Talk:TERF (acronym)

Inclusions in the "TERF Island" section

I don't have the rights to edit this page, so I'm writing a request of sorts here.

I'm somewhat surprised to not see JK Rowling and Graham Linehan mentioned amongst the "gender criticals" listed in the TERF Island section. While Linehan is Irish (as in, RoI, not NI), I've generally seen the term used to refer to the British Isles. I personally disagree with that usage myself, as it ignores a lot of nuance, but oh well...

So for those not in the loop, I'll explain.

Graham Linehan has practically formed an entire identity around being a TERF, even having his own substack page dedicated to it, and launching various events around it. It's been enough for him to completely corrode his livelihood; these days he's constantly complaining about losing his wife, career, and so on, strictly attributing it to backlash for his TERF views. I think this makes him a prime mention at least somewhere on the page - when people think of TERFs, people think of Linehan. https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/a-transwoman-a-transman-and-a-non https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/broke-shunned-and-cancelled-father-ted-creator-graham-linehan-and-the-trans-debate-cgv8gqpjk https://thepostmillennial.com/graham-linehan-launches-gender-critical-coming-out-day-for-dec-19

As for JK Rowling, I think she's one of the biggest reasons people call the UK "TERF Island" in the first place. While a contested topic, I think it's very hard to ignore her public statements and the backlash she receives. Even a paragraph going "oh Rowling is often called this and is known for numerous public statements but some people contest her" would feel right. I don't have the greatest of sources on me - I'm sure there's better stuff out there - but it should be a start. She is absolutely the face of the gender critical movement at this point and not giving her even a passing mention feels like an oversight. https://thepostmillennial.com/london-pride-parade-takes-aim-at-terfs-and-jk-rowling https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html https://www.oxfordstudent.com/2020/06/25/j-k-rowling-and-the-terf-wars/

These two feel far more prominent than the names mentioned right now, at least from a 2023 perspective. I think these mentions would make it more complete.

Thank you for your time! Plague von Karma (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that JK Rowling definitely should be included in the "TERF island" section; as you say, she is one of the main reasons people use the term and make that connection to the UK. But I suppose we need to find a reliable source that explicitly makes the connection between Rowling and the "TERF Island" epithet, which may be difficult. If we can't find a reason to add her to this section, the sources you provide (and others) are enough to warrant a mention in this article.

I don't think Linehan should be included in that section, as it currently makes it clear this is a term for the UK, and I've never seen the term used to refer to the British Isles (besides the fact that many Irish people dislike the term "British Isles", if the term did refer to the whole British Isles, then wouldn't the term be "TERF Isles"?). I am surprised he isn't mentioned in the article, but I'm not sure where would be a natural fit. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 31 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved According to the consensus below, the resulting redirect (after the move) "TERF" needs to be redirected to "Gender-critical feminism". Currently "TERF" has around 570 incoming links from mainspace, which need to be updated to "Trans-exclusionary radical feminist". I will perform the page moves after updating the links, which will need some time. I request other editors to not move page, I will do it once all the links are updated accordingly. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

---

TERF → TERF (acronym) – It's hard to argue that when people mention the word "TERF", they're usually thinking of the acronym itself rather than the people they're describing. I propose moving "TERF" to "TERF (acronym)" and redirecting the existing title (and the longer-form redirect "Trans-exclusionary radical feminist") to "gender-critical feminism". PBZE (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

IS there some other use of it? Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

No reason to do this. Dawnbails (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The reason to do it is for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC reasons. We have a bunch of convoluted scenarios where, for example, one sentence in Anti-gender movement is "Anti-gender rhetoric has seen increasing circulation in trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) discourse since 2016." and the link "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" needs to be piped to refer to the article about the movement itself rather than the acronym. A simple search on Google Scholar and Google itself also shows that "TERF" usually refers to the movement, not the acronym. PBZE (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

