**k chopped off" comment, not because she moved discussion forward or wrote intelligently about the topic of transgender rights. So, let's be choosy rather than sensationalist about who is worth quoting and which quote illuminates the encyclopaedic article rather than taking it on tangents. --Fæ (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Fae, I would be fine with sticking with "transgender" consistently. That stated, as noted in both the Transgender and Transsexual articles, the latter term is more commonly associated with sex reassignment therapy, and some transgender people prefer to be called transsexual. Also, some of the older text on this topic emphasizes "transsexual." If we are going to mention The Transsexual Empire, like we currently do, mentioning and linking "transsexual" somewhere in the article (as early on as we mention The Transsexual Empire) is useful to readers.

Regarding "some," see Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics/Archive 2#Hidden text vs template. We've stuck with "some" for that piece in that section because the source specifically uses that wording. In this case, stating something like "feminist authors such as X and Y have argued" would be misleading WP:In-text attribution because it would make it seem like only that author -- Samantha Schmidt -- has stated this or as though it's just an argument from her. We shouldn't state "Samantha Schmidt has argued that some feminists argue that trans women cannot fully be women because they were assigned male at birth and experienced some degree of male privilege." It's not just an argument. It's a fact that "some feminists argue that trans women cannot fully be women because they were assigned male at birth and experienced some degree of male privilege." Notice that she doesn't even state "some radical feminists." We could change it to "Samantha Schmidt stated that some feminists argue that trans women cannot fully be women because they were assigned male at birth and experienced some degree of male privilege." But that still makes it seem like something only Schmidt stated, when, in actuality, she's reporting on a fact. WP:In-text attribution advises not to use in-text attribution in a misleading way.

Regarding "extremist bloggers or extremist pundits who are simply known for being controversialists on the topic of transgender rights," if they are notable on the topic, they should be mentioned no matter how extremist they are. Germaine Greer should undoubtedly be mentioned on this topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, let's default to "transgender" as the general term. I am aware that "transsexual" is used in many biographies and articles, however even when used as a self descriptor, writers have gradually swapped over to 'transgender' in the last decade. Although we are personally aware of this shift in language both medically and socially, this is true for authors, for example Julia Serano wrote "Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity" in 2007 but in 2016 published "Outspoken: A Decade of Transgender Activism and Trans Feminism". There is no special need for the Wikipedia article to repeat out of date terminology, when this was not the point being made by the original author. For example in the 1940s gay fiction authors were still writing about uranians, but by the 1980s all of those books and articles were classed as "gay" fiction rather than making an artificial distinction about a ideal of a 'third sex' when the reality was that this was code for 'homosexuals'.

I disagree with use of "some feminists", just because Schmidt wrote it. If it is really needed in the article then it does need to become a quote. Use of "some" is just a glaring hole in the logic, it's like saying "some" homosexuals object to same sex marriage, it may be true, it's just not an encyclopaedic way of sticking to facts and risks giving the appearance of false equivalency.

I get your point about notability, let's park this for the moment with the general agreement that quotes must be used selectively. I think the "d**ks" quote by Greer is a good counter-example, it is sensationalist, tangential, out of date, and would not help make the article more encyclopaedic. That same way of analysing relevance and notability needs to be applied throughout. If an 'extremist' writer has no Wikipedia article, then I see no special reason to start quoting them. If anyone thinks a writer is especially important in the topic of feminism or trans-exclusive radical feminism, then they should start by creating a Wikipedia biography for them, not start by inserting quotes in this article. --Fæ (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm just stating that it is useful for readers if we include "transsexual" somewhere in the article, not just when The Transsexual Empire is mentioned (as in only because we state "The Transsexual Empire"), and that "transsexual" has a specific meaning...which is why some transgender people and enough medical sources (which might alternatively state "transsexualism") still use it. Transgender can be a broad term, after all. Transvestite is also considered an outdated term, but some transgender people still use it. And tranny? Well, we see what the Tranny article currently states. The transgender community keeps trying to get transgender people (not just society as a whole) to stop using that term. But, yeah, feel free to do the consistency thing with "transgender" (except for maybe the cases where "transsexual" is emphasized; of course any quotes using "transsexual" shouldn't be changed).

