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)

ill consensus?

It appears that the current "consensus" regarding the renaming of "TERF" to "TERF (acronym)" and redirection of "TERF" to "Gender-critical feminism" is unstable, even causing issues because it is unclear whether existing links to TERF should link to the term or the ideology. The ongoing, active, controversial and highly distributed (three pages, now down to two again) discussions suggest to me that in fact no consensus exists, and that the initial actions (move, redirect) should never have been performed in the first place.

Additionally, the fact that the ramifications of what to do with existing links to TERF are being discussed after the action has already been performed suggests to me that this is a procedural failure, that the discussion has been closed prematurely and that the only way to address the issues caused by it (and prevent this discussion going in circles forever) is to do a clean revert and bring the discussion(s) back to this page, "TERF".

Last but not least, it is my interpretation of the things I have observed so far that this in attempt to solve an intra-article (topical) discussion on an administrative level, which cannot and will not work and only kicks the can down the road. To me, it appears that what occurred here is an unintended (lite) content forking as a way to resolve a longstanding and apparently unresolvable dispute, which is understandable but nevertheless against our guidelines. It should be remedied as soon as possible. TucanHolmes (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

As I noted elsewhere, the main article on the ideology and movement covers the topic in its entirety. That includes terminology, which is briefly summarized per WP:SUMMARY style and elaborated on in an in-depth article on the history of the acronym. In this sense, the articles can be compared to Donald Trump and Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump (or any other article on an aspect/facet of Trump's life). Therefore, the main article can never be wrong as a target, but if a source/article is specifically addressing TERF as a word, then the acronym article might be a more relevant target. But in most cases sources are primarily referring to the ideology or movement itself (including adherents of the ideology, that may include groups, people or events), not to the history of the word. My guess is that most links now point to the most relevant article, but editors can change them to the acronym article on a case by case basis if that article is the more relevant target. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

TERF does not mean "Gender critical feminism". It is not exclusively used for "gender critical feminists".

A page for the term "TERF" that explained the dispute and gave people the option to go to a separate article about gender-critical feminism was fine. When crowds of masked men chant "shut your stupid f***ing mouth you stupid f***ing TERF" as they seem to do fairly regularly these days they are not offering a reasoned critique of a specific feminist ideology.

The OED Definition which you keep disregarding gives two, equally weighted definitions, one technically explaining the acronym refers specifically to radical feminists, and one generally about hostility to trans people. Neither of these support your contention because "Gender critical feminists" are not de facto radical feminists, and "hostility to trans people" is not an ideology.

Google returns only the general sense as a definition.

a person whose views on gender identity are considered hostile to transgender people, or who opposes social and political policies designed to be inclusive of transgender people.

In common usage, TERF is a derogatory synonym for transphobe, directed mostly at women. The other dictionary definitions that come back either have narrow definitions that are not synonymous with "gender critical feminism":

an advocate of radical feminism who does not believe that transgender people's gender identities are legitimate, and who is hostile to the inclusion of trans women in the feminist movement.

Or have woolly definitions that don't support your contention:

A shorthand to describe one cohort of feminists who self-identify as radical and are unwilling to recognize trans women as sisters, unlike other feminists who do

Or this:

The term describes feminists who are transphobic

Wiktionary says:

a radical feminist who does not consider trans women to be women, or thinks they should not be included in female spaces or organisations, and who considers trans men to be women; a transphobic person.

Neither of these support your position.

You're taking a derogatory term that simply means "transphobic" and directing it at a tiny group of people (gender-critical feminists) who regard it as a slur, and in so doing you have sidelined the article which explained the contested nature of the term and the entire debate over whether it is or isn't a slur.

The evidence supplied to support any of this was not forthcoming before the move, the target page was never notified, and what's been offered after the fact has invariably been inadequate or wrong.

You keep referring to "the ideology" as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC but the primary topic is that this is a derogatory word used to call people transphobic, and that isn't an ideology.

