Talk:TERF (acronym)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AvalancheValley (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Victoriaemoran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACHorwitz (talk • contribs) 18:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Converting mention to link

Elin McCready is mentioned in the fourth paragraph of the "Slur debate" section of this article. She now has a Wikipedia page (a stub, but it's a start), so it would be appropriate to turn the first mention of her name from "Elin McCready" into "Elin McCready". --MalignantMouse (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. The linked article is rather confusing. I'll see if I can help a bit. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Recommend against doing this, until notability of the subject has been established. Mathglot (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Now in the OED (Oxford English Dictionary)

They note that it is "typically regarded as derogatory". Equinox ◑ 13:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Definitely worth adding. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind, as various dictionaries exist, if we take the main ones and list their definitions of the term. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 00:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

For reference, the OED's definition of TERF reads:

A feminist whose advocacy of women’s rights excludes (or is thought to exclude) the rights of transgender women. Also more generally: a person whose views on gender identity are (or are considered) hostile to transgender people, or who opposes social and political policies designed to be inclusive of transgender people. Originally used within the radical feminist movement. Although the author of quot. 2008 (a trans-inclusive feminist) has stated that the term was intended as a neutral description, TERF is now typically regarded as derogatory.

RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 02:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

This removal should be reverted. First off, there is no basis for the assertion that as of June 2022, there is any controversy in reliable sources that the term is typically considered derogatory. And secondly, there is no basis in WP:PSTS that a tertiary source is bad for this sort of thing - rather, they are good for evaluating due weight. And this is arguably a secondary source anyway. Excluding a highest-quality RS like the Oxford English Dictionary is POV. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Dictionaries are definitionally tertiary sources. The wording "typically regarded as derogatory" is vague and passive, begging the question how they define the typical regarder. WP:PSTS states that we are to primarily use secondary sources and the topic is controversial enough I'd prefer a secondary source that isn't as vague. Also there is controversy over whether the word is typically considered a slur, most of the current wikipedia article is about that debate. Rab V (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Tertiary sources are still high-quality sources, and we don't exclude them because of personal dissatisfaction with what they say or what you "prefer". That the wording is not as specific as you would prefer is not relevant because that matches the source, and we would treat a top-quality historical dictionary as authoritative on the use of words. Finally, "slur" is not the same as "derogatory", and the source is newer than all the slur-debate-related sources anyway. I find it rather curious to contrast the opposition to including the literal Oxford English Dictionary with the eagerness to include what was at the time a literal preprint. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm unclear on the relevance of an RFC from years ago, it does not seem I took part in it. The OED is a well regarded dictionary but it is still a dictionary. Quality secondary sources are better for controversial topics since they can give more detail and nuance. That's partly why WP:PSTS says we are to primarily use them. WP:PSTS says tertiary sources can be useful for broad summaries and sometimes to determine due weight but I don't see the statement added as falling under either case. Rab V (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Where does PSTS say secondary sources are better than tertiary in controversial topics? The fact that tertiary is good for due weight implies the opposite - and tertiary is good for when other types contradict each other. Yet, the whole argument to exclude is based on cherry-picking favored primary sources because one believes they are correct.

Guess I'm going to have to RfC to break the filibuster... Crossroads ^-talk- 17:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Or you could provide a secondary source. A tertiary source can help for assessing weight, but they don't always (particularly in the case of dictionaries) explain why a term or phrase is used in a certain way. For this article, the OED says the term TERF is now typically regarded as derogatory but it does not explain why it is or to whom the group of people who typically consider it derogatory are. Do only TERFs consider it derogatory? Do non-TERFs consider it derogatory? As Rab V said, we don't get that level of nuance or specificity from a dictionary.

Also this does not appear to be a filibuster, but so far a discussion that has not reached a consensus. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Crossroads: would you please remove the RfC you have unilaterally started below? It fails WP:RFCBEFORE as discussion here is far from exhausted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

No. This discussion is clearly going in circles and clearly needs outside input.