In most cases, I avoid stuff like "some people." This is per WP:Weasel words. But WP:Weasel words is clear that it's okay to use the "some" wording in a case like this. And, again, the Schmidt piece is not simply an opinion. If it was a WP:YESPOV matter, I would agree with using in-text attribution in this case. That stated, until another reliable source is added to support it (which is something I will look to do in my draft), I guess it's not too bad to go with "Samantha Schmidt stated." Regarding the "some homosexuals object to same-sex marriage" aspect? I would state that in Wikipedia's voice (replacing "homosexuals" with "gay men and lesbians") because it's a fact. I would not attribute it via text to one writer or a few writers as though it's according to them; that is misleading in-text attribution. I always avoid misleading in-text attribution. WP:Weasel words and Template:Who are both clear that words like "some" and "most" are not automatically weasel words or unencylopedic. They are used all the time in perfectly fine text, including on Wikipedia.

As for trimming the quotes, it's not just a WP:Notable matter or a "widely cited or at least requoted by journalists as part of the public discourse" matter. Wikipedia quotes people who don't have Wikipedia articles all the time. Above, you are arguing to quote Schmidt. We should also stick to quotes by WP:Reliable sources (not what we personally consider reliable) that improve the text by relaying an important fact, point or countering another point. After all, we are dealing with people's opinions in additions to facts. If it's a fact, we should be cautious of countering that with an opinion. And, of course, we need to be mindful of WP:Due. We also can't go by our opinion on who is an "extremist" writer. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Glad to see that an Encyclopædia Britannica source was added to cover "the largest feminist group in the United States." As for preferring a secondary source, WP:PSTS states, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." And WP:TERTIARY states, "Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources."

Regarding this, although "gender critical feminists" doesn't need to be in the lead, the "although they object to that term" piece should be there since we have a "TERF" section in the article and the objection aspect is a significant aspect of the topic.

Regarding this, it's not needed, but it is a The Guardian piece and she's specically critcizing the incident. That she's a radical feminist blogger who likely agrees with Bellos's statement doesn't mean that her view should be excluded.

Regarding this, that Adichie received criticism for her comment and she responded to it should be mentioned. When it comes to the entire Adichie piece, it's not specifically about feminism. But she is a feminist, and this article is titled "Feminist views on transgender topics." So that is why her view on trans women was included by someone. She stated that the American Left was "creating its own decline" and was "very cannibalistic". Politics obviously partly concern feminism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Julie Bindel, 2007

Trimmed the Julie Bindel interview. This was a one line mention of a complex case from 2007. If someone thinks this case is important, then it needs more references than a op-ed interview, preferably sources that more fully report on the censure of psychiatrist Russell Reid rather than a single non-neutral source making a case against the availability of gender corrective surgery, relying on reported events from over two decades ago.

Should anyone doubt that Julie Bindel is an anti-trans writer, they should read "Gender benders, beware". Including Bindel's quotes or references without context or balance with direct counter view points makes this article non-neutral. --Fæ (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of whatever anti-trans views she has, that piece was not needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Retitle section? Criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints & non-neutrality

The section is almost all commentary which criticizes the criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints, not as the title indicates the actual criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints. Consequently the section is more a defence of trans-exclusionary views, including the most notably offensive views, the example being the long defensive quotes from Linda Bellos with zero quotes from anyone being "critical". To be accurate, the title should change to "Defence of trans-exclusionary viewpoints".

To help indicate there is a problem with neutral presentation of facts, I have tagged the article with POV. I believe this should remain until the article is actually balanced in content, not just by giving an impression of balance through choice of subtitles. --Fæ (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

To my recollection, the original idea was that the section was about how people who hold trans-exclusive views have been responded to, criticized and e.g. disinvitend from events (as Bellos was). Other people added responses to those responses, leaving us with what's there now. It's clear the original idea behind the title is not clear anymore, since you're not the first person to bring this up. I'm not sure replacing "Criticism" with "Defence" would be better. Possibly something like "Responses to trans-exclusionary views"? But I think that, as another possibility besides retitling, we should also consider simply dispersing the section's contents into the article's other sections. And of course, we should consider how many responses-to-responses to include; the article is, as others have said, bogged down in quite a lot of in-the-weeds blow-by-blow recounting of minor incidents as opposed to . . . feminist views. -sche (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps move the "criticism of" subsection content up into the "general" subsection content, then edit length down, and/or re-organize by chrono or themes, and/or re-split "general" into new subsections? There's some overlap with this concern and above at General_Structure. A145GI15I95 (talk) 06:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

You mean stop trying to have a balanced article, and just present more views and quotes from TERF pundits, rather than from those that counter those hateful views?

