Talk:TERF (acronym)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Are these articles reliable sources for these claims?

Recently I made two edits removing sources I thought were unreliable and claims supported solely by those sources. These edits (along with a third more minor edit) were promptly reverted by Crossroads. So let's ask the talk page: are these sources really reliable, or not?

The first edit was removing the claim Phrases like "Kill a TERF!" or "Punch a TERF!" are also posted by trolls online and there have been other depictions of violence aimed at women labeled as TERFs, sourced to this response article in the Journal of Critical Studies. Since it's a response, I'm not 100% confident this piece has been fully peer reviewed, but even if it was, we certainly would not use this source without in-text attribution for its central claim (that trans women are not women), so I'm not sure why we're citing it for a side claim that the author of the piece doesn't even give a source for himself. (For all we know, he's citing it to having heard it on Twitter once.) He cites similar claims to an article in the Federalist, a site which WP:RSN has not been very favorable to, and credits the author of that piece for helping him with writing the one we cite.

In addition, this claim in context was WP:SYNTH: Feminist author Claire Heuchan argues that the word is often used alongside "violent rhetoric".[6][28] Phrases like "Kill a TERF!" or "Punch a TERF!" are also posted by trolls online and there have been other depictions of violence aimed at women labeled as TERFs.[29] Heuchan adds that language of this type is used to "dehumanise women", often lesbians.[6]. The point of attributing those other claims to Heuchan is to avoid the implication that what Heuchan said is true: we're documenting what she said, not agreeing with her. But putting another claim from another source in Wikivoice in between two claims attributed to Heuchan implies not merely that Heuchan said those other things, but that those other things are actually true, and is therefore transparently "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources".

The second edit was removing the claim The term TERFy has also been used to describe things "that queer millennials deem uncool" such as bangs, sourced to this Slate article. Even in the quote we give in the citation, the author herself sources this claim to "Things I’ve seen called “TERFy” on Twitter and Tumblr". Twitter and Tumblr are not reliable sources, so an opinion piece that explicitly sources itself to Twitter and Tumblr is not a source either. (And while saying this, she even links a better source for the claim that a certain style of bangs is sometimes called "TERF bangs", though not that they're called that because "queer millennials deem [them] uncool".) Loki (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted your unnecessary wholesale removal of this content: [1] It's not our place as editors to try to argue that WP:RS should have said things differently. They and the peer reviewers and publishers have the expertise to decide what to say. We then determine WP:Due weight. Regarding Phrases like "Kill a TERF!" or "Punch a TERF!" are also posted by trolls online and there have been other depictions of violence aimed at women labeled as TERFs., are there any reliable sources disputing this, namely claiming that such rhetoric does not exist? Not likely, but feel free to present them. If there is no dispute on this, it does not need in-text attribution, even if other ideas from the author would. With it seeming to lend support to Heuchan, this is never stated directly as support, but the sentence order can be changed so it is no longer in between them. As for what the Slate writer states, yes, I'm glad to see someone admit that opinion pieces about social media are low-grade sources, but still, it's perfectly okay for sources to themselves use primary and self-published sources; it is being published in a reputable outlet that confers some reliability for us. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The Addition of TEGA (Gay Men Against Transgender Influences In The Gay Community)

TEGA ("TAY-gah" like SEGA) Trans-Exclusionary Gay Activist* : Gay men that claim that trans men aren't really men. They will refuse to date or have sex with them, although many have been tricked into doing so as many lesbian and bisexual TERF women have experienced as well. Many express or hold views along the lines of "gender/sex is binary", "transgenderism is mental illness", "sex reassignment surgery is self mutilation", "hormone blockers are child abuse", "almost all trans kids and teens grow out of transgenderism by adulthood, becoming normal gay and lesbians", "transgenderism is gay / lesbian erasure", "trans people are stealing / transwashing gay history or culture", etc. These opinions can be held by anyone from the far left to the far right and anywhere inbetween as this is just one opinion on one issue of the hundreds of political issues people use to segregate themselves into parties. Many far leftists, liberals, and american democrats seem to have an issue with TEGA as many of these subgroups tend to support transgender people/rights and the "LGBT", while many other gays and lesbians want to #DROPTHET / #DROPTHETEA (from LGBT) as they feel the natural sexual orientation has nothing to do with gender (allies would say) or mental illness (anti-trans groups like TERFs, TEGAs, and most critical of the 'gender spectrum' / trans issues would say). *Activist does not designate a political affiliation or stance other than being a naturally born gay male / man. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tega The author R.A. Lopez (aka Rick Lopez) coined this term as a gay male alternative to TERF that did not include feminism as a core component but merely focused on rejection of transgender advocacy and abuse of gay men and male only spaces. Electronicoffee (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't sound very promising. Are there any reliable sources for it? If there are then maybe it could have a passing mention as a related phrase but Urban Dictionary is no good at all. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Manufacturing consensus.

Are transwomen women? I would say yes. But does my saying so make it so? Obviously lots of other people must agree for that to be true. Common usage alone determines the meaning of "woman." This is the problem with dubiously asserting that feminists generally agree that transwomen are women: as though there were some weight given to the claim in so doing. We know that "women" is a common English noun that historically represented the class of humans described scientifically as female. Today, for many of us, the class of women is larger than the class of females. A person is a women if that is the general consensus. A person is declared female on a genetically determined set of criteria. This study indicates that 87.5% of the sample group (N = 958) would not choose to date a trans person. If the study is close to being accurate, one might suspect that transwomen are women in the ordinary sense for relatively few general population adults, many of whom, I should not be surprised to discover, are themselves feminists.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The source you posted isn't really relevant to improving this article, as Wikipedia is not the place to publish your novel analysis of that study. The source itself does not say any of the various claims in your analysis of it, so it cannot be used to support the ideas that:

• choosing to exclude trans women from one's dating pool means that trans women are not considered women;
• therefore the majority of people do not consider trans women to be women;
• that any percentage of respondents consider themselves feminists;
• or that these feminists not dating trans women (and therefore not considering them women) represent a majority viewpoint within feminism.

Wikipedia only reflects what is stated by the reliable sources on the subject. Making extrapolations from sources is an example of inappropriate synthesis. Have you read the discussion above about the sources used to cite the claim? --Equivamp - talk 23:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"A minority of feminists"

This claim is currently supported by a citation to an article in the "Medieval Feminist Forum" (an online journal about feminism in medieval times, apparently not well-recognized) and an opinion piece from the New Yorker. Neither are great sources. As I performed research on this topic, I could not find a reliable source that was stating this as a matter of fact rather than opinion. It does not appear that anyone has ever tried to determine how many feminists are "TERFs." I'd like to remove this language unless someone has a decent source for the assertion aside from bare claims of fact. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 20:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

It has been established in Reliable Sources that most feminist organizations are Trans-inclusionary; I would think that could represent the views of feminists in general. Newimpartial (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your first sentence, which reliable sources and where in them? Regarding your second sentence, that is textbook WP:OR and should not be in the article. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you that this phrase is not supported by sources that are reliable for this purpose, as I've said before. I believe you once described the Medieval Feminist Forum source as a bald assertion in furtherance of a political argument, not based on any empirical research, and that is indeed the case. Yes, it is a marginal journal. Regarding the New Yorker, that doesn't even support the claim per se; it says, There are young transgender-critical radical feminists, like Heath Atom Russell and Rachel Ivey, aged twenty-four, who was one of the organizers of Radfems Respond, but they are the first to admit that they’re a minority. “If I were to say in a typical women’s-studies class today, ‘Female people are oppressed on the basis of reproduction,’ I would get called out,” Ivey says. Other students, she adds, would ask, “What about women who are male?” This is clearly talking about a specific age group of feminists, and to extend that to feminists in general is WP:OR. Regarding opinion pieces, editors need to keep WP:RSOPINION in mind (emphasis added): Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