If you wanted to redirect "TERF Ideology" or "TERFism" to GCF, like "trans exclusionary radical feminism" does, it would possibly make some sense. But TERF should go back to its own page.

A clean revert is needed. Void if removed (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding: the very first citation on this page states:

Moreover, once the term was popularized, being trans-exclusionary and therefore liable to being labelled a TERF did not necessitate being a feminist at all, with the term also being used to describe trans-exclusionary positions from right-wing or religious perspectives.

Which undermines the claim that the term can be directed anywhere but here, since its usage is broad these days.

It also says:

First a word on terminology. I use 'TERF' as a representation of what might be called the original trans-exclusionary feminist view, which I outline in the following section, and "gender critical' to represent more contemporary presentations of feminist trans-exclusion. I use "trans-exclusionary feminism' as an umbrella term encompassing both. As will be discussed, the application of these terms is complex and political. They represent positions that are interconnected and often interchangeable, indistinguishable and/or contradictory. Acknowledging these enmeshments as I advance, there is enough of a separable figurative TERF position from that of a figurative gender critical one, at least in how they are presented, to be usefully employed.

Again, the very first citation on this page draws a distinction between TERF and gender-critical, while acknowledging they are complex and interrelated.

Directing TERF to gender-critical as if it means the same thing is wrong. As Thurlow points out, even if gender-critical is an evolution of earlier trans-exclusionary feminisms, they are still not the same, and it is beholden on this page to explain what trans-exclusionary radical feminism is rather than force the two together like this. She is mostly saying that gender-critical sounds more reasonable but also highlights instances where the groups are critical of each other. Even to a source that is critical of both the terms are recognised as not synonymous. Void if removed (talk) 14:31, 16 October 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)

Determining if a word is a slur isn't amenable to the scientific method

Why not? Linguistics is a science. McKinnon even cites several other papers in the topic when she argues that TERF isn't a slur (e.g. [1], [2], [3], and [4]). The only reason we don't cite those papers here is that none of them directly mention "TERF".

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

BS. Here's a list of Ivy's publications. Of them, the following ones are about philosophy of language: Irksome assertions, Propaganda, Lies, and Bullshit in BioShock's Rapture, Reasonable Assertions: On Norms of Assertion and Why You Don't Need to Know What You're Talking About, Sure the Emperor Has No Clothes, but You Shouldn’t Say That, The Epistemology of Propaganda (i.e. the paper we cite here), Epistemic Injustice, Lotteries, Knowledge, and Irrelevant Alternatives, The Supportive Reasons Norm of Assertion, Norms of Assertion: Truth, Lies, and Warrant, What I Learned in the Lunch Room about Assertion and Practical Reasoning, and How do you know that 'how do you know?' Challenges a speaker's knowledge?.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is easily the largest single topic in Ivy's publication history. Nearly half of the papers she publishes are on this topic, with the rest mostly being in the closely related field of epistemology. If you're really claiming she's not a philosopher of language you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

The middle source is an interesting analysis but obviously flawed

With all due respect, you are so blatantly engaging in WP:OR when you call their work "obviously flawed" I don't feel any need to listen to you. They're the experts with the published paper, not you.

although [Saul] state[s] their belief that "TERF is not a slur" they make no attempt to explain why

We're not in the business of cherrypicking a source's sources. It's her professional opinion as an expert, that's all we need to know.

---

I confess that I'm sort of at the point where I have to just say, you are clearly incorrect about basic facts about the sources and Wikipedia policy, and given that I don't feel any need to WP:SATISFY you. Loki (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Have you looked at any of these papers? They are into philosophy, for sure. But not linguistics. Arguing about what someone wrote in a book isn't linguistics. And a serious academic doesn't write "X is ludicrous". That would get a red pen through it by their tutor. An academic would explain why X is flawed in a way that convinced the reader for themselves and perhaps the reader would conclude it is ludicrous because of the excellent explanation. Show, don't tell. Same goes for the third paper where the author just asserts "TERF is not a slur" but doesn't give their reason. That's not academic writing and fair enough it is in a magazine. This weak stuff. -- Colin°^Talk 18:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Philosophy of linguistics is technically not linguistics, sure, but it's very closely related the same way historiography is very closely related to history. A philosopher of linguistics is still a relevant expert here.