And it does not matter that RS don't personally satisfy editors with specificity. Does anyone really deny that both "TERFs" consider it negative and "non-TERFs" who use it consider it to be a negative characterization? The OED clearly means that it is derogatory in the language in general, just as other definitional material applies to all language users. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Going in circles? Bar the initial three comments, in depth discussion only began four days ago (8 July), and between that time and your snap RfC there was only 6 comments. That is hardly going in circles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Oxford English Dictionary

Should the statement by the Oxford English Dictionary that the term is "typically considered derogatory" be in the article? And in the lead? Crossroads ^-talk- 17:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Source: "TERF, n.", OED Online, Oxford University Press, retrieved 2022-07-06, Originally used within the radical feminist movement. Although the author of quot. 2008 (a trans-inclusive feminist) has stated that the term was intended as a neutral description, TERF is now typically regarded as derogatory.

Survey

• Yes to both. The Oxford English Dictionary is a historical dictionary and a high-quality authoritative reliable source on the meaning and connotations of words, and this article is about a word. Certainly it is more authoritative than any of the ones currently included. As such, the presumption is to include. Per WP:NPOV policy, we should include all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This is a significant view by a reliable source, and the term's connotations make up a big part of the article and the lead. The argument to exclude appears to be based entirely in cherry-picking particular opinions present in the article based on POV and saying that their view is the correct one and hence this one should not be included, even though this one is newer than them all, and this behavior contradicts WP:PSTS: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Additionally, whether something is as serious as a slur is a separate issue from whether it is merely derogatory. Yet, in this case, it is being argued to throw out a tertiary source based on a subset of the lesser supposedly contradictory sources, which is clearly wrong. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes to both - very clearly the case. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• Question: Are there any other (well regarded) dictionaries that define the term in a significantly different way - and especially are there any that say the term is not derogatory? Blueboar (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• No to both/Wrong question The RfC is asking the wrong question. Dictionaries give us a definition, but don't explain the definition. As a tertiary source they can be useful for assessing weight of secondary sources (per the policy point at WP:TERTIARY). A better, if not the correct question, would involve the use of secondary sources explaining why the term is considered derogatory, and whether that consideration is universal or only to those for whom it applies. Also if one were to do a brief survey of the other major dictionaries; Collins does not contain the definition, Merriam-Webster does not contain the definition, Chambers does not contain the definition, and I can't search Macquarie due to a paywall. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes to both. I don't see any problem with adding dictionary definitions or the judgments of the editors of that publication. It's a really weird one this, I don't think anybody actually disagrees with the idea that TERF is a derogatory term. People who use it generally readily admit they really don't like "TERFS". The general rule is, if a member of a group says "I really don't like that word, don't call me it" it's derogatory. Note that this is different from the "don't call me a fascist" argument, because the people who say that are not denying that fascism exists, or saying that "fascist" is a derogatory term, they are claiming that they are not fascists. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes to both. The statement is from an excellent source; moreover, it also summarizes the main body of the article, from which it's abundantly clear that TERF as typically used is derogatory. NightHeron (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes to both. Source is high-quality, agrees with the rest of our article. PS: To do more dictionary searches, see Wikipedia:WikiProject English Language#Online tools.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes to both BTW the other deprecating term "minority" (view) is essentially unsourced for such a strong claim about the targeted persons. The given source merely says that a different party used the term in in statement of rationale. North8000 (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• Cautious yes to inclusion in the body but we should be very careful to reflect the whole of what it says in that definition, not to just pluck out the word "derogatory" and use that out of context. We should cover the shift from a specific and neutral description of the trans exclusive strand within radical feminism to a generally derogatory term for anybody transphobic.
  Very cautious neutral to inclusion in the introduction. I think the introduction egregiously over-covers the claims that it is a "slur" so I'd only be OK with a mention in the introduction if the "slur" stuff got cut down to size. If the words "slur" and "derogatory" were to appear once each in the introduction, contextualised properly, then I think that might be acceptable. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• No to lead. The fact that TERF is typically regarded as derogatory is a true statement and an accurate summary "in the sense that all bywords for bigots are intended to be defamatory". Our existing text, that Those referred to with the word TERF typically reject the term or consider it a slur, already explains this in proper detail. We generally shouldn't overstate the value of historical dictionaries in summarizing controversy about extremely recent internet words. The OED in particular has never been an exceptionally up-to-date or balanced authority on feminist or transgender topics. It gives useful etymologies for transwoman, transgenderist, transgenderal where other dictionaries do not, but does not note that each of these terms is ostensibly deprecated. The article text seems to get along just fine without unnecessarily invoking a WP:TERTIARY source. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 20:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