For the United States, this trans-positive statement is certainly signed by most major Feminist organizations. For Canada, this source clearly documents the preponderance of feminist organizations in support of trans-inclusionary legislation. How many countries to we need to document here? Or should we specify, "in the United States and Canada"? Newimpartial (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Hard to say but perhaps we could somehow work in the relative strength of the views in question in the United Kingdom. Don't know if the geography belongs in the lead, though. Haukur (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Specifying the US and Canada would certainly be a good start in the direction of WP:V, but it's not far enough. The first source only talks about feminist organizations, which is not the same thing as people who identify as feminists in general. It doesn't say it represents a majority of these organizations either - to say that is OR. It also doesn't talk about TERFs or 'trans-exclusionary feminists' at all, so its relevance is questionable on a WP:SYNTH basis. Your second source is an opinion piece, which runs afoul of WP:RSOPINION unless you use WP:In-text attribution. It generalizes about "Canadian feminists" on the basis of some organizations, but is not any kind of in-depth impartial analysis. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be a misinterpretation of RSOPINION to be more skeptical of a commentary piece than one would be of a self-published work on the same topic by the same author or authors. The two authors of the piece in question are Kimberley Ens Manning, Director of the (Feminist, university based) Simone de Beauvoir Institute in Montreal and author of, among others Attached advocacy and the rights of the Trans child, published in the Canadian Journal of Political Science, a leading Canadian journal, and Julie Temple Newhook, the primary author of A critical commentary on follow-up studies and “desistance” theories about transgender and gender non-conforming children published in the International Journal of Transgenderism. Both are "recognized experts" on the topic of feminism and transgender politics, in the sense required by WP:RS for self-published sources, so the fact that their work has been published as "commentary" does not make it any less suitable a source for facts than it would have been if they had posted it to a blog, i.e., it is an acceptable source based on their expertise in the subject. Newimpartial (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly, in the UK example we have sources stating that Virtually the entire feminist establishment has embraced transgenderism and The evidence is overwhelming. Transgenderism...has greater support from women than from men, and its success has depended on women in power who brandish their feminist credentials [2], though I suspect the influencers there are more evenly divided than in North America. Newimpartial (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

There are also plenty of publications willing to generalize on US feminist organizations. For example, this piece in City Journal states that When it comes to all things transgender that come at the expense of girls and women, America’s famously outspoken feminist organizations find themselves at a curious loss for words and that The fox (representing trans women has entered the henhouse, as the old saying goes, while women’s (feminist) organizations stick to the fiction that both species are hens. This doesn't really seem to be a controversial point concerning feminist organizations in the US, the UK or Canada. In fact, some might even call it a BLUESKY situation. Newimpartial (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As useful as it is for the overall point, Quillette is absolutely not a reliable source. But we do have some better sources over on Feminist views on transgender topics. For example:

• The Daily Dot, in an explanatory news piece: "TERFs are a small minority within feminism" (right there in black-and-white for this one)
• The NY Times, opinion: "In the United States, my adoptive home, the most visible contemporary opponents of transgender rights are right-wing evangelicals, who have little good to say about feminism. In Britain, where I used to live, the situation is different."
• The Economist, opinion: "While anti-transgender feminists are a minority, they have a high level of social, cultural and economic capital." (notably this one is written by a British person speaking about Britain)
• The Outline, ambiguous whether it's an opinion piece or a informally written commentary piece: "It’s vanishingly rare that I think any country should take advice from the shitshow that is the U.S., but with regard to feminism, at least American leftists don’t tend to Lean In to bigotry quite as much."

I feel these sources are both stronger than the Quillete source and the sources currently in the article (which are admittedly a bit weak). In particular, the Visions of Medieval Trans feminism source itself sources the claim out to another source (doi:10.23289252-3334127 if anyone wants to check it out). Loki (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The relevant passage from Transgender Studies Quarterly (2016) 3 (1-2): 5–14) is as follows:

Rather than review or editorialize against Gender Hurts, the board suggested, we should instead publish a special issue on feminist transgender scholarship that recontextualizes and reframes the terms of the conflict. Rather than cede the label feminist to a minority of feminists who hold a particular set of negative opinions about trans people, and rather than reducing all transgender engagement with feminism to the strategy embraced by some trans people of vigorously challenging certain forms of antitransgender feminist speech, we should instead demonstrate the range and complexity of trans/feminist relationships. Newimpartial (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Loki's sources, I explain the problem with the Daily Dot below. The Outline is clearly an opinion piece and is unusable per WP:RSOPINION, as I explained above. Regarding opinion pieces by subject-matter experts, there is no exception in RSOPINION regarding attribution for subject-matter experts. And WP:SPS urges caution about self-published sources by subject-matter experts, since if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources; those still are poor sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, your argument that op-eds by recognized subject-matter experts are poor sources is not supported by policy, nor by your own practice of including Andrew Sullivan commentary in WP articles. Maybe rethink? Newimpartial (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, your assertion that WP:RSOPINION's in-text attribution requirement doesn't apply when the person is a subject-matter expert is not supported by policy. I do not have a practice of including Andrew Sullivan's commentary in articles (one incident where I supported someone else's proposal is not a "practice"), nor have I ever supported inclusion of such commentary as fact and without in-text attribution, as you are arguing for. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

RSOPINION applies to opinions, not to facts as reported by subject matter experts. Newimpartial (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Analysis of current sources for claim about feminist organizations

So I note there's also a claim made about "predominant in feminist organizations", but with sources that don't support it.

• This source significantly says "subgroup", and says To some feminists, that notion is obvious: the experience of having lived as male for any period of time matters. It also quotes philosopher Kathleen Stock as saying, Beyond the academy, there’s a huge and impassioned discussion going on, around the apparent conflict between women-who-are-not-transwomen’s rights and interests, and transwomen’s rights and interests. And yet nearly all academic philosophers  -- including, surprisingly, feminist philosophers  --  are ignoring it, which contradicts the idea "TERF views" are definitely a minority among feminists. This source says nothing about feminist organizations, nor does it support "minority".
• This source does not talk about feminist organizations either, nor does it purport to be a survey of feminists in general, nor comment on the relative proportion of "TERF views" among feminists in general. (And to be clear, this source's view of radical feminists is not the complete picture; see the sources at Radical feminism#Views on transgender topics.)
• This source also does not talk at all about feminist organizations, so it does not support this claim as such. It does say that TERFs represent a minority of feminists, but note what WP:RSP states about the Daily Dot, The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable for Internet culture. This is not some sort of careful analysis by an expert; it is a bald assertion based on zero research by a "writer and zinester" with no relevant expertise in a publication that is not reliable for this topic.

So, something needs to be done about this. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, I don't understand your reading of the Inside Higher Ed piece. Where does it contradict the idea that "TERF views" are definitely a minority among feminists? Newimpartial (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Re-read what Kathleen Stock said. She says that academic feminist philosophers are largely ignoring the impassioned discussion regarding these matters. Yes, this is regarding philosophers, specifically, but it shows that it's not as simple as all feminists aside from "TERFs" being definitively against "TERF" ideas. Some are ignoring the debate. It also shows that the term "feminist" can be vague. Does that mean organizations? academics in feminist schools of thought? all people who say they are feminist when asked by a survey? It's better to be specific per the sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

"Feminist philosophers" is a vanishingly small group within "feminists" (and entirely orthogonal to "feminist organizations"), so I am still having trouble seeing the relevance of the piece. Newimpartial (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Three comments: First, the claim about a minority of feminist organizations was originally proposed in support of a larger claim about a minority of feminists. Many of the sources I linked speak to the underlying claim directly instead of the claim about organizations. (If you want separate proof of that more specific claim, Newimpartial has linked to a statement by tons of major feminist organizations above.)

Second, by my reading, the Inside Higher Ed source is irrelevant to the claim either way, and the Cristan Williams source suggests something supportive but doesn't state it clearly enough to source the claim at issue. The Daily Dot source, on the other hand, is a green WP:RSP source asserting that TERFs are a minority in news voice. That the Daily Dot is written in an informal style or that its writers call themselves "zinesters" are totally unrelated to its editorial standards. And I don't know how a term that originated in a series of blogposts can be anything other than "internet culture".

And third, even though in my opinion the Daily Dot source is by far enough to source the claim on its own, there are also three other sources I've linked, and one that Newimpartial has, which all also support that TERFs are a minority of feminists. Loki (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, I think it's a massive stretch to say that because the acronym "TERF" originated online, it falls under "internet culture" and therefore a blog article by a "zinester" on the Daily Dot is an authoritative source. Even the Daily Dot source disagrees with you, because they filed this under the "IRL" (in real life) category. I could go on and on with other examples of terms or things originating on the internet which are not "internet culture", but I won't belabor the point.