I have retitled the section to "Trans-exclusionary viewpoints", until the section is rewritten to quote or summarize actual criticism, rather than just more quotes from writers famous for anti-trans views, it needs to be made clear how this article remains non-neutral. --Fæ (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

You mean stop trying to have a balanced article—No, I meant what I said. Please stop assuming bad faith. Other editors have commented that the article and this section lack structure and appear to have outdated section titles. I was merely brainstorming and trying to support your position. A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the edit to change "Criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints" to "Trans-exclusionary viewpoints", the latter title makes it seem like that is the only section with trans-exclusionary viewpoints; the material above it is also about trans-exclusionary viewpoints. The material in the retitled section, however, is specifically about criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints. That it has rebuttals of feminists who heve been criticized does not make it any less about the criticism they have recieved. In my draft, the material will not be presented in either way, though. Also, I don't think that "Responses to trans-exclusionary views" works either since the non-exclusionary views in the article are partly responses to trans-exclusionary views.

I don't see that the article needed to be tagged with Template:POV when it's already tagged with Template:Undue stating "This article may lend undue weight to radical feminist views on transgender topics." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The second POV tagged seemed excessive to me. My opinion has been that the article makes an effort at neutrality, but that it leans in favor of the opposite side named, not in favor of the side currently claimed by the two tags. I've attempted to expressly this gently, but it's not been received well. A145GI15I95 (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I feel like we should break this off into yet another section, but if we're gonna be talking about the templates I would like to register my opinion that both of them are in fact necessary. Given my past comments on this talk page, I don't think this should come as a surprise to anyone; I'm mostly saying it to make sure no future editor confuses a lack of comment on the topic for consensus to remove them. LokiTheLiar (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Reliability of TransAdvocate

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § TransAdvocate

Discussion moved. Please participate at the link above. Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Cite checks

Hi, I'm just dropping in to say that the quote attributed to "Hill et al. (2002)" is one hundred percent phony; a Wikipedia editor wrote it in 2005 in Transfeminism, citing this paper by Hill, and an IP stuck quotation marks around it in 2009 and attributed it instead to this other work by Hill et al; I don't see the quote in either. Cheers, gnu57 22:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The paragraph about Bindel's "Gender Benders, Beware" piece really needs better sourcing: nothing there now supports the sentences "Many considered the language used to be offensive and demeaning. The Guardian received more than two hundred letters of complaint from transgender people, doctors, therapists, academics and others." In the "Complaints focussed on..." sentence, the part about the cartoon is sourced to a (copyright violating?) link to a scan of the page itself and to a list-serv post by one particular advocate objecting; the part about the disparaging tone is sourced to the Bindel piece itself. Cheers, gnu57 23:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/aug/01/mytransmission (Bindel, 2007)

In 2004 I wrote a column in the Guardian Weekend magazine complaining about the fact that a male-to-female transsexual had sued a rape crisis centre in Canada for refusing to let her counsel rape victims, on the grounds that it was a "women only" service. I had, in my piece, referred to one transsexual as a "man in a dress".

The then readers' editor, having received 200 letters of complaint, wrote, "[This column] abused an already abused minority that the Guardian might have been expected to protect."

In hindsight, the sarcasm I used in my column was misplaced and insensitive ("Imagine a world inhabited just by transsexuals," I wrote, complaining about the way many transsexuals parody traditional masculine and feminine styles of dress. "It would look like the set of Grease."). However, the hundreds of angry emails I received, and the levels of vitriol contained within them, made me realise just how much of a sacred cow - at least among us liberals - the issue had become.

As a result of the article I was firmly branded "transphobic" by the community. No other topic I have addressed in this newspaper has attracted such fury, even though I regularly express controversial opinions.