This is where we get an WP:NPOV problem, I'm fairly sure that wikipedia shouldn't be taking a position on the question of whether TERFs are bigots or not. And I would suggest that very few people say "racist is a derogatory term" or "fascist is a derogatory term", they say "calling me a racist is derogatory". So even if we accept them to be bigots, the fact the name is derogatory, when non-derogatory names exist ("gender critical feminists" for example), is notable and should be included in the introduction. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Per Template:By whom, Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation. If you want to know who holds that view, all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. It is not necessary to inquire "By whom?" in that circumstance. And this is based on WP:WEASEL which notes that if a source says it that way, WEASEL does not mean such a wording cannot be used. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

“Typically regarded” implies an opinion held by someone besides the OED, so who? All English speakers? All users of the term? People in the UK? Secondary sources answer that question readily: TERF as typically regarded as derogatory by the anti-trans self-described radical feminists it describes, because it is frequently associated with derogatory rhetoric. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 22:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually RoxySaunders raises a valid point. As I said in my comment in the previous section, the OED source doesn't actually tell us who typically regards it as derogatory. The use of {{by whom}} would be supported here because of this. If OED had included the demographics of whom were in the typical cohort then it could be acceptable, assuming other issues like weight and balance were adressed.

Also this invocation of WEASEL is odd, given that you and I have been in several discussions where you've used WEASEL to exclude a source or sometimes many sources in the exact way you wish to include it here. Are you sure you've invoked the right shortcut for that? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• No to both per Sideswipe9th. Also, as noted above, the phrase is vague and not clearly supported by secondary sources. Secondary sources are clear that certain groups consider this term a slur but not that they are majority or 'typical' and note major disagreement from major figures in feminism and gender theory on whether it is a slur. Rab V (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes to both The OED is one of the best sources for what words mean and how they are used. If the use of a term is derogatory, that should be pointed out ASAP. TFD (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes to both - Source is highly reliable. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes to both I understand being cautious about using normal dictionary definitions for specialist words. However, that doesn't appear to be the case here. For mainstream usage I can't see why we wouldn't invoke a dictionary definition and qualification for an article about a term. Springee (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• No to both per Sideswipe9th and RoxySaunders. The second paragraph of the lead already covers whether TERF is considered derogatory. GreenComputer (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• Mixed It's worth inclusion in the body, provided it is included neutrally. However, given the controversial nature of the term, I would suggest it not be declared X just because one, albeit notable and important, dictionary has said such. In the lead, no. The lead should just cover a general aspect of the controversy with the term, some considering it derogatory. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes to inclusion and neutral to lead inclusion. Regardless of the source's strength I don't see how this is anything but a consensus view academically, in contrast to the slur debate? Kate Manne for instance wrote in 2019 that the term is derogatory but not a slur. Seven feminist philosophers wrote in 2018 that it was "at worst a slur and at best derogatory". Two linguists wrote in a 2020 paper that it met conditions to be considered a term "derogatory towards a particular group" but failed conditions to be considered a slur. I am not seeing how this is controversial to call it derogatory. However I would echo what DanielRigal had to say and add there is commentary by the OED team supporting that: [Fiona McPherson, a lexicographer at the dictionary] explained this decision: “We weighed it up, and because of the intentions of the coiner and the fact that there is a little bit more nuance behind its usage – it’s not always just a straight-out insult – we took the approach that we would explain that in a note. We felt it was a bit more nuanced than just slapping on derogatory or chiefly derogatory.” --Chillabit (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• No to lede I don't think it serves our readers very well to overload the introduction with material that sounds authoritative (it's the OED!) whilst also being rather vague ("considered" by whom?). Indeed, the source provided just above indicates that the people who wrote that definition are aware of the thorniness. If we provide an oversimplified, sound-byte account, we're not doing their work justice. The lede is the wrong place for the kind of nuance we need to provide in order to reflect the sources accurately. Wouldn't be the first time that happened. XOR'easter (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
• Include in article, weak include for lead. It’s only weasel-y if we don’t source it; if a high quality source doesn’t list examples to substantiate its claim, that’s not to say it’s not true. I don’t have strong opinions for the lead, but it does seem relevant for a reader to fully understand the term, though I respect arguments based on WP:UNDUE. — HTGS (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Crossroads, do you think you could also notify some of the WikiProjects (LGBT Studies, Feminism, Gender Studies, etc) with a stated interest in this topic? Someone who didn't know better might think you were hoping to attract a particular crowd by only alerting the WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN, and WikiProject Linguistics. RoxySaunders ³xmf. (talk · contribs) 18:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