Also, serious experts write "X is ludicrous" all the time! Look, here's over 20 pages of Google Scholar results of experts calling things "ludicrous". (And that's even excluding cases where they used the word in the title, because it appears to also be some sort of jargon term in some cases.) Like, have you not ever met an expert? I have! They are often very opinionated people, especially around things close to their field!

As for your critique of the third paper: again, we're not in the business of nitpicking a source's sources. If a biologist said "creationism is false" (or even something less charged, like "whales are not fish"), we'd just accept that as their professional opinion. Trying to nitpick experts who don't want to explain the entire history of their field is a recipe for WP:PROFRINGE editing. Loki (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• In some contexts what people mean by "slur" is synonymous with "pejorative" and in others it is not. McKinnon, like some other sources, appear to be saying TERF isn't a "misogynistic slur" (i.e. a slur against women), which is presumably mostly academically uncontroversial. Davis and McCready are presenting a novel and interesting definition of a "slur", arguing that TERFs (rather than women as McKinnon was discussing) aren't a group to which a slur could apply. But novel primary sources are certainly not something we can quote as true in Wikipedia's voice, and the same would go for an article in The Conversation. Broadly, I don't really think we can summarise these sources outside of the context of the meaning of the terms they are using. But as Colin mentioned, this is all secondary to the fact that talk of academic consensus obviously requires stronger sourcing than this. Endwise (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Labelling it a "misogynistic slur" is an interesting line of attack and I note that currently this article doesn't mention that at all (other than in a quote in the references). It seems odd that we neglect to mention a fairly major viewpoint among gender-critical feminists, that part of the problem with TERF is that it is almost exclusively used to attack women, rather than just any old anti-trans writer. There is something specifically female-recipient about it. ‘Terf’ is the ultimate slur against women argues it "is a projection of hatred onto women, and usually older women. It drips with gleeful misogyny." I think what we as editors must do is impartially curate these views, present them with appropriate weight and balance, rather than personally argue that one side or the other is correct or has won the debate. It seems to me patently obvious that this dispute is not settled either among academics or journalists or feminists or the general public. I wish there was a secondary source with an impartial author doing exactly that kind of survey and then we could quote them or use them as a source for such a statement. But without that, I can't add my personal summary of the debate to the article any more than any other editor can add theirs. That's a bit frustrating but probably unsurprising with such a polarising topic. (as an aside, I'm actually surprised that this week's Tory conference didn't announce they were banning the word TERF, as they seemed determined to ban anything else involving "gender ideology" from schools, academia and healthcare.) -- Colin°^Talk 10:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think this article should probably mention it, as it is a large part of the "slur debate", but I think I would describe the view that TERF is a misogynistic slur as a very marginal one. Some typically older sources seem to describe there being a debate in more banal terms about TERF being a slur (i.e. about it being derogatory) without picking sides. But I don't really think you'd find anyone outside of the community the term applies to entertaining the idea that the term TERF is generally derogatory toward women. Endwise (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  While I don't agree with Endwise about the academic consensus, I do agree that the view that TERF is a misogynistic slur as a very marginal one. Loki (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  From "Hags" by Victoria Smith:

  In her dissertation on the use of the term, Anna-Louise Adams found TERF to be 'a gendered label, which is utilised by men to legitimise misogynistic language and behaviour': "TERF in itself is used as a word to describe women alongside violent rhetoric such as: punch a TERF, rape a TERF, kill a TERF, highlighting its dehumanising nature. Further, a number of participants reported that they had seen TERF used alongside words which represent uncleanliness, filth, or disease." Adams tells me the women she interviewed felt it was also conflated with 'old' and 'lesbian'.

