Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 5 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TranLQuan (article contribs).

Margaret Atwood

@Newimpartial: As I mentioned in my edit summary, the Atwood material is sourced to two passing remarks in different interviews, with no indication of lasting significance. (Both interviews are mainly about Atwood's views on other topics.) If this article included every time a feminist mentioned trans issues in passing, it would be unending. Cheers, gnu57 18:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Otoh, Margaret Atwood's opinions could be argued to be relevant here, based especially on Atwood's novels (especially The Handmaid's Tale), and on her MeToo opinions, which generated a kerfuffle for a bit; at least, consierably more of interest to this article than, say, J.K. Rowling's are, which an editor recently tried to add. Oto, I agree with Genericusername57, here. For one thing, Atwood does not identify herself or her works as feminist, although feminists sometimes say she is (but if we're about believing women when they say something, then, well...). So it might be better to restrict opinions quoted in this article to those who are recognized feminists, and are opining directly on the topic in a significant way, rather than tangentially. If a more direct commentary of hers could be found, perhaps a magazine interview where the topic is explored in depth, then there might be more of an argument to include, but I don't see that based on current sources. I vote to strike. Mathglot (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

We have additional RS interest in Atwood's commentary on Trans issues from The Independent, PinkNews, Inside Hook and Dazed. And none of the links I've just posted are to passing mentions. So the edit rationale, no indication of lasting significance, seems to me not to be borne out by the evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

You're not wrong factually, but something being true and supported, isn't enough for inclusion in an article, it also has to be relevant to the article topic, as defined by the title, i.e., Feminist views on transgender topics. I looked at those four articles, and none of them made the assertion that a feminist view was being covered. I mean, I just found four articles about (ex-wrestler and Minnesota governor) Jesse Ventura's opinions about transgender issues; do we get to include those, too? I would say, no; not in this article, at least—maybe in another one. Same for Atwood, no? If this article were renamed Views on transgender topics, then both Atwood and Ventura's views become on-topic, and the choice to include them or not would then depend on whether they are WP:DUE. Mathglot (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I removed it on WP:Synthesis grounds. While I don't think you're suggesting it, to be clear, I don't see that an article for views in general about transgender topics has a reasonable scope or is a real distinct topic. But feminists' views are such a topic. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Readded because removal was done without consensus, and because while Margaret Atwood has expressed some discomfort with the label being applied to her works in the past, the idea that she's not a feminist is frankly kind of absurd. (She also seems to identify with the label herself at least to some extent, as we document on our page on her.) Loki (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Girth Summit just removed the line again, apparently without being aware of the timeline here. Look at the above discussion: it was in from yesterday until just an hour ago, when Crossroads removed it again without consensus. Loki (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Facts that are well-documented in reliable sources can't be considered SYNTH. And no less a source than Encyclopedia Brittanica says that Atwood is "best known for her prose fiction and her feminist perspective". She has described herself as a "bad feminist" which it is clear that she regards, in her quite lucid piece on the topic, as a variety of feminist. The idea that Atwood's comments on Trans issues should be excluded from this article because she is supposedly not a feminist are nothing short of bizarre, User:Mathglot. Atwood avowed herself a feminist explicitly in 2017, and hasn't changed her mind since. Newimpartial (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, User:Mathglot, both of the sources currently cited in the WP article do discuss Atwood's views on trans issues within the context of her feminism. My additional links provided above were intended to show that her views had received coverage beyond the sources currently cited, but her status as a feminist commentator has already been established by the sources cited in our article itself. Newimpartial (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

SYNTH is not based on whether the sources are reliable, but how we are using them to support information in the article. I fail to see much difference between including Atwood's views and Rowlings, apart from the fact that they are completely opposite. Come up with some standards of what constitutes a feminist (for this article) and then apply those standards evenly. AIRcorn (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Aircorn: Margaret Atwood is a self-described feminist whose feminism is also discussed in reliable sources (including the two sources cited in this article, and also the Britannica, among many, many others). Rowling is not so described either by herself or by others as far as I know. So if you can't see much difference between including Atwood's views and Rowlings, maybe check your prescription? :) Newimpartial (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