But this illustrates the problem in the first place. There is a strong desire to say that radical feminists are a minority, but no good sources for that assertion. Sure, there are plenty of opinionated articles that make that conclusory claim, but if this is so true then how come nobody can cite a poll or something of that nature?

It's not plausible to say "of course TERFs are a minority! No, I don't have any polling information or anything and it appears that nobody has ever actually done that, but what I do have are conclusory claims made in politically-motivated blog posts by zinesters, and that's good enough." Really, the language should be removed. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 11:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

But looking at this from the flip side, there is even less evidence subtracting suggesting that TERFs see are anything other than a minority. The best the contrary sources have to say is that TERF positions are "relatively strong in the UK". The US has precisely one trans-exclusionary feminist organization of any size/visibility, WoLF, which is allied with Christian conservatives and is widely regarded as an Astroturf effort (AstroTERF?). This really is a BLUESKY situation. The FALSEBALANCE implications if the article did not point out that TERF positions are minoritarian within feminism would be dramatic and far contrary to policy. Newimpartial (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, It seems just as hard to prove that "TERFs" are in the majority as it is to prove they are in the minority. This is because, apparently, nobody has ever done any real research on the topic. The only appropriate solution would be to omit any statements about whether it's a minority or a majority because neither assertions are adequately supported. I don't really understand the false balance problem; it seems like you're saying something to the effect of "it can't really be proven but it's the truth, so it needs to be in the article." That's really not okay. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, regarding there is even less evidence subtracting that TERFs see anything other than a minority, the WP:BURDEN of proof lies with the editors making the claim. It is not anyone else's burden of proof to disprove it before it gets removed. As for WP:BLUESKY, that is clearly not the case given the disputing that has occurred. One cannot use BLUESKY to justify a WP:V failure for any claim that one is personally convinced of. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

We have reliable sources stating that most feminist organizations include trans women, we have reliable sources stating that trans-exclusionary positions represent a minority of feminists, and we have trans-exclusionary sources themselves pointing out that they are opposed by most feminists. And then we have editors who question this reality on flimsy pretexts. It looks like the sky is blue, from here. Newimpartial (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, Right now, I'm focusing solely on the claim that TERFs are a minority opinion because that's what's in the article. That assertion is supported by an opinion column at the Daily Dot and an online-only fringe journal. Hardly what would be considered reliable for this kind of fact. Do you have any sources that actually conducted any surveys or anything of that nature, or is just politically-motivated opinion piece after opinion piece? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 16:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Very few surveys are done anywhere using "feminists" as a frame, so the evidence is going to be qualitative rather than quantitative as a rule. There is plenty of survey data showing that what 'Muricans call "progressives" are both feminist and trans-inclusuonary, but I am assuming that isn't what you want. Newimpartial (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, Right. When the only support for a claim about demographics is bare assertions made in politically-motivated columns, it casts doubt on the accuracy of the statement. Elsewhere on Wikipedia, we support claims about demographics with statistics. This statement is supported by an online fringe journal and an opinion column on the Daily Dot. This is why I'm skeptical. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 16:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be a misconstrual to interpret this claim as being about "demographics". There is also no policy-based reason to prefer quantitative over qualitative evidence when experts make these judgements and we cite them. Newimpartial (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) May His Shadow Fall Upon You, that characterization of the sourcing is definitely not right. See the sources I linked in the section above as well as the sources Newimpartial linked in the same section. We have in addition to the Daily Dot article, several opinion pieces in places with strong editorial standards, plus a statement signed by tons of feminist organizations, plus several other sources as well. It's hard for me to imagine a more clearly sourced claim. Loki (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We don't need someone to do "real research" on a topic as in an actual survey. That's never been the standard Wikipedia uses, otherwise we couldn't use any news source. If we had a news source that said said "Harlem is a majority-black neighborhood in New York City", we don't need to also have a survey of Harlem to be able to say most people who live there are black. The point of calling sources "reliable" is that we trust they've verified what they're reporting somehow, even if we can't independently verify it. Loki (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Opinion pieces no matter the outlet are not reliable for unattributed facts per WP:RSOPINION. As for hard for me to imagine a more clearly sourced claim, wow really? I can imagine a peer-reviewed paper that studies feminist opinions for starters. Or even a mainstream news report that isn't an opinion piece. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You are still misreading RSOPINION. In the case of the Canadian piece, for example, it was self-published before it was op-ed, by recognized experts in feminism and transgender issues per WP:RS, and is therefore perfectly suited to describing reality accurately and reliably. Definitely a more authoritative source than a "mainstream news report", in that case. Newimpartial (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• This is just the same old arguments peddled by the same old participants. No one is convincing the other. Time for a RFC to bring some fresh eyes (were we not going in this direction before). AIRcorn (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Butler

In Fourth wave feminism there is a section on early instances of TERF in relation to Judith Butler in Latin America. I think this is quite significant in the development of this phenomenon and should be considered for inclusion in this page. Kats987124 dh74g3y (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Misquoting trans activist

I removed these sentences and I’ll explain why:

• professor Rachel McKinnon has maintained the word is not a slur. She argues that merely being "a term used to denigrate women" does not make a word a slur, that being "an absurd, nonsensical view of the nature of slurs"

This is what the source, written by McKinnon, actually says:

• many contemporary TERFs accuse trans women of coining the phrase/term—and, ludicrously, claim that ‘TERF’ is a misogynistic slur. ... The idea—it seems to be—is that ‘TERF’ is a term used to denigrate women, and so it is a slur. However, this is an absurd, nonsensical view of the nature of slurs.

The first excerpt clearly tries to make it look like she doesn't think “denigrating women” is something serious enough to be considered insulting. As in "it is ok to insult women, it is no real biggie". But that is not the case. She doesn’t consider the term offensive towards women in the first place, and she explains why (among other things, it was a term coined by women themselves), and she also includes a footnote linking to an article written by Ernie Lepore and Luvell Anderson that further problematizes the concept and uses of slurs. This is just yet another attempt to demonize trans women by twisting their words and framing them in the worst possible light. No surprises coming from this encyclopedia and its usual anti-trans bias. - Daveout(talk) 02:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Pay special attention to this part, from the source, The idea — it seems to be — is that ‘TERF’ is a term used to denigrate women, she is putting herself in the shoes of those who criticize the term. She is talking about what THEY think about the term. "The idea" is actually "Their idea", this is very clear in the text. - Daveout(talk) 03:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You didn't merely remove the sentences; you changed them to this, which has its own issues: "transphobic radical feminists" is an inappropriate use of WP:WIKIVOICE as determined by this RfC. Additionally, the different point you've made it say is one that's already made above, so it doesn't really add anything new.

I've now read McKinnon's paper. Our text says, She argues that merely being "a term used to denigrate women" does not make a word a slur, that being "an absurd, nonsensical view of the nature of slurs". In the paper, McKinnon doesn't deny that the term is used toward women primarily, nor that it is a negative (denigrating) term. This is because of her view that it based on an incorrect definition of slurs. Beyond that, she doesn't really explain why exactly it isn't a slur, instead just citing some papers about slurs. When she says, emphasis added, The idea—it seems to be—is that ‘TERF’ is a term used to denigrate women, and so it is a slur. However, this is an absurd, nonsensical view of the nature of slurs., she seems to be denying that it being a slur necessarily follows from its usage, rather than denying that it is being used in that way. If that were so, she would have said something like, "However, this is not how the term is used, and is an absurd, nonsensical view of the nature of slurs". Crossroads ^-talk- 03:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The only misuse of wiki-voice here is using “merely” in that insanely tendentious way. As if she were downplaying actual verbal abuse directed towards women. Please re-write this using a neutral tone or put a direct quote. - Daveout(talk) 04:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Like this? Transgender rights activist and philosophy of language professor Rachel McKinnon has maintained the word is not a slur, stating, "The idea—it seems to be—is that ‘TERF’ is a term used to denigrate women, and so it is a slur. However, this is an absurd, nonsensical view of the nature of slurs." Crossroads ^-talk- 05:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I put the full quote there with no 'merely'. Haukur (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking about something like this:

• Transgender rights activist and philosophy of language professor Rachel McKinnon has maintained that equating TERF to misogynistic slurs is "ludicrous".

or

• Transgender rights activist and philosophy of language professor Rachel McKinnon has maintained that equating TERF to misogynistic slurs is "ludicrous"; and that those who object to it think "that ‘TERF’ is a term used to denigrate women, and so it is a slur. However, this is an absurd, nonsensical view of the nature of slurs."