  Adams' dissertation is here and concludes:

  This research focused on a qualitative description of women’s experiences of being labelled as TERFs. It has also delivered an account of gender-critical feminism; the branch of feminism which is typically afforded the status of TERF. It has explored the way that TERF is deployed, highlighting its presence within misogynistic e-bile. Furthermore, it has argued that TERF functions to legitimise homophobia towards lesbians, enabling the perpetuation of rape culture. The accuracy of the term has been discredited; the heterogeneity of women labelled as TERFs highlights that the term does not accurately describe the ideologies of all the women that are labelled. This is further supported by the usage of the term to conflate gender-critical feminism with far-right politics – two polarised ideologies. This conflation perpetuates e-bile and renders TERF esoteric. My data show the duality of usage present within TERF; many users of the term use it in the knowledge that it legitimises misogyny and violent threats towards women. Others are unfamiliar with this dichotomy and thus use the term as a descriptor, despite the fact that this thesis has shown that it is inaccurate.

  Of course, this is not a great source as it is only a dissertation, by someone regularly called a TERF, referred to in a book by someone also regularly called a TERF, but it is supported somewhat by Finn Mackay in "Female Masculinities and the Gender Wars", who states the usage is so wide as to be meaningless beyond a shorthand for transphobia, and also that it is biased towards women:

  The acronym has become so widely shared in social media activism and mainstream journalism that it has become almost a void, as it is applied to anyone expressing transphobic, prejudiced, bigoted or otherwise exclusionary views about trans men, trans women and all transgender and trans people. It is applied to those who are not feminist activists and would never identify themselves as feminists; it is put onto those who may be feminists but are certainly not Radical Feminists; it has become a shorthand for transphobic, and mostly applied to women

  Either way I think the two books could be enough for direct quotes to lay out the competing viewpoints, even if it can't be wikivoice?

  But the larger problem is that expecting neutral sources on this point is nigh-on impossible since in general defending TERFs makes you a TERF. Void if removed (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the last sentence of the lead from this version should be restored as a fair summary of the body and as the status quo. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't like that version because it's WP:FALSEBALANCE. We're putting a bunch of opinion columns on one side versus academic papers on the other. Loki (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The ludicrous and quite fringe idea that TERF is somehow a "slur" is only promoted by (some) TERFs themselves, i.e. adherents of a fringe ideology. It should certainly not be presented as a mainstream idea. Numerous TERFs have used the term themselves, so the claim is more a rhetorical device intended to attack supporters of equality and human rights for LGBT+ people. The closest analogy would be if racists claimed that "racist" and "racism" are "slurs" when scholars and activists wrote about or criticized their racist ideology. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The text that got added before fails WP:RS/AC very explicitly. It isn't helpful for editors to say stuff like "you are clearly incorrect about basic facts about the sources and Wikipedia policy" when I've had to copy/paste that policy onto this page to point out to editors that what there were doing and saying is just plain very clearly wrong. If folk want to make claims about our sources or about policy then evidence please. It is an easy mistake to make, to put what you or I think about a subject, based on our own readings and experience, and write as though it was the kind of fact we can claim in a wikipedia article. So things like "the view that TERF is a misogynistic slur as a very marginal one" needs a source with a neutral author saying exactly that. (i.e. not some activity saying it is "ludicrous"). The so called "academic papers" that Loki mention includes a magazine article and a "paper" written by a cyclist. There was only one academic paper worthy of the name, and it didn't actually reach a conclusion. As the guideline says "Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus." If we don't have a review of the literature or a review of society then none of us here can claim in the article that X is a minority opinion or Y is the consensus or that there is no consensus.