If you have not already done so, I think notifying them would be a good idea. All three have a legitimate interest in this question. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, why be lazy? I've notified them myself. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I notified the other three too. I would have done all six had you not gotten the first three already per the request. I also think the Linguistics WikiProject should probably be listed with the others at the top of this page; I'm surprised it's not even though we have Politics. I certainly didn't mean anything by not getting all the projects right away since anything anyone feels is missing can be notified at any time and I'm surprised to see official noticeboards characterized as biased. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

What particular crowd hangs out at WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN, and WikiProject Linguistics that you are taking exception to here? --Boynamedsue (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

​ By "a particular crowd", I mean "a non-representative sample of all the Wikipedians who might possibly have an opinion about this". Didn't intend to make any generalization about the fine pedantry-loving, CN-tagging, dictionary-thumping clientele of those particular noticeboards. RoxySaunders ³xmf. (talk · contribs) 20:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The statement "there is no consensus on whether or not TERF constitutes a slur" is misleading. Consensus does not mean every single person agrees, but that the extent of agreement is so great, it is treated as fact in tertiary sources, such as the OED. You can't just find one paper, in this case a paper that has yet to be presented and say there is disagreement. That is called a manufactured controversy. TFD (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Who are you quoting? I can't find that statement anywhere on this talk page. Rab V (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

It's from the last sentence of the current lead.[1] TFD (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

If you are interested in rewording that sentence, may be better to discuss outside this RFC. Rab V (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The wording of that sentence is the topic of the RfC. What did you think we are discussing? And why wouldn't you read the lead before joining a discussion on how it should be worded? TFD (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Please be a bit more civil. Just because I've read this article doesn't mean I've memorized it. The RFC does not explicitly mention that sentence so I thought this was a separate issue you are bringing up. If you want to try to add something about changing that sentence to this RFC, feel free. Rab V (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

At least before discussing the description of the term TERF as derogatory in an RfC, you might have determined what the article currently says about it. The statement in the OED and the current wording cannot both be true. Therefore, if we agree the OED is right, we will have to change the current wording. The purpose of talk page discussions is to determine article content after all. TFD (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Dang, how many acronyms have been created in the last 15-20 years, concerning this general topic? GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Well seeing as how on social media there is a not insignificant swing towards "gender-critical is a slur" in the last five or six months, I suspect we'll be seeing another term arise in the next year or so. No reliable sources on this as of yet, so obviously we can't cite it in article space, but it's still an interesting thing to note here regardless. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

See euphemeism treadmill... AnonMoos (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)