--Fæ (talk) 07:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

May I ask please why we've a "better source needed" on her "vacuum hose / 501s" statement, when we've a link right there to her exact words? I've guessed this was a call for a second source, so I've added one and removed the tag. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hey A145GI15I95, the part of that I thought needed better sourcing was the "Complaints focused on". We know from Bindel's article that she wrote it, but not how people responded. The "My trans mission" piece that Fæ found is a good source for the fact that people found it offensive and wrote letters about it. I was still looking for other sources describing particular aspects of the Bindel article (like the vacuum hose remark) as objectionable—and I see that you've found one, so thanks for that. Cheers, gnu57 17:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the content also known as "tigtog" on the blog Hoyden About Town at Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics#The_term_"TERF", I don't see this username or blog name in the source. Is it necessary information? Thanks, A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

She links to her blog post in the Guardian article: [7]. Cheers, gnu57 23:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, regarding the deletion of citations from CounterPunch (this this diff), I see a handful of discussions that all seem to approve it (the most recent appears to be here). Do we have more recent info? A145GI15I95 (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the unsourced lines Following the Stonewall protest Stephen Whittle invited her to debate these issues again with Susan Stryker, an American academic and transsexual activist, in front of an audience at Manchester Metropolitan University on 12 December 2008. The debate was broadcast live on the internet.—they seem to give every possible detail about the debate except for the actual content and outcome. I looked for sources and found no substantial coverage beyond a few blogposts. Cheers, gnu57 00:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

I added the discretionary sanctions talk page notice to this page yesterday. For those unaware of recent Arbcom rulings, the relevant recent motion is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF#Motion:_Manning_naming_dispute_(February_2019). The most relevant part to this article is:

"For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning."

The article is a gender/transgender related article, and of interest for that reason. Clearly this article is controversial with respect to gender identity and is likely to continue to be a locus for disputes, as the discussion above demonstrates.

See the links in the notice, or refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Expectations. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Mention of "gender critical" in article

An editor seeks to scrub the article of the term "gender critical", claiming it to be fringe or undue.

"Gender critical" currently appears once in this article's content (…refer to themselves as "gender critical"…), the term "terf" currently appears thirteen times, for a ratio of 1:13.

The number of de-duped Google results for "gender critical" is 138, and the number of de-duped Google results for "terf" is 131, for a ratio of 1:1.

• https://www.google.com/search?q="gender+critical"&ei=kRy0XPj5Ms_Y-wSMt5bYCQ&start=130&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwi4hsHHtNHhAhVP7J4KHYybBZs4WhDy0wMIiQE&biw=1920&bih=982
• https://www.google.com/search?q="terf"&ei=gRy0XLKlLtDJ-gTHrojYCg&start=130&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwjy6eu_tNHhAhXQpJ4KHUcXAqs4WhDy0wMIgQE&biw=1920&bih=982

Wiki formatting stripped due to display error in URLS.

Googling more-specific wordings, such "gender-critical radical feminist" drops the hits to 68, and "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" drops to 117, which changes the ratio merely to 1:2.

• https://www.google.com/search?q="gender-critical+radical+feminist"&ei=Qh-0XOiEOsm5-wTMz5z4BA&start=60&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwjorY2Qt9HhAhXJ3J4KHcwnB084MhDw0wMIaQ&biw=1920&bih=982
• https://www.google.com/search?q="trans-exclusionary+radical+feminist"&ei=gR-0XO94ion6BL2smGg&start=110&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwivvdmtt9HhAhWKhJ4KHT0WBg04ZBDw0wMIhwE&biw=1920&bih=982

Wiki formatting stripped due to display error in URLS.

The mention of "gender critical" is supported by at least three reliable sources: Slate, Inside Higher Ed, and Bitch.

Given the reliability of sources, this mention isn't fringe. Given the more-even ratio of Google results versus our less-even ratio of article mentions, it isn't undue weight. A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

What is the proposed context in which this concept should be included, in your view? --Equivamp - talk 19:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I accept the status quo; I'm merely asking here she stop scrubbing the term (she's attempted three times in the last fourteen hours). A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

My opinion here is that there's no problem with mentioning the term (e.g. "Most trans-exclusionary radical feminists object to the term 'TERF' and prefer alternative terms such as 'gender critical'"), but that paragraph as it currently stands is definitely not NPOV. It cites a whole bunch of trans-exclusionary sources making persuasive arguments against the term "TERF", and is basically making a persuasive argument against the term "TERF" itself. Such a one-sided treatment of a facet of this argument is definitely not NPOV, especially when there's also an WP:UNDUE problem with giving so much credibility to what has been exhaustively established on this talk page is a minority POV regarding the term. Either we need to mention the dispute and move on, or else we at least need to cover the entire argument, including the transfeminist rebuttal to claims that TERF is a slur. (Along those lines, there's a segment of this video by the trans feminist YouTuber Contrapoints which deals with that claim more directly than I've seen in most other sources.) LokiTheLiar (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Google searches are not a reasonable test, and do not prove anything. As has been highlighted before, there are many TERF pundits that appear to revel in being as controversial as possible to increase their internet footprint. The fact that Google highlights those same controversial posts, reposts and objections all over the internet, is not "proof" that a balance or "sides" exist. This is all part of using false logic to fake-prove a false balance.