So do we have any other articles on titles TERF? Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, since this summer we do have an article on the ideology or movement itself, which is titled Gender-critical feminism and where TERF is one of several equal/alternative titles (in fact, TERF is the most widely used name of the ideology or movement, as discussed on that article's talk page, but we opted for the "Gender-critical feminism" article title because some sources appear to be moving in that direction, and because it was less contentious) --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The primary meaning of TERF is the ideology or movement itself, which is covered by the article Gender-critical feminism where TERF is one of several equal titles. This terminology-focused article is really just a sub topic of the main article on the ideology/movement, i.e. Gender-critical feminism aka TERF. We do have a summary of the terminology issue in the main article article, and TERF (acronym) would be the in-depth article on that sub topic. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. A "terf" is a (perhaps derogatory?) term for a gender-critical feminist. When one types in TERF, that's the article you should be reading. The article on the term itself should be separated from it. Red Slash 22:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above. There was also a related discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 19#TERF-related redirects. SilverLocust 💬 16:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support per the explained rationale. The people and beliefs associated with the term are very clearly the primary topic here, not the acronym itself. XTheBedrockX (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• note: @PBZE, Slatersteven, Dawnbails, Amanda A. Brant, SilverLocust, and XTheBedrockX: I have not performed the move, nor link updates yet. It is currently being discussed at User talk: Red Slash#TERF move. Any input there would be appreciated a lot. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

TERF move

Moved from User talk:Red Slash § TERF move

Hello. I closed the RM discussion a few minutes ago at Talk:TERF, but I got confused regarding updating the links. Do we need to update all the current links that lead to "TERF" to "TERF (acronym)"? Because there is also consensus to retarget "TERF" to "gender-critical feminism". That means, if we only perform the move without updating the links, the instance of "TERF" in J. K. Rowling article will lead to gender-critical feminism. So, from that example Rowling article, do we need to update "TERF" to "TERF (acronym)"? —usernamekiran (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I think it would be correct to update most of the existing links from [[TERF]] to [[TERF (acronym)|TERF]] and from [[TERF| to [[TERF (acronym)| with AWB, since the way it would be used in an article is in reference to people being called the term. It isn't particularly urgent though, given that in the meantime it would just be linking to another article related to the meaning of the term. SilverLocust 💬 03:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

(Well, obviously don't use AWB controversially.) SilverLocust 💬 04:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

While a few of the links may be used primarily in reference to the acronym and its history, I believe most of them are more likely to refer to the ideology, the primary meaning of the term. I can't think of a case where the article on the ideology wouldn't be a valid or suitable target. These two articles cover facets of the same topic, one main article on the ideology that also more briefly addresses terminology, and one in-depth article elaborating on the history of the acronym. So a link to the main article would never really be "incorrect". Hence, I think we should just go ahead and move it now. Editors can adjust the links in the (relatively few?) articles that refer specifically to the history of the word itself rather than the ideology, but I don't consider that very urgent. I don't think it's necessary to change all those links en masse, and I believe it's more likely that the main article on the ideology is a more suitable target in most cases anyway. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• Based on the discussion here, I think it is safe to move the pages. I have already edited the templates to update "TERF" to "TERF (acronym)|TERF". Thank you everybody. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• That is a bit premature, I was not even awake. I opposed the move and still do. Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

late response-- wasn't awake. after reading through the discussion, I'm fine with the move. didn't really see the discussion until after the close. I'd say that it'd make more sense to switch redirects from TERF to TERF (acronym) instead of TERF to gender-critical feminism. Dawnbails (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why this whole thing is taking place on my talk page but I'm not complaining. The reason TERF can't redirect to TERF (acronym) is WP:MISPLACED--basically, we never ever redirect from X to X (thing). A move from X to X (thing) is implicitly (or explicitly) with the goal to redirect X elsewhere. Red Slash 15:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