- Daveout(talk) 05:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

FWIW I prefer Daveout's original version, because I don't think mentioning this quote is WP:DUE at all. I think it's pretty clear in the original context that she is in fact denying that it's "a term used to denigrate women": rather, she's attributing that view to trans-exclusionary radical feminists themselves. Loki (talk) 07:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Concur with Daveout and Loki. Rab V (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I think McKinnon's key observation in this passage is that terms can be used in various ways, including gender-based denigration/insults, without necessarily being 'slurs'. Pretty much any version of the article text that reflects this insight is fine with me. Newimpartial (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Newimpartial. I don't think either the 'original' wording or the "it is a term coined by trans-accepting radical feminists aiming at differentiating themselves from transphobic radical feminists" wording captures the main point she's making; the current complete quote is an improvement over either of those wordings but I think it would be even better to reduce the length of the quote (trim the first sentence?), or summarize. -sche (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

APPG report

I recently removed a sentence in the paragraph about the APPG report which Haukurth recently put back. While I didn't explain my reasoning clearly at the time, I believe including it is a pretty strong WP:NPOV violation.

That quote we have is followed shortly afterwards by a parallel section describing trans-exclusionary feminist calls for violence against trans people, which we don't cover in the article as-is at all. Including only the quote we have now, but no quotes from the following sections, makes it seem like the APPG report is saying a one-sided thing when it's actually saying the calling-for-violence situation is balanced between both sides. Hence, my edit to cut the paragraph down to only the conclusion of the APPG report (essentially "the rhetoric in this contentious political debate is very caustic on both sides") rather than what we have now (essentially "trans activists are so mean to feminists, says official government body"). Loki (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

No it doesn't, the calls for violence are reported from one direction. The actual conclusion of the report is:

Both sides of the argument illustrate that intra-community tensions are running high around this topic and that there are some on both sides of the divide who are resorting to extreme measures and tactics. On one hand, there are clear examples of threats and calls to violence against women, whilst on the other vulnerable people are being made to feel unwelcome, that they are viewed as a threat and that their identity is invalid. It should be clear that neither is acceptable.

The reference to the term TERF being used (i.e the topic of the article) is They argue that women who object to the inclusion of trans women as female are attacked both online and, in the street, with the term ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’ (or TERF) being used as a term of abuse.. The article represents the source perfectly fine. AIRcorn (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Precisely. The source (pp. 25-27) says nothing whatsoever about "trans-exclusionary feminist calls for violence against trans people" or that the "calling-for-violence situation is balanced between both sides." That is simply not the case, as reading the relevant pages of the report shows clearly. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Not specifically, but it explicitly frames the two sides as parallel: Several of the submissions also included screenshots of social media posts (predominantly Twitter) that contained threats and encouragements of violence towards ‘TERFs’. ... On the other side of the divide, there are trans activists and their supporters who are reporting similar attacks.

Regardless of whether the calls for violence are parallel, the overall situation clearly is: Both sides of the argument illustrate that intra-community tensions are running high around this topic and that there are some on both sides of the divide who are resorting to extreme measures and tactics. On one hand, there are clear examples of threats and calls to violence against women, whilst on the other vulnerable people are being made to feel unwelcome, that they are viewed as a threat and that their identity is invalid. It should be clear that neither is acceptable.

To quote one side of that but not the other is an archetypal NPOV violation. It's cherry-picking an article that explicitly says "both sides are at fault" to say "this side is at fault". Loki (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Our article here already says that "both sides [were] detailing incidents of extreme or abusive language". Beyond that, however, the report does not engage in the both-sides-ism you are implying, as the behavior detailed in the portion you (and Aircorn) quoted bears out. You are seizing on particular phrases out of context and arguing for that other archetypal NPOV violation, the WP:FALSEBALANCE. The report submissions talk about how the label TERF (the subject of this article) has been associated with threats of assault, rape, and death. Removing the report's quote overviewing the negative use of this term is what is POV. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I think your reading of this report is so one-sided it's indefensible on the facts, but it seems I'm unlikely to convince you. I would normally go to an RFC at an impasse like this, but TBH if I was going to go to an RFC I'd rather do a broader one on whether the sources we have here (several opinion writers, a sociologist who is clearly on the trans-exclusionary side of the debate and who makes his claim without citations, and this report which is much more balanced and measured than you claim it is) that trans activists sometimes threaten trans-exclusionary feminists are sufficiently reliable and WP:DUE for an article about a term. Like, I don't think we would say "black people sometimes threaten white people while using the word 'racist'", and I don't think we'd say that even if we could source it.

Do other people here (not just Crossroads, everyone on this talk page) think that an RFC on this topic would be a good idea? Loki (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that we should exclude a sociologist because you have put them clearly on the trans-exclusionary side of the debate. On that logic we should exclude Cristan Williams, Veronica Ivy, Andrea Long Chu and others as well. We don't write a balanced article using just the sources that agree with our perspective. As to the report there is not much more to say. This article is about the term and the actual mention of the term (i.e. the second sentence) is the relevant part. Sure, an opening sentence to put it in context of a wider conflict where both sides are being nasty is important. However the article to go into more detail on the trans activist / exclusionary feminist debate is Feminist views on transgender topics or a more dedicated article if anyone is mad enough to create it. AIRcorn (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

It's clear to me that your rejection, now, of all these high-quality sources (The Guardian twice, a peer-reviewed journal, the UK government, The Economist) that say it has been used in a context of violent threats can only result in an outcome of WP:CENSORSHIP, which would of course be a violation of WP:NPOV. Two of us have already rejected your claim, and none have supported it, and now you want sink time and energy into an RfC? I suggest not. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

That two of you are rejecting a claim I think is very obvious is exactly I would (and did) start an RfC: I do not believe that the local consensus on this talk page is very reflective of how the broader population of editors would view this issue. Loki (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Do parts of this article have reliability and NPOV problems?

The page TERF, about the word "TERF" and not the people to whom the term is applied, currently contains three sections after the lede: "Coinage and usage", "Opposition to the word", and "Slur debate", which are each roughly the same length. "Opposition to the word" and "Slur debate" contain many quotes attributed to individuals, mostly opposing the word that the page is about.

Some of the editors on this talk page believe that there are several problems with these two sections (described below for the sake of keeping the RFC description as neutral as possible). Is there a problem with these sections, and if so, what should we do about it? Loki (talk) 08:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes, for the three reasons I explain in more detail below: the sections are overwhelmingly sourced to less reliable or unreliable sources, which give WP:UNDUE individual opinions that are primarily about a semi-related topic, and the representation of that overall position in the article compared to its presence in the universe of reliable sources is a violation of NPOV. My suggested solution to these problems is to remove the UNDUE quotes (and ideally consolidate the sections). Loki (talk) 08:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• No We are not a dictionary, and discussing usage and opposition to usage is useful and important. But I would say they could be merged and truncated here.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes and No, due to variable controversy. This page tries to encapsulate the term, but ends up having to run full force into the ideology the term represents. In efforts of NPOV, the page includes both sides of the controversy, however it ends up ultimately (sometimes with more or less rhetorical nuance) taking either a pro-trans/anti-terf or pro-terf/anti-trans POV. Most sources are understandably individual-based as this term is on the edge of the mainstream and specific to a feminist/transgender controversy. Most pro-trans sources feel the term is descriptive for an ideological group which targets them, while most pro-terf sources feel the term is pejorative in the way it frames the ideology around trans-exclusivity (which is largely the point). Merge potential exists for a dedicated page toward this ideology (as controversial as it is) in general combining both aspects of this page and the Feminist views on transgender topics page Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 13:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  FWIW I also agree that part of the source of the problem is that we don't have a dedicated page on the ideology, so that material often gets put here. Loki (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Procedural close – This Rfc is highly premature. I would love to vote on a tightly phrased Rfc that proposed a small number of alternative wordings for a concrete change to the article. The Rfc question, as stated, (...what shall we do about it?) is far too vague for an Rfc to find resolution on anything. What would the !votes even be: Do something, or, Do nothing, or a different idea for each respondent? No, that's silly, of course. This discussion is worth having, as a discussion; but as an Rfc, it's not going to help, and may not end up deciding anything, which is the whole point of having an Rfc. Please withdraw it, and either rewrite it (premature, imho), or just hold an open-ended discussion and not an Rfc, whose goal would be to gather the most popular suggestions for section changes as a prelude to an Rfc, then start another Rfc, listing the top suggestions coming out of that discussion, as options 1 to 5 (or whatever) as the Rfc survey choices to be voted on. That's my advice. You can see this starting to happen organically, in the Discussion section below. All you need to do, is undo the Rfc, and focus on that discussion; when it's done and some options have crystallized, *then* come back and do the Rfc. Mathglot (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  The reason I wanted to have this as an RFC is that I literally want to request comments. We've had this discussion on this talk page before and it's gotten nowhere, so I want to bring in outside editors so that it gets somewhere. I acknowledge that it's broad, but there's nothing wrong by policy with a broad RFC. Loki (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