My glasses are fine, thanks for the concern. At the moment Rowling is pretty much synonymous with TERF (synthy I know, but still that's where we are) whether she wants to be or not. Atwoods feminism is also not so straight forward (again just look at her article). I don't think either really belongs, there are enough opinions out there without relying on more borderline cases. AIRcorn (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The Britannica does a better job with Atwood's feminism than Wikipedia does, for whatever reason. And as far as Row!ing is concerned, not all TERFs are feminists, as we should all know by now. The present article concerns Feminists, not TERFs. Newimpartial (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I accept that my revert was out of process - looking at the history, I think I was confused by some other recent additions/removals of similar size, I thought that I was reverting to the status quo, rather than against it - apologies too, therefore, to Loki the Liar. Nevertheless, this material is obviously contested by a number of editors in good standing - please all discuss and agree on the best way forward rather than kneejerk reverting (which I am myself obviously guilty of...) GirthSummit _(blether) 23:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Given the sources Newimpartial provides above, some coverage of Atwood's views seems due (and feminist/ germane), though there's certainly room for revising the current presentation, especially towards incorporating more of those other sources. Even without doing that, concerns about SYNTH could be solved/sidestepped by changing " or [...]" to ". Atwood has said she disagrees with the views that trans women [...]" (or ". She has also said she does not think that trans women [...]") i.e. making two separate sentences with identical initial verbiage, which someone was evidently trying to avoid the repetitiveness of. But I think such a rewording is probably unnecessary and the current presentation is probably not SYNTH; in my experience articles often summarize a person's positions like "So-and-so supports x,[1] y,[2] and z[3]" rather than "So-and-so supports x.[1] So-and-so supports y.[2] So-and-so supports z.[3]" -sche (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Problems with "Particular Topics" section

Rereading this section, today, I think I can see why problems keep cropping up. Unlike much of the rest of the article, this section consists overwhelmingly of a series of issues raised by trans-exclusionary feminists, while also allowing that #notallfeminists hold these views. It would better reflect the topic and avowed scope of the article if it were to include more of the positions held by mainstream and/or intersectional feminists (terms which are not equivalent but which do overlap) on trans-related issues, rather than only discussing a litany of more marginal positions. Newimpartial (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

While I agree that's a problem, I feel the problems with this article are deeper than that. I think on a fundamental level, what exactly this article is supposed to be is unclear. Is it supposed to be an indiscriminate list of quotes from feminists about trans people? The title sure seems to suggest that, and so that's what the article tends towards, but if that's really what the article is supposed to be than like all indiscriminate collections of quotes, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Maybe instead it's supposed to be some sort of history of the relationship of feminism to trans people? Or maybe it's supposed to somehow be about views of feminists without being a list of quotes from feminists? Who knows, really. The only guides we have are the sister pages Feminist views on pornography, Feminist views on sexuality, and Feminist views on prostitution. While these are somewhat better, they all still feel unencyclopedic to me. Loki (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, this article seems to be to be inaccurate and misleading since it devotes the bulk of its text to the views of a minority of trans-exclusionary feminists, and does not really depict the views of more mainstream third- and fourth-wave feminists. The entire thing needs a drastic re-write imho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.254.213.142 (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Butler in New Statesman

Judith Butler was interviewed by the New Statesman about this topic, and her stature and the weight given to her statements by other outlets suggests a short summary of them could be appropriate / due, if they express anything not already covered in our existing (four-sentence) summary of her views. (Some of what she said may also be relevant to the article TERF.) -sche (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Definitely agreed. My only qualm is that it continues the trend of this article being an indiscriminate collection of quotes. Loki (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed this article as well. And it doesn't have to be a quote; there's plenty of material there that could be summarized. Butler talks a fair bit about Rowling (only because the interviewer asked her a fair bit about Rowling, something Butler criticized her for), and it's somewhat ironic, as Rowling was the subject of another discussion section above, and Butler being a genuine feminist with opinions about transgender topics, her views are at least highly appropriate here. But that wasn't the majority of the article, and Butler opined about a lot of other topics. Mathglot (talk) 08:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs)

This section needs to be broken up into two sections, or at least, have a neutral section title, and a separate subsection for TERFs. The fact is, TERF is now something very different from "Trans-exclusionary radical feminist", in connotation, formality, and pejorativeness. For me, this section title is the rough equivalent of, == Japanese civilians in World War II (JAPs) ==. If that made you wince, that was the intention, but it's not far-fetched. But it isn't only the section title; although the confused title probably influences the confused content. Sentence 1, in theory the definitional sentence, describes TERFs. Sentence 2, in theory an expansion, defines "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". The third paragraph talks about coinage, but it's impossible to determine from that which term she coined, and flits back and forth between them as if they are indistinguishable. This whole section needs some conjoined twin surgery, which admittedly is a complex operation, but as things stand now, it really doesn't enlighten the reader about either TERF, or Trans-exclusionary radical feminist. Mathglot (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF you're welcome