The cherry picked sources support the existence of TERF as a descriptive term, even while they explain that some trans-exclusionary radical feminists object to being called trans-exclusionary radical feminists, but probably no "inclusive feminists" have ever complained. By the way:

1. the insidehighered piece is little more than a blog post
2. the bitchmedia article uses TERF itself, while raising the objection to the word TERF with the example complaint of Cathy Brennon (who has their referenced blog suspended due to policy violations, believes that transwomen are men, and famously has lobbied the UN to remove human rights protections for transgender people)
3. the slate article is simply a long polemic attempting to argue that it is wrong for trans women to be called women, hardly a reasoned analysis

These sources do not prove much, apart from being examples to indicate that those that argue to replace TERF with confusing term "gender critical", probably are the same people that publish the most hateful and offensive opinions about trans people.

The evidence shows that A145GI15I95 does not "accept the status quo". Having an extended revert war and using the broken record technique to disrupt every other discussion thread on this page, is not "accepting" anything. --Fæ (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

If I were refusing the status quo, I'd be insisting on changing all instances of "terf" to "gender critical". How many times must I request good faith here, please? A145GI15I95 (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

There has been *plenty* of discussion. The only one still arguing that the article must use "gender critical" and presented like there are "two sides" is you, and everyone is being jolly nice to let you carry on disrupting discussion with the same argument and ICANTHEARYOU way of gaming the system to get what you want for several days. There are limits and the evidence shows you have gone well beyond them.

(ec) Your use earlier on this page of a "self ID" argument in a transgender discussion where trans people are likely to be taking part, to defend the term "gender critical" in a way that clearly hijacks the rationale that trans self ID has a protected status, was offensive and hard to presume was a good faith argument which was unintentionally offensive to trans people.

You need to drop the stick. --Fæ (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems strange to have multiple NPOV tags for one side and against another, if there isn't more than one side to this content. To fight a single mention seems to doth protest much. I can't game a system I barely know. And gender-critical/terf transgender persons exist, too. Please AGF. A145GI15I95 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Asking for good faith while at the same time quoting "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" is hard to write off as a mistake in judgement. Are you just trolling this discussion with jokes about gender now, or just being deliberately sarcastic by insisting on good faith while condemning others with bad faith with regard to who they are or what their motivation is? --Fæ (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

A145G - yes,"TERF"/"gender-critical" nb and trans persons ubdoubtedly exist. But it would be FALSEBALANCE to give their perspectives equal weight to gender-identity based trans perspectives, and it would be worse than that to treat the ideological identity "gender-critical" according to the same norms with which, per repeated RfCs, WP treats gender identities. Newimpartial (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm neither joking, trolling, attempting sarcasm, nor condemning. I'm attempt different phrasing to communicate, and I'm pleading that we get along better with each other. There are at least two sides to this content, as our article admits in its first line (Feminist views on transgender topics vary wildly), as its imperfect section headings show, as its sources shows, and as this talk page shows. I mention GC/TERF trans folk exist to show GC/TERF theory isn't necessarily transphobic. I really wish every thread I enter wouldn't sidetrack into an attack on my person, please. A145GI15I95 (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about, A145G? Your comment appears as a reply to mine, and I have certainly done no such thing. I hope you are aware that accusing editors of personal attacks, where they have not done so, is a sanctionable form of UNCIVIL behaviour. Newimpartial (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I don't feel you've been unfair with me. I was trying to reply to multiple comments at once. And I was trying to note how reactive recent replies to my entries have been (such as in this very thread, and such as the You mean stop…? comment on an earlier thread this morning here). I feel I'm walking on eggshells, but I keep trying to be courteous, respectful, and gentle. I apologize if I use incorrect terms occasionally, and I admit to my faults. A145GI15I95 (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It is increasingly obvious that A145GI15I95 is going to play the victim, whilst at the same time promoting anti-trans rhetoric and repeatedly disrupt discussion, rather than, say, searching for better reliable sources rather than newpaper op-eds or vox pop online magazine articles.