  Second. Y'all must keep in mind the meaning of the words, Request for comment; nothing in those words suggests a proposal for action is required, and are RFC's not typically the best way to bring in wider discussion when needed? Firejuggler86 (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Procedural close per Mathglot. This RfC question is vague and unactionable. But while we're in it, there is no problem with the material about how TERF is used. WP:NPOV#DUE requires that we fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. [Ftn.:] The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered. (Emphasis added.) Loki's only concrete proposal, seen above under #APPG report, amounts to WP:CENSORSHIP. This RfC question is exceedingly vague (see WP:RFCBRIEF), but it's clear that Loki thinks there are too many sources with a viewpoint they don't like. They can of course propose reliable sources with other viewpoints, but we will not censor views that are clearly are WP:DUE (as "due" is defined in policy) and from WP:Reliable sources.
  • Loki's claim that the existing material is overwhelmingly sourced to less reliable or unreliable sources is not true, and is as useless as it is vague. That the term TERF has been used in threatening violence is established by the UK government (pp. 25-27), an article in a peer-reviewed journal, The Economist, and seven philosophers.
  • It's also been mentioned two times in The Guardian; these two are opinion pieces, true, but they are used in accord with WP:RSOPINION, and if they are removed then, to be consistent, so must this "essay" in n+1 magazine, this in Socialist Worker, this in the New York Times, and more sources that are obviously opinion pieces. We cannot have a double standard where some opinion sources are treated as reliable and others not based on ideology. We do not judge inclusion of viewpoints based on whether we agree with them.

    More specifically regarding the All-party parliamentary group (APPG) report, below Loki takes one quote from the report out of context to make it seem like "both sides" of the use of the word are the same. Our article here does relay what both sides have in common when it says that both sides detail[ed] incidents of extreme or abusive language. Nonetheless, it is not the case that the two sides are symmetrical. The government report more fully states, Both sides of the argument illustrate that intra-community tensions are running high around this topic and that there are some on both sides of the divide who are resorting to extreme measures and tactics. On one hand, there are clear examples of threats and calls to violence against women, whilst on the other vulnerable people are being made to feel unwelcome, that they are viewed as a threat and that their identity is invalid. It should be clear that neither is acceptable. Anyone can check the report for themselves and see the details on pages 25-27. This latter aspect should also should be relayed; otherwise we are misrepresenting the source. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

    Briefly, my assertion is not that the publishing organizations are unreliable in general but that you cannot claim that an opinion is reliable for fact merely because it was published by a generally reliable organization. Many writers have published opinion pieces in major newspapers arguing for teaching creationism in schools but we don't cite those pieces in our article on evolution. But we're citing many sources stating that "TERF is associated with violent rhetoric" or "TERF is used to bully" as fact, when the only source we have for those claims that both makes them and would be reliable for them is the APPG report.

    WP:RSOPINION means that any opinion piece is reliable for the author's opinion but does not mean that opinion is WP:DUE; it doesn't mean that we have to have a section about opposition to the word that is full of the opinions of random opinion columnists. Sure, yes, the Economist's editorial board calling it a slur in their directions to other authors is probably DUE, and so is the APPG report, but most of the sources we cite are not those, they're just random opinion columnists whose opinion we have no reason to believe is particularly noteworthy. And including those sources means we should also include Vox casting doubt on the idea the term is a slur and NBC refusing to take a side. Loki (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

    Also, thank you for quoting the APPG report further and proving definitively it portrays both sides as symmetrical. I was just about to quote that section back at you, but I see you've already quoted it arguing the opposing position. I am still unsure what you are seeing that makes your reading of it even the least bit reasonable. Loki (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

    Your comparison is faulty. This is an article about the use of a word/acronym, not a well-supported scientific theory (as evolution is). Creationism is pseudoscience; the usage of a word is not pseudoscience. As for the quote of the report, again, criticizing both sides is not the same as saying they are symmetrical (equal) in behavior. "Threats of violence against women" are not the same thing as "being made to feel unwelcome [etc.]". Remember, we are talking specifically about the usage of the word, not about what these individuals on either side may be politically seeking more generally. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• No In as much as neutrality is not a fixed point, but an acceptable range. This falls within that, but doesn't mean it can't be improved upon further. It describes the term adequately, the uses if it and the debate around whether it is a descriptive term or a slur. For a recently coined word with limited scope there is not really much more we can do here source wise at this stage. I think the quotes could be reduced, but with controversial subjects it is often easier and more appropriate to directly quote what the source says than to guess what they are meaning. I guess this is a !vote for not tagging the article, as I don't really see what else can come out of such a broad RFC. AIRcorn (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes and no. The material (if cleaned up) is not WP:UNDUE in an encyclopedia, but the bulk of it probably belongs in a section at Feminist views on transgender topics, with just a WP:SUMMARY retained here. While WP is not a dictionary, and our articles on terms need to have social, etc., encyclopedic material about why the term is notable, and so on, we cannot WP:COATRACK the entire "pro- versus anti-transwomen views within and surrounding feminism" subject into an article on a politicized epithet acronym that one camp uses to label the other. I do not believe we need a separate article on "the TERF ideology", because it's not clear there really is any such thing. Virtually no one actually self-identifies with this term, and it is, rather, an overgeneralizing label for "those within feminism who do not seem to think about this exactly the way I and my friends do". Remember that we do refer to the "pro-life movement" as the "anti-abortion movement" just because their opponents like to. I also agree that just regurgitating a bunch of quotations that are making claims of alleged facts, from primary sources, without proper secondary-source material creating the context for them, is WP:OR; it is WP editors doing their own analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and synthesis to weave them into a binary "us vs. them" narrative, when the real truth is more complex, and even if it weren't, we are not permitted by policy to say so one way or the other in Wikipedia's own voice. WP doesn't declare what's true, it summarizes sources analyzing what seem to be true (and summarizing the conflict between these sources in a WP:DUE manner when apparently reliable sources are in sharp disagreement). We also need to be especially mindful about WP:CIRCULAR when it comes to a topic like this. There is an elevated risk that what WP says about it will become integrated into the public narrative and gestalt about it, reinforcing a particular viewpoint which we then "report" on further in a vicious cycle. We have to be more neutral than we have been, including in relevant BLPs (where we should not be treating "cancel culture" Twitter flaming as if it's encyclopedic history).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The way I see it, if we were improperly citing primary sources and thus committing OR, that would mean we were doing something like citing tweets where someone says something like "punch TERFs". The sources analyzing the societal phenomenon are the secondary sources, most prominently the APPG report. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, because I do not believe that an article about the term TERF is an appropriate place to litigate the appropriateness of trans-exlusionary policies and opinions. I would propose condensing the opposition section drastically and combining it into the debate section, which I would rename to be "Debate on appropriateness of term" or something similar as the current title is not NPOV. Smith(talk) 22:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

I believe the sections in question have three problems:

1. Reliability: Almost all the sections in question are quotes from opinion pieces opposing the word, and often trans activism in general. Most make some kind of factual claim (such as that it's often used alongside violent rhetoric) without any further sourcing whatsoever. We clearly have some doubts as to their reliability already, because we attribute almost all these views to the authors in question.

