The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Andrea Dworkin is listed as "trans-inclusive" despite never having expressed the belief that transwomen are women. She is mentioned as a contrast right after the mention of LOOT's decision to become female-born-only, even though it cannot be deduced from any of her writings whether she would have supported or opposed such a move. She never once publicly commented on this move by LOOT or the similar decision by Michfest, even though she lived through that era. From the three citations given at the end of the sentence mentioning her: 1) one contains nothing other than Stoltenberg's statement "when I met Andrea in 1974, her views were trans-inclusive," 2) one contains a quote by Dworkin which does not indicate whether she supports or opposes the notion whether transwomen are women and whether they should be included in women-only spaces, and 3) one is from a piece by Cristan Williams, who is extremely opinionated on such topics and should probably not be used as an RS for factual statements; besides, the link returns a 404 so we can't check what exactly Williams wrote. As such, I see calling Dworkin "trans-inclusive" to be very badly sourced. The only thing we really have is Stoltenberg's statement, and he was heavily criticized by Nikki Craft who claims more or less the opposite as him. (Currently can't find an RS about it but she stated that they cooperated on a trans-critical article with Dworkin.)
A smaller but similar problem is that the paragraph beginning with "the argument against trans-inclusion..." implicitly conflates any critical position by radfems (as mentioned in the paragraph before it) with "anti-trans-inclusion."
Mention Dworkin's expressed support for transsexuals wanting SRS to get it, and possibly mention her statements about "multisexuality" but don't throw her under a "trans-inclusive" label as it cannot be deduced from any RS or her own writings whether she a) saw transwomen as women or b) supported their inclusion in female-only spaces.
Slightly change the phrasing so as not to implicitly conflate all possible trans-critical viewpoints with the specific positions of a) not seeing transwomen as women and b) opposing their inclusion in female-only spaces.
Mathglot, do you have any suggestions on how to improve the situation, or comments on my proposals above, since you had undone my edit removing Dworkin from the "trans-inclusive" list? Taylan (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Taylan, I borrowed Koedt/Levine book to go through and fix up that section (as well as others) but I've run out of time before having to run off on a trip. I can respond more when I'm back. Hopefully other editors can respond in a more timely manner to this question in the meantime, and you can reach a consensus. Sorry I'm in a bit of a rush and can't do this justice now, but I will when I can. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Mathglot, thanks for the trouble. Unfortunately my main concern is yet unresolved. Dworkin is simply listed as "trans-inclusive" even though she never stated that transwomen are women and never stated support for transwomen entering female-only spaces. I think she should simply be removed from that sentence. From my experience outside of Wikipedia, it seems to have become a bit of a trope to use Dworkin as a token "pro-trans" radical feminist, even though it's a highly questionable assertion. Wikipedia shouldn't be contributing to such misinformation. Taylan (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
The following passage from Woman Hating seems to support the claim that Dworkin was trans-positive:
"[E]very transsexual has the right to survival on his/her own terms. That means every transsexual is entitled to a sex-change operation, and it should be provided by the community as one of its functions....We are, clearly, a multi-sexed species which has its sexuality spread along a vast fluid continuum where the elements called male and female are not discrete."
Unless someone is trying for some reason to create a wedge between pro-trans positions and positions against binary gender (and what would motivate anyone split hairs like that?), I'd call her position trans-inclusionary. Newimpartial (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that "trans inclusionary" is commonly understood to mean "sees transwomen as women" and relatedly "wants transwomen to be able to enter female-only spaces." Andrea Dworkin never expressed such views. That's what I mean with "trans inclusion isn't well-defined." There is a false dichotomy (either all-support or all-oppose) which can mislead the reader. Taylan (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
There are a few things missing from the article that should be included such as:
There needs to be a mention of sex-positive feminism in the article since it arose largely as a response the perceived anti-sex (sex-negative) views of radical feminists. This led to the feminists sex wars, which also needs to be mentioned in the article. Yes, I am aware that not everyone on anti-porn/anti-sex work/allegedly anti-sex side of the debate identifies as a radical feminist not does everyone on the other side identify as a sex-positive feminist either. But radical feminists did/do make up large majority of the movement anti-porn/anti-sex work/allegedly anti-sex.
The abbreviation radfem is common in certain circles of radical feminism and should be mentioned in the article.
Accusations of radical feminists being man-haters could be fleshed out more in the article rather then just a brief mention. This has long been a charge against radical feminism and has either been denied by radical feminists as existing at all in the radfem movement or some acknowledge it by claim it strictly a fringe/minority view within the movement.
Related to the above, is the argument made by a minority of radfems that PIV sex (Penis in Vagina sex) is something all woman should abstain from in the current patriarchal society, if ever. Some go on the blatantly describe it as rape. (see this link: https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/ ). The debate within the radfem movement whether PIV sex is always or generally rape/sexual assault/sexual violence and accusations made from outside the movement that this attitude is more common the many radfems argue it is, if the acknowledge it at all. Obviously, we would need to fine reliable sources to discuss this view within the movement and the blog I linked to above (or similar sources) does not meet that standard but that dos not mean RS's do not exists covering the anti-PIV radfem minority view. Remember, while this is described as fringe viewpoint within the movement by many redfams themselves does not mean it can't be included in the article so long as undue weight is not given to it. Also keep in mind that their are radfem's that openly state an anti-PIV sex position (see above blog) and those that critics claim imply such a view despite not outright stating it (such as Andrea Dworkin). A common argument made by some radfem's is that women in patriarchal societies, such as the U.S., cannot truly consent to sex freely under such conditions and this is what makes heterosexual sex at least problematic (if not outright rape). All of this should be include in the article if RS's can be found to cite.
Separatist feminism is not mentioned in this article even though it's considered notable enough to have it own article on Wikipedia. As such, it deserves at least a brief mention in this article with a link to the main article on it.
I don't think you'll be able to find many reliable sources re. "all PIV sex is rape." That's just a common straw-man-through-over-simplification. What you wrote at the end is more like it: some radfems have argued that true consent can only exist in the context of equality between the sexes, which doesn't currently exist, and as such heterosexual sex is metaphorically akin to rape. The book The Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism contains a chapter by a radically abstaining radfem group; you could use that as a reliable source: http://radfem.org/the-sexual-liberals/Taylan (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)