This is not a question of "two sides". In the "sources" being used are noisy attention seeking trans-exclusive writers and lobbyists who have entirely deliberately promoted hate speech against trans people, who unfailingly claim that transwomen can never be allowed to be women, who lobby to remove basic human rights for trans people, who make up language like "gender critical" and "trans identified males" and bang on about "gender stereotypes" to confuse the fact that they want invalidate trans people and want them to stop existing. To be correctly encyclopaedic and avoid being hijacked by fringe politics, the Wikipedia article needs to make it clear from the outset that trans-exclusive rhetoric is anti-trans, not swallow the same old tired TERF arguments that somehow removing the dignity and rights of trans people is not to be anti-trans or not to be spreading hatred.

As a logic experiment for arguments that relate to gender stereotypes and being gender critical, one need only review the sources and ask why the vitriol and hate speech is never directed at openly cis people who are the vast majority of the population, and for which the same logic should apply, rather than the tiny, tiny percentage that are trans people. --Fæ (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Fæ, please stop focusing on my person on talk pages. If you've a personal concern for me, please open an appropriate issue in the appropriate place. No human can be reasonably expected to keep track of every thread you've now started against me on multiple pages. Your response on content above has already been stated multiple times; it appears to be hyperbolic; and it appears to ignore my previously, calmly, and logically stated responses. A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Article full-protected

El C full-protected the article. It appears that El C did this due to the edit warring by A145GI15I95 and Mooeena (as seen here, here, here and here). It's best to go ahead and work this (and some other stuff) out now (either in the #Mention of "gender critical" in article section or this one). If the edit warring continues after expiration of the full-protection, El C or another admin will no doubt full-protect the article again or just block editors. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I recommend that further poor behaviour is reported at ANI rather than 3RR. Existing patterns of behaviour are well documented and discretionary sanctions apply, so there is a significantly lower bar for sanctions available rather than the very literal approach at 3RR of needing to see 4 reverts in 24 hours.

Related noticeboard discussions

1. 15 April 2019 3RR Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:A145GI15I95_reported_by_User:Mooeena_(Result:_Page_protected)
2. 11 April 2019 DRN Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics#Rewrite_and_Template_Removal
3. 16 March - 24 March 2019 ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006#Transgender-related_POV
4. 15 March 2019 NPOV Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_75#User:Mooeena_&_Wiki:Detransition
5. 14 March 2019 COIN Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_141#User:Mooeena_&_Wiki:Detransition

The last example, where being "openly trans on their user page" is given as a rationale to take a contributor to COIN, is offensive, discriminatory and an extremely worrying misuse of Wikimedia policies. Even the second crack at NPOV (which the community entirely ignored) of "User is openly gender essentialist on their user page" appears based solely of LGBT+ related user boxes like preferring gender neutral language; have to say this, wow, that appears to be nothing but an inexcusable head on personal attack that was allowed to pass without any warnings.

The limitations of CLEANSTART are worth reminding people of, and appear to have been ignored, if they were ever relevant. --Fæ (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Butler and Jeffreys consolidations?

We mention Butler responding to Jeffreys in two separate places in the article, one of which also has more about Butler beyond that; we also mention Jeffreys in another place in the article body (and in the lead). Should the two bits about Butler be consolidated in one location? (At the first location i.e. in the "support" section?) -sche (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a good idea. Should the multiple mentions of Raymond be consolidated as well? gnu57 14:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Parking some refs here

• Jacques, Juliet (August 16, 2014). "On the "dispute" between radical feminism and trans people". The New Statesman. Retrieved April 16, 2019.—A (very long) essay by a transfeminist author
• Stone, Sandy (1 May 1992). "The Empire Strikes Back: A Posttranssexual Manifesto". Camera Obscura: Feminism, Culture, and Media Studies. 10 (2): 150–176. doi:10.1215/02705346-10-2_29-150.—Essay by Sandy Stone
• Hay, Carol (April 1, 2019). "Opinion | Who Counts as a Woman?". The New York Times. Retrieved April 16, 2019.—NYT op-ed

gnu57 15:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)