I expect people to bring up WP:BIASEDSOURCES here, but my complaint about their reliability is distinct from my complaint about DUEness or NPOV. WP:BIASEDSOURCES does not mean that individual opinion columnists are reliable sources for an article that's supposed to be linguistic in nature (nor does it mean we have to ignore the fact that opinion sections in most newspapers are less rigorously verified than the news sections of that same paper). We wouldn't source 2/3 of an article about any other word to opinion columnists either, no matter how politically contentious.

2. DUEness: This is supposed to be a page about the term "TERF", but 2/3 of it is in fact a broader critique of trans activists that is clearly not WP:DUE in an article about a word. We would never in a million years allow a page about the word "asshole" to be taken over by opinion columnists complaining about having been called an asshole.

This also starts to get into WP:BLPGROUP problems: even though trans activists are a broad political group and therefore at the edge of relevance for WP:BLPGROUP, accusing them of threatening people based on opinion columnists who don't explain where they got their information threatens the kind of real-world harm that the BLP policy exists to prevent.

3. NPOV: The sections in question drastically over-represent a particular position on the term, sometimes to the point of seriously misrepresenting neutral sources as oppositional ones. For example, the conclusion of the APPG report we quote in the article as opposing the term is actually Both sides of the argument illustrate that intra-community tensions are running high around this topic and that there are some on both sides of the divide who are resorting to extreme measures and tactics. Or in other words, though we represent it as having a highly tendentious position on the topic, it in fact reaches a very balanced "both sides" conclusion.

Plus, of course, it's not hard to find the opposing position on the term, we just don't include it in the article to any significant degree. Part of this is for the relatively good reason that many sources arguing that "TERF" is not a slur are self-published, such as Julia Serano's argument on her website, or Contrapoints' argument in one of her videos. But it's not that hard to find, for example, Vox publishing explainers that are highly skeptical of the idea the term is a slur, or NBC News describing the argument used by supporters of the term. We don't include these, while we do include tons of individual people's opinions. Loki (talk) 08:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about reliability and NPOV, but the argument made about DUEness sounds off to me. Looking through the article, there is only one part that doesn't seem to fit in a discussion about TERF as a term and that's the last paragraph of the "opposition to the word" section, though the quote about using TERF as a term of abuse tells me that it's possible to refactor this paragraph and its quote/citation in a manner that is more consistent with discussing TERF as a term.

There's really no way of talking about a term relating to a political issue, particularly a term that is as controversial as this one, without addressing the political controversy itself. Doing otherwise would be a disservice to our readers, especially given how we barely have any content covering what the term itself refers to. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

While to some degree that's true, the way this page goes about it is less "TERF is politically controversial" and more "look at all these people complaining about trans activists calling them TERFs". See for example the page on the word "gay", which does talk about the pejorative usage but is not full of quotes from individual opinion columnists complaining about being called "gay".

Like, while I think there are significant problems with both sections, I think "Slur debate" does a clearly better job of covering the controversy surrounding the term than the "Opposition to the word" section does. Loki (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2020 ()

'gay' is a faulty comparison: it is a label that people do self identify as, and the negative usage is not usually even targeted at those individuals. As for the comparison to 'asshole' - which marginalised group of people is the word 'asshole' used to drum up anger and violence against? I fail to see any similarities between TERF and asshole in a sociological context.

A better comparison would be the word 'nigger' (which for the record, was originally nothing more than another variant derived form of the Latin word 'niger' (pronounced like English 'nigger') meaning 'black'). i don't think many would think discussion of lynchings of blacks in the South and other forms of violence in the article about that word would be UNDUE. A somewhat extreme comparison, i know, but the basic idea is the same... Firejuggler86 (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The word gay is an interesting comparison but with 'TERF' we have far less material to draw upon. As for 'trans activists', the article uses that word only once and I don't think all the people using TERF as a term of abuse are necessarily trans activists. As for improving the article, I think you and I agree that it's a bit scattershot and not all of it flows very well. That's probably emblematic of the whole thing being so controversial that we have difficulty even agreeing on what particular sources are trying to say so we end up with a lot of direct quotes. Haukur (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Our article only uses the actual phrase once, but if you read the sources that's clearly what most of them are complaining about, and so our use of so many of those sources ends up litigating that same dispute. I continue to believe that most of these sources are simply not WP:DUE: they are random people complaining about the use of a term without qualifications. We have no reason to believe their opinions are worth including in the article by themselves.

The APPG report certainly is WP:DUE, as are probably the Economist's instructions, but most of these opinion sources are primary sources of the sort Wikipedia generally avoids. Overall, I think we should rely much less on this sort of primary opinion source and pivot towards secondary sources describing the dispute. Loki (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

What about combining and refactoring it back into the paragraph above it which already talks about the term being used in a similar light. AIRcorn (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot) I think Opposition to the term and Slur debate should be merged. I think these sections should be restructured. Right now it mainly list quotes from both sides of the debate. They are confusing. Reading it, my takeaway was that people have opinions. It doesent serve to give an overview on where the lines are. We should focus on secondary sources and describing the structure of the dispute. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

New source

The Atlantic recently published a new article on the subject of this article. I'm not sure it affects anything but in view of the past sourcing issues on this page I'd like to put it here anyway. Loki (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Disputing a revert

Recently, I made an edit that Crossroads partially reverted. Whether that revert is justified basically boils down to a factual question. Here's the paragraph in question:

Writing in The New York Times in 2019, feminist theorist Sophie Lewis noted that the term TERF had become "a catchall for all anti-transgender feminists, regardless of whether they are radical". Edie Miller, writing in The Outline, said that the term was applied to "most people espousing trans-exclusionary politics that follow a particular 'TERF logic', regardless of their involvement with radical feminism".

Does this say that "TERF" is sometimes used for anti-transgender feminists who are not necessarily radical feminists, or does it say that "TERF" is sometimes used for anti-transgender people in general who are not feminists at all? Loki (talk) 08:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The first quote (Lewis) is definitely the first of those two things. It discusses the application of the term to feminists who are not radical feminists.

The second quote (Miller) is ambiguous. It discusses the application of the term to people who are not radical feminists but does not say whether or not they are feminists of any other sort. It is consistent with both positions but only explicitly supports the first. It is not clear from the quote what Miller's line on the second position would be.

So, what we lack in these particular quotes is support for discussing non-feminists adopting TERF talking points in order to advance transphobia, and getting described as TERFs for doing so, even though this is technically an incorrect use of the term. Of course, this does happen from time to time. Far-right people and organisations sometimes adopt TERF rhetoric as it is offers a ready made set of transphobic talking points which sound more respectable and are less obviously fashy than their own ranting about "degeneracy", can play better to a "normie" audience and are more likely to start arguments among feminists, liberals and leftists than to blow up in their own faces. I'm sure sources discussing this can be found but these quotes are not helpful for that specific task.