But more importantly, on a topic of social beliefs and attitudes, the beliefs of a tiny handful of academics is not any more weighty that the beliefs of society. Does anyone here seriously think the world asked some academics to analyse the examples List of religious slurs or List of ethnic slurs before folk decided they were bad and polite people stopped using them? That isn't how this works. Rather, the academics write historically about how a word has fallen out of use or has become regarded as distasteful or hateful. No linguist can possibly explain why shortening Pakistani creates an ethnic slur but shortening Australian does not, without referring to British history and noting that society has determined this, not some algorithm or scientific method. Linguists are not referees in a culture war and we shouldn't expect them to be.

As for the claim that being gender critical is a "fringe ideology" and not "mainstream", well I've already quoted the polling on that. There are gender critical beliefs that are utterly mainstream in the UK and US (e.g. that you are born a man and cannot become a woman). There's no winning ideology on that in the UK or US any more than conservatism and socialism have a winner. We need to stop making claims here that just reflect the hopes and dreams of liberals. If you want to make a claim about what society thinks (i.e. that X is a slur) then quote a source that claims what society thinks, not an opinion piece about what the author thinks. -- Colin°^Talk 18:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS/AC is a decent argument about the exact wording but it doesn't really say anything about simply citing those sources for facts. Since the sources against are academic, and therefore quite strong, and the sources for are WP:RSOPINION which are explicitly not reliable for facts, WP:NPOV demands that we don't present them as equal to each other.

The rest of your argument is IMO incoherent. Of course academic linguistics papers are reliable for linguistic information. Loki (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I think we've got some really wrongheaded ideas about what academic sources are for. A good academic source would survey or cite a survey of public opinion about whether TERF is considered a slur. That an academic might write a paper stating their own belief that TERF is or is not a slur is of no higher regard to Wikipedia, from that source alone, than that academic, Brian, declaring what their favourite colour is, or football team. Now, if independent secondary sources writing about academic's favourite colours discuss that Brian's views on colour and football teams were revelatory and hugely influenced future writers, artists and sports, then we might be getting somewhere. But similarly it is equally possible that Jeff's views on colour and football teams, written in the New York Times, or written in a surprise best seller by an obscure non-academic publishing house, were also revelatory and influential and get written about by such sources.

We are currently dealing with the opinions of a handful of people. In a world of several billion. That they think "X" is wonderful for them but of no interest to us unless secondary sources say their thinking about X important. Writers here have googled and inserted what they found and previously they also did original research on that findings. I get that some editors want to rubbish certain sources because it happens to be, absolutely by chance, that those sources don't agree with them. But both the academic papers and the magazine or newspaper articles are perfectly reliable sources on a person's own opinion.

We simply don't have good secondary sources or population reviews on what society thinks about "TERF". In their absence, we've ended up with this crazy situation where one dreadful academic paper, one fairly decent paper (that has no conclusion, Loki how many times do I have to point that out) and one magazine article are put on a pedestal as though those few author's opinions can represent "society". They can't.

Please go look at our other articles on religious or ethnic slurs. They do not depend on cyclists who once did a bit of philosophy. -- Colin°^Talk 15:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

That an academic might write a paper stating their own belief that TERF is or is not a slur is of no higher regard to Wikipedia, from that source alone, than that academic, Brian, declaring what their favourite colour is, or football team.

This is not true. It might be a WP:PRIMARY source and therefore have to be treated carefully, but it's still definitely a reliable source. In fact, professional opinion is one of the few ways we can use an WP:SPS. (And professional opinion is not always a WP:PRIMARY source. In fact, per WP:USEPRIMARY, both the McKinnon and Saul sources are secondary, since they're both professional opinions based on other research. McKinnon even cites her own sources. This means that the only academic source under discussion that's even primary is David and McCready, since they're advancing a novel theory of slurs in their paper.)

We simply don't have good secondary sources or population reviews on what society thinks about "TERF". In their absence, we've ended up with this crazy situation where one dreadful academic paper, one fairly decent paper (that has no conclusion, Loki how many times do I have to point that out) and one magazine article are put on a pedestal as though those few author's opinions can represent "society". They can't.