A very good point, page moves can't be discussed on user talk pages. Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Updating the links is something that people will do as needed. Most of the time when TERF is linked, it's about the ideology instead of the acronym, anyway. I wouldn't worry about it Red Slash 15:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• note: I moved the above conversation from User talk:Red Slash#TERF move at 13:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC). I had moved the pages after there was an agreement that it was safe to move the pages (regarding the redirect). —usernamekiran (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Page moves should not be discussed on a users talk pages. Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• • In this case it was not a discussion of the page move itself, but an editor asking for advice on how to implement the outcome that had already been decided in the above consensus here. That discussion could have taken place here as well, but since they posted a note here about the discussion I don't really see a huge problem. (I agree that it was appropriate to move the discussion here.) --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Note, this move is being discussed (and criticised) at Talk:Gender-critical feminism#TERF redirect. Please comment there. -- Colin°^Talk 12:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Slur

This edit changed the text from "In academic discourse, there is no clear consensus on whether TERF constitutes a slur." to "Linguists and philosophers of language, while acknowledging that it is often pejorative, are skeptical of the idea that TERF is a slur" (in other words, there is a consensus and the matter is settled). This cites three sources:

1. "The Epistemology of Propaganda" by Rachel McKinnon, an article from 2018. A five-years-old article on a topical internet phenomenon is useless wrt what the word is used for in 2023. Not only that but Rachel McKinnon is Veronica Ivy, who Wikipedia tells me is a Canadian competitive cyclist and transgender rights activist and previously an assistant professor of philosophy. Their works include "You Make Your Own Luck", "Lotteries, Knowledge, and Irrelevant Alternatives", "This Paper Took Too Long to Write: A New Puzzle About Overcoming Weakness of Will, Philosophical Psychology", "Irksome Assertions" and so on. Citing them weakens the case.
2. "The Instability of Slurs" from 2020. This is a linguistic paper. It proposes three criteria for being a slur. They argue TERF meets the first criteria (derogatory towards a group) but not their third which has a requirement that the group be "defined by an intrinsic property (e.g race / gender / sexuality / abledness)." Thus a group that chooses to follow an ideology cannot be slurred. Not sure how that works with religion and I grew up in a culture where there were plenty slur words about Catholics and protestants. For their second rule "the derogation of that group functions to subordinate them within some structure of power relations supported by an actualized flawed ideology" they do not conclude on. If one views trans people as the subordinated group, then they argue they are "punching up" but if one views women as the subordinated group, particularly I would suggest, women in a place of weakness (bathrooms, changing rooms, prison, refuge shelter, etc), then it meets the criteria. And whether the ideology behind labelling someone a TERF is flawed is something they regard as an ongoing debate. So to claim this source supports the idea that linguists are "skeptical of the idea that TERF is a slur" is plainly false. These linguists regard TERF as a complex problem with no apparent solution.
3. "Why the words we use matter when describing anti-trans activists" by Jennifer Saul, a professor of philosophy and author of books on feminism, philosophy of language, deception, and implicit bias. This does make the case that TERF is not a slur though accepts it is often combined with "angry, and even at times violent and abusive, rhetoric" but their main argument is that the term is misleading firstly that most of the people so-labelled are not radical feminists (with Rowling as their example) and secondly it falsely claims that "the people working to harm the interests of marginalized women [and here she means trans women] are radical feminists". She also notes that the recipients of the label reject it for reasons she finds slim but what's important is that both reject TERF because they reject "trans-exclusionary radical feminist": they are talking about the full four-word term and not the four letter word. IMO they miss the point but they are at least a valid source.