I don't see anything wrong with the quotes in themselves. We just need additional sources before we can say "TERF is sometimes used for anti-transgender people in general who are not feminists at all" or perhaps more something more specific like "TERF is sometimes also used for anti-transgender people who who advance the same set of arguments but are not radical feminists, or feminists at all". --DanielRigal (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

To make the reason I'm asking a little more clear: I removed the quotes and paraphrased them with Today, the term is sometimes used to refer to anti-transgender feminists in general, not anti-transgender radical feminists in particular. Crossroads reverted this edit, saying that it was "Very important to mention that the term is applied to non-feminists too." I don't think those sources say that (whether or not it's true), which is why rather than simply paraphrase them differently, I came here to ask what other people think they mean. Loki (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

For one thing, we already had an RfC that rejected failure to use WP:In-text attribution, as your proposal does. And the quote about how it has been applied to "most people [not "feminists"] espousing trans-exclusionary politics that follow a particular 'TERF logic', regardless of their involvement with radical feminism" is very clear that it is not limited to feminists. So is this source, where it states that "“TERF” is widely used across online platforms as a way to denigrate and dismiss the women (and some men) who disagree with the dominant narrative on trans issues." That source is opinionated, but so are all the other sources. See WP:BIASEDSOURCES. We therefore cannot present it as though it's applied only to certain feminists. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The Miller quote is ambiguous. It could well mean what you say but it is not certain. I can see why Loki is questioning it. The value in the Miller quote is that it ties the term to the TERF ideology rather than to a specific group of people and that does seem worthy of inclusion. We see TERF rhetoric increasingly being taken up by many non-feminists (including some far-right, anti-feminist organisations) and becoming more and more detached from its roots in radical feminism, where it was never universally accepted anyway. The Miller quote is a step towards supporting a statement about its broader use but I don't think it gets us all the way there. While I don't agree with the reason you gave to revert in the edit summary, I am not against keeping the quotes in the article precisely because they openly show the ambiguity and diversity of opinions over how far the term extends. That might be the best we can do for the time being. I suspect that the use of the term is going to change further over time anyway. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Ambiguity is a great reason to quote it and attribute it. That means that readers end up making up their own minds based on what sources actually said (possibly ambiguously), rather than getting an impression of what they said filtered through the (possibly ambiguous, possibly biased, possibly OR) views of Wikipedia editors. Life is ambiguous. Mathglot (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I concur with preferring quoting ambiguous statements/writings for NPOV and NOR issues as Mathglot has said. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 04:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Coinage of the term

Currently, the article lead says the term TERF was coined in 2008. However, the source referenced doesn't support this. The source indicates the term could have been used before 2008:

"Due to a short series of blogposts from 2008, I have retrospectively been credited as the coiner of the acronym "Terf" ... . I suspect I'm merely the first person who wrote it on a website that still exists – I wonder how many Elizabethans already used words now attributed to Shakespeare long before he ... incorporated them in a play?"

Later, in the Coinage and usage section of the article, there is more nuance when it says Trans-inclusive cisgender radical feminist blogger Viv Smythe has been credited with popularizing the term in 2008 as an online shorthand. The Wiktionary entry for TERF puts it clearly: "The earliest recorded use is from 2008 by cisgender radical feminist Viv Smythe". I propose the lead be changed to say something like, "Coined by 2008". --Woofboy (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

What's important is the first time it's used in print and can be verified. Unrecorded speech is not reliable. There's no reason to use the word 'coined' at all, we an just say 'first appearance in print' or the way wiktionary does it (though it's not to be considered a reliable source, of course) and if we do use it, we can just quote Smythe in-line and use in-text attribution and let the reader make up their own mind. Mathglot (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I've changed the lead to "Its ealiest extant use from 2008...", which I think reflects the source's words concisely. --Woofboy (talk) 12:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Frequency of occurrence

The opening paragraph says “... the term originally applied to the minority of feminists ...” - where is the citation for using the word “minority” rather than “subset”? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Noting here that nobody should have reverted the original comment claiming that it was a suspected sock. [3] Vague suspicions (sock of who?) are not grounds for removal of good faith questions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This has been covered in this archived talk page discussion. (And in fact several times before it, but I think that discussion lays out the sources most clearly.) Loki (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2021

The pronunciation guide uses the wrong vowel. It should be a schwa in order to be a homophone of “turf”. 147.222.204.247 (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The hover over makes it clear it's the ur from fur which would make it turf. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Alleged terfs

I think this article should mention or list individuals who have been accused of being TERFs.

It would just make sense. CycoMa (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

No... just no. This would be a BLP nightmare, especially given the disagreement over whether the term is a slur or not and the broadness of its scope. Aircorn (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Aircorn. Mathglot (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot but I have seen some activists call them a hate group.CycoMa (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

No doubt they do, but I don't see how that's relevant here, other than it falls right into the bucket that Aircorn is calling out as a no-fly zone, and I agree. Mathglot (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

TERFs are not a coherent, organised hate group. They are people, some in various groups and some not, who share (or purport to share) a single (highly regrettable) view of the world. Not everybody who says something that sounds vaguely TERFy is actually a TERF. Many are just uninformed people repeating things that they have heard which sound vaguely plausible to them. Others are troublemakers seeking to stir up animosity and division for tactical reasons. (There is a reason why they get louder during Pride month.) If we were to list individual alleged TERFs in the article we would have to make decisions about exactly what the criteria for being called a TERF were and then decide who fits it or has be accused in a notable way of fitting it. That would be a whole heap of original research and a massive BLP problem. That would be bad for Wikipedia and also, because it would stir up drama around this topic, it would serve the purposes of transphobes who want as much heat and as little light as possible on this issue. So, yeah, I guess this is just my roundabout way of saying that Aircorn is right. Nothing good can come from this. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Usage of 'TERFy' in Slate article

Per my most recent edits - an opinion piece in Slate that states usage of the term 'TERFy' in common enough colloquial use to describe things such as 'having bangs' and 'adverts for tampons' is a claim that needs more than one source, especially since that one source claims this usage stems from Twitter and Tumblr, and cites nothing else.

It's true that the term is probably used in a variety of flippant contexts outside of the roughly academic, including in various jokes. But inclusion of this last paragraph, stating that 'TERFy' is commonly used in contexts that do not describe feminist of socio-political views, instead using the term to describe things such as 'having bangs' and 'adverts for tampons' is a WP:FRINGE view expressed in seemingly only this one article.

I've no wish to start an edit war. Slate is a reliable source. But, if we don't look at the content of this article and what it claims, we aren't doing our job as Wikipedians. It's an opinion pieces that claims colloquial usage based on hitherto-uncited sources of, drumroll please, Twitter and Tumblr. I don't think that's nearly as reliable and watertight as Wikipedia standards would expect for claiming another usage of the term 'TERFy' notable enough to warrant inclusion on this article. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I definitely agree, Ineffablebookkeeper, more and better sources are always better for the project. (Personally I would've just tagged the section with a maintenance tag instead of remove it, in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, but that's neither here nor there.)

"TERF bangs" is a thing, but my experience with the meme doesn't make it notable for inclusion. However, here's some sources regarding them:

• https://www.thecut.com/2018/08/terf-bangs-cultural-history.html (article about them)
• https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bangs_l_5d6ebec8e4b0cdfe0576db28 (article about them)
• https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/08/stepfather-sex-dream-advice.html (interview, mentions them) ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 16:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

It is pretty common useage of Terf [4] and we don't need more than one source to include information if that source is reliable. In fact one reliable source is preferable to many unreliable ones Aircorn (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

It's only a passing mention in the Slate source, and we have to be cautious about the wording (the writer doesn't imply that it's a significant or common usage, just that she saw it once.) Additionally, the Slate article contradicts the other two (the Slate article just says it's because they're uncool; the other two say that there's a style of bangs associated with anti-trans activists.) I have the same problem with your search - "TERFy is a term for things millenials think is uncool" is what you're trying to cite, and I'm not seeing anything but a single mention in a single source (which I would read as WP:RSOPINION based on its tone). If that's all we have then the current wording is definitely undue. --Aquillion (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Aircorn - if it's a pretty common usage, but all we have is a single reliable source (which even that I'd deem contentious) and a number of unreliable ones, then that raises questions about how notable it even is. The one reliable source we have, that just says "I saw it on Twitter and Tumblr" - not exactly a stellar review of notoriety.

Aquillion I would agree with - the usage isn't 'anti-trans activists are frequently associated with [X]', it's 'millenials think [X] is uncool, and have made some jokes about TERFs in connection with said uncool thing'. Everyone loves to write a thinkpiece about what millenials do or don't like, doesn't require a lick of solid referencing, which that article definitely doesn't have.