They do not have to represent society. If it was the opinion of everyone who hadn't studied the topic that God created the world in seven days, it would not mean that Wikipedia could ignore the professional opinions of everyone that actually has studied the topic that that's not true, or even that those two opinions would have to be given equivalent weight to each other.

You are treating the question here as if it's somehow subjective, but it's simply not. Whether TERF is a slur is based on objective properties of language that can be studied just like anything else in linguistics. Even if there was more ambiguity in the answer than there seems to be, it wouldn't make it just a matter of opinion.

Please go look at our other articles on religious or ethnic slurs. They do not depend on cyclists who once did a bit of philosophy.

Calling Ivy, a professional philosopher, a "cyclist who once did a bit of philosophy" is IMO offensive to the point of defamation. Our other articles on religious or ethnic slurs mostly source the fact that they're slurs to academics just like MacKinnon. So for instance, our article on the n-word heavily relies on this paper to cite the fact that it's a slur. A lot of other articles on slurs don't say that they're slurs explicitly (which surprised me): so for instance we just call "faggot" pejorative in the text, although it's included in a category of LGBT-related slurs. Loki (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Loki, I think you are falling into the trap of thinking a source (the entire piece of writing, say) is primary or secondary. Most sources are a mixture of primary and secondary material. A writer quite naturally mixes their own thoughts with comments based on others or as you say perhaps even cite their own previous publications on some matter. But there's a difference between source Colin 2023 writing "I believed in 2005 that the moon landing was faked (citing Colin 2005)" (a secondary source on Colin's opinion in 2005) and a source Colin 2023 writing "I believe the moon landing was faked (citing Colin 2005)" (a primary source on Colin's opinion in 2023 which happens to cite their earlier work either because it goes into more detail on the matter, it demonstrates how long I've held that opinion or because citations are good).

McKinnon does several times cite their own work, typically as it expands on the opinion they just gave, but that doesn't make it a secondary source for what McKinnon believes in March 2018 when they wrote that paper. And furthermore they do not do that when they write "and, ludicrously, claim that ‘TERF’ is a misogynistic slur". This is not quality academic writing, Loki. Such comments earn no points in your essay at university, as they haven't argued why.

Saul is also a mix. When they write "They object strenuously to this, saying that TERF is a slur." they are a secondary source for what "some feminists" think. But when they write "TERF is not a slur. Nonetheless, I don’t use the word because it’s inaccurate and misleading." this magazine article is a primary source for their own personal opinion.

McKinnon hasn't "studied the topic" the way that someone who was an academic in ancient Egyptian religion might study the topic. I have no doubt at all they were asked to contribute to the "Book symposium on Jason Stanley’s (2015) How Propaganda Works" because they are a known activist who probably has an opinion or two on the big culture war over whether TERF is a slur. I see you edited their Wikipedia article to claim "McKinnon's primary research focus is the philosophy of language". But the source doesn't say that. It doesn't mention language at all. It says "My primary research focuses on the relationship between knowledge and action. Specifically, much of my research currently focuses on the norms of assertion." This is philosophy, not linguistics or the philosophy of language.

You write "our article on the n-word heavily relies on this paper to cite the fact that it's a slur" I think you are mistaking "happens to cite one of a nearly infinite array of possible sources" for "heavily relies on". This article is the one desperately relying on the opinions of three or four people and making out, totally against policy, that this somehow represents an academic consensus never mind a societal one. -- Colin°^Talk 13:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's a review of McKinnon's book Now I admit this is well outside of my knowledge-zone but this is about what people know or believe, what they say or claim, and the connection between those. Any suggestion that this abstract philosophical work makes one an expert in judging whether a word is a slur is, to use a word in their paper, "ludicrous". The elephant in the room is McKinnon is transgender and is a transgender activist, writing a paper about a word used by transgender activists to label and disparage women who hold hostile views about her very identity. McKinnon could be a nuclear physicist for all that matters here. They have expressed a personal opinion and their paper appears to have been cited merely 10 times, once by themselves. -- Colin°^Talk 14:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)