But what is critical is that these are primary sources for their authors individual opinions on the matter. None of these sources survey the literature or poll the opinions of "linguists and philosophers of language" to arrive at a conclusion as to whether there is a consensus or not. What we have here is a bit like citing two random scientist-with-opinions and one cyclist-with-opinions and claiming something about the consensus of scientists on global warming. The first source is junk. The opinion of a trans activist is the opinion of one trans activist and of no greater merit in basing our work than the opinions of any gender critical feminist or anti-trans activist. The two linguist primary sources could at most be cited with attribution but not as though they represent consensus or no-consensus. The middle source is probably the most representative of all, which is that whether TERF is a slur depends on your values and your point of view. The current text needs removed. -- Colin°^Talk 07:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I have removed it. No objection to a lead summary of the "is it a slur" debate, but this needs sourced to.... a source that summarises the "is it a slur" debate, not to individual participants of that debate. -- Colin°^Talk 09:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes. For one, an academic paper is a professional opinion, not a personal opinion, and the first two of three sources are both academic papers. (The third source is also clearly intended as a professional opinion when it says "TERF is not a slur".)

And then for two, the professional opinion of relevant academics (and yes, Ivy absolutely is a philosopher of language, at the time of that paper she was employed by the College of Charleston which explicitly says "Her areas of specialization are epistemology, philosophy of language, metaphysics, and feminist philosophy") on a topic is sufficient to source that as a fact, in the absence of contradictory sourcing. So we could simply say "TERF is not a slur" sourced to those sources in Wikivoice, and the phrasing outside of Wikivoice is actually somewhat weasely.

Heck, we could source the claim in Wikivoice simply to Ivy alone, because her one academic paper on the topic is stronger sourcing than any number of opinion columns. But we don't need to, because we have two other academic sources which agree with her. Academically, this is not a debate: academics who have opined on the topic simply agree that TERF is not a slur. Loki (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Loki, I think you misunderstand how Wikipedia goes about claiming consensus on opinions. And these are opinions. Determining if a word is a slur isn't amenable to the scientific method or measuring with a ruler.

The first source remains junk regardless of the link you found. That's the university's own profile of their staff, as claimed by that staff. It's like a LinkedIn page. Not a reliable source wrt what that academic is notable or considered expert it. That an academic claims to specialise in X doesn't make them an authority in X unless they publish in X and other people agree they are an authority in X. Ivy sole publication on linguistics appears to be this "book symposium" piece where they disagree with a previous publication/academic and state their personal arguments. That they are a trans activist offering their opinions on trans matters further lowers their authority because they are plainly not neutral. The piece is full of "I think" language. It's a personal opinion piece and doesn't count any higher than Suzanne Moore's opinion piece in the Telegraph.

The middle source is an interesting analysis but obviously flawed in that their third "rule" appears to have forgotten entirely about religious slurs. Even accepting this flawed approach, describing their conclusions as being in favour of your opinion is untruthful. They make no conclusion.

The Saul piece appeared in a magazine, not a scholarly journal, and although they state their belief that "TERF is not a slur" they make no attempt to explain why. Thus it is the weakest source for personal opinions as they don't feel any need to justify them. This is because they say "Using TERF leads to misguided battles over what counts as a slur, and, more importantly, obscures the truth about the nature of the real battle at hand". That article actually makes my case that "using TERF" is problematic.

You restored a number of sentences that were unsourced and made general remarks about what "Linguists and philosophers of language" and "Transgender rights activists" believe. None of our sources describe what these groups believe. As a tertiary source, it is original research to cherry pick a couple of opinion articles and claim there is or isn't a consensus. See WP:RS/AC, which I'll quote here:

"A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus."

I urge you to revert you change and work towards finding sources that support an opinion we can state with confidence. Editors cannot just make stuff up, particularly the stuff being made up aligns exactly with claims those editors have made personally on talk pages and which other editors have disputed (e.g. the discussion at Gender-critical feminism). We must be extremely careful to avoid POV pushing and take care that if Wikipedia claims something, it is well sourced. Otherwise we should not make those claims. Note that by reverting those changes, you become responsible for the text that was restored. I'm challenging you to find sources for these claims, and if you can't find them, policy expects you to remove them again or agree to their removal. -- Colin°^Talk 08:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)