If the only sources we have are unreliable, and if the one reliable source we have gives it passing mention only, then it's undue to include it. WP:OVERCITE is a thing, but it's not the issue here, as we're not trimming down unreliable citations already included, we're asking if more reliable citations even exist. We do need more than one passing mention with no notation on prominence in a Slate opinion piece to include it. (And it is an opinion piece.) If all it is is a meme, then it definitely needs more than one citation. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I think in this instance, it's important instead of speaking in a global wiki-voice that we attribute the statements in different perspectives to different sources. It's okay for sources to vary and let's allow them to. This is a complicated fact just on the inside border of notability, after all. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 18:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: - this is a complex article that requires a number of different perspectives from different sources, but I have to point out that "I've seen 'TERFy' used to describe a hairstyle and adverts for tampons on Twitter and Tumblr" seems more a statement of fact, rather than a perspective on a situation. Sources should vary, but they should be describing concepts of notability well-suited to the article. Attributing statements to different perspectives from different sources in this instance might come as something like "In [year], [author/feminist writer/etc] [name] stated that she had seen usage of the term 'TERFy' used to describe [descriptions from article] on various social media platforms", which does not seem typical for usage of terms sections; it might be more suited to the 'opposition to the term' section? --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Undue is the only possible reason to remove it. We are just talking about one small sentence under usage so the due weight it is given is low in the first place. It is relevant as this article is about the term “terf” and this sentence directly relates to use of the term terf. Aircorn (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Aircorn: - alright, but I will be rewriting it to reflect that it's the experience of one author. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Judith Butler interview

There's been some hullabaloo going around about this Judith Butler interview in the US version of the Guardian where she said some very harsh things about TERFs, which have since been removed by (apparently) the UK main office.

So far I haven't been able to find a better source about the removal than a journalist's personal newsblog, and the situation appears to still be moving anyway, so I think we should wait on covering it until it's settled down and we have some better sources. Loki (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I saw this last night. It seems like something that might be worth including if secondary RS pick it up EvergreenFir (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

We have Vice now. Newimpartial (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

We now also have HuffPo, Pink News, and a UK source I'm not familiar with called the Press Gazette. Loki (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh and Daily Dot and Autostraddle, frankly just googling "judith butler guardian" now gives a ton of news sources. I think we can reasonably include this in the article at this point. Loki (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

These are all 'meh' sources, certainly less reliable than the Guardian itself. Having more of them does not change that or make it any less a NOTNEWS problem. And above all, this isn't about the term "TERF", so it is not relevant here. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

This has also brought to my attention this prior interview from a few months ago, which I think we can include right now. Loki (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Including this was fine since Butler is talking about the term TERF there, but since this article is about the term, it would be WP:UNDUE and a WP:COATRACK to add this other stuff about what Butler thinks of the group of people's viewpoint and the whole tangent about how The Guardian removed it, and people criticized that, etc. etc. Just the sort of ephemeral drama that WP:NOTNEWS says to avoid. We should also respect the editorial decisions of higher quality RS like The Guardian even though lower quality sources like Vice second-guess them. If they had made that edit before publishing the article, no one would be talking about this. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Removal of relevant categories

The addition of the categories "Discrimination against transgender people" and "Transphobia" to this article has been reverted with an edit summary to the effect that their inclusion would somehow constitute a violation of NPOV, and that "this article is about the word, not the ideology". I do not understand the latter point, as the term "TERF" in my mind refers directly to the ideology (and its proponents), so this would appear to be a distinction without a difference. The principle of least astonishment would suggest to me that, in line with the commonsense and common-use connotations of the term "TERF", most of our readers would expect these associations. Moreover, since the term commonly appears in discussions of transphobia and anti-trans discrimination, the inclusion of this article in these categories seems warranted. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The term TERF is not itself transphobia or discrimination against transgender people. This article is clear that it is specifically about the term. And category guidelines are clear that they a category is making a claim about the topic of the article. WP:CATPOV states, "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial..." And CATDEF, right below that, states that "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". That just isn't the case here. Also, per this Request for Comment, a statement about transphobia must have WP:In-text attribution, which as noted, a category cannot have. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The article for ideology is Feminist views on transgender topics Aircorn (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Although I initially came to the page looking for a discussion of TERF ideology, I believe it is better if this site stays specifically about the term while Feminist views on transgender topics goes into more detail on it. Evasilako (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2021

The words "the minority of" in the second sentence of this article are not supported by a citation - how do we know if 'terfs' are 'the minority of' feminists? The phrase "the minority of" should be removed from sentence and the word "some" inserted before "other feminists": "First recorded in 2008,[1] the term originally applied to the minority of feminists espousing sentiments that other feminists considered transphobic..." 141.243.9.171 (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The statement is sourced in the body of the article (citation #10). It does not need one both in the lead and in the body. --Equivamp - talk 04:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Summary

Wikipedia guidelines on introductions indicate they should avoid difficult to understand terminology. The introduction to this article is difficult to understand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Provide_an_accessible_overview — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idontusenumbers (talk • contribs) 22:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this. I had to read the summary 4x and I can still barely understand it. --EdHayes3 (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This is extremely vague. What specifically is confusing about the lede, and how specifically would you propose to improve it? From my perspective, it's a succinct and accurate explanation of what the term means, with an appropriate summary of its history. In other words, it gives readers a quick understanding of the term's use and context, which is what the introductory section is meant to do. Archon 2488 (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The current version is almost a bit of a run-on sentence and has some fairly difficult to understand terminology for someone not deeply involved with the subject mater. It's highly likely that the current summary is written by a scholar that has written about this term and or feminist movement for a good part of their career. They are well familiar with many of these terms and ideas. But most people coming to this page may not have that understanding. It's OK to move this more complicated context and nuances later in the article, but they should not be in the summary as right now there's difficult to understand terminology.

A quick example/idea: "TERF, an acronym for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminism, is the belief that Trans-women should not be included in the feminist movement as they are not natural born women." Something easy to read and understand like that. The summary need not include all the nuances for the movement. It's a summary for those that have no idea what the term is, and wand a Quick and easy definition or summary. --EdHayes3 (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree completely, but practically all WP feminism articles are full of fashionable pseudo-academic jargon incomprehensible to ordinary people. LGBT theory and politics is a bit of an inward looking echo chamber. --Ef80 (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

'First recorded in 2008' is incorrect.

WP:DENY. Obvious troll attempt.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This citation is not correct. It's from the 1980s. This needs a better citation; I personally used it in a public speech in 1998. 107.3.170.62 (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Is TERF (as a slur) misogynistic?

The radical feminists who coined the term TERF were adamant that only women could be radical feminists. Men could be allies, but by definition could not be radical feminists themselves. Some feminists have therefore noted that, when used as a slur, the term TERF is actually misogynistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nero Calatrava (talk • contribs) 10:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The radical feminists [Viv Smythe et al.] who coined the term TERF were adamant that only women could be radical feminists. [...] Some feminists have therefore noted that, when used as a slur, the term TERF is actually misogynistic.

Do you have reliable sources for this claim? Is this notable? Where would you add it in the article, considering that people can't even agree on whether 'TERF' is a slur? TucanHolmes (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, minor nitpick, your original section title (§ Can men be TERFS?) and the content of your comment didn't match. I've changed the title to match. TucanHolmes (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Dave Chappelle statements

According to google trends and what's going on in the news it might be relevant to include a reference or section about Dave Chappelle's Netflix special. His special I think has had some clear affect on the usage and popularization of this term. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=terf&geo=US — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:FF42:A00:F4DC:D29:6EB9:FFEE (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Unless reliable sources have commented on Chappelle's effect on the usage and popularization to a sufficient extent to make it worthwhile including, we can't be among the first to do so. Wikipedia follows general usage, it does not lead. Mathglot (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

See also: The Closer (2021 film) § Reception. TucanHolmes (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Veronica Ivy / Rachel McKinnon

This person is referred to in this article by both of the above names. Isn't that against "deadname" policy etc. At the very least it's confusing! The current article on the person is called Veronica Ivy. 2A00:23C5:FE18:2700:705F:E765:DEF5:73A6 (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not a WP:DEADNAME issue, since that is not her deadname; she transitioned early enough that she was never notable under her deadname and few sources therefore even mention it. Though it would probably be fine to use her current name to reduce confusion (and particularly to avoid readers thinking the comments were by different people, even if they're in separate parts of the article.) --Aquillion (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

But if you say "let's include all the newspapers" on a political topic, people will say NO, we only include the ones that meet policy X. This is just a topic that people hover around with a strong agenda. Anyway, what other dictionary includes "TERF"? I think OED is the first. Equinox ◑ 21:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Per my !vote in the RfC below, Collins, Merriam-Webster, and Chambers do not contain a definition for TERF. I couldn't search Macquarie due to a paywall. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:47, 25 July 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)