Talk:TERF (acronym)

Note on migration of content

This page previously redirected to Feminist views on transgender topics: The term "TERF". Following ongoing concerns throughout that talk page for content length, and the moderately supported suggestion there that the "terf"-word content would belong better in its own article, I've now perhaps boldly migrated the majority of that content here. Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I suppose this was inevitable. If it localizes the contentiousness about this term here, rather than spreading it to other articles, then I guess that's one point in its favor. Mathglot (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Should mention assault by Tara Wolf in Speaker's Corner

The article should mention that trans activists yelling "terf" have assaulted a feminist in London. This was covered very widely by the news and its aftermath is why Meghan Murphy wrote the piece calling it hate speech.

In the news:

• The Guardian [1]
• The New Statesman [2][3]
• The Telegraph [4]
• The Times [5][6]
• The Evening Standard [7]
• The Daily Mail [8]

And on Feminist Current (apart from the "TERF is hate speech" article): [9][10]

This was on Wikipedia before. Any reason it was taken out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.203.144.181 (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comment. This article is focused on the word "TERF" itself, as a word. You can find some information about the Speaker's Corner dispute in the article Feminist views on transgender topics § Incidents between trans activists and trans exclusionary feminists. You are welcome to participate in the talk page discussion for that article, if you think more should be added. Cheers, gnu57 16:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the Speakers Corner incident is notable. And I agree that this article is primarily about the word "terf" rather than the related theories/perspectives. The lines between topics are grey. If you can add an appropriate synopsis here, we could discuss further. And/or, the article Gnu links immediately above, and the article section Radical feminism § Views on transgender topics are both very relevant to the content you highlight. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the incident is not really about the theories, but about the word. The group that attacked the feminist were chanting "when terfs attack, we fight back" when the woman was attacked. Afterwards, they kept using hate speech on social media while defending the attackers and making jokes about it. That's why Meghan Murphy wrote the whole article calling it hate speech. That article is already linked as a citation, but the actual context is left out. Isn't that a big omission? It's also mentioned very briefly on the page you linked. There used to be much better coverage there about it a while ago. Weird that it was removed. 2A02:908:C70:52C0:92C:90AB:4086:3C8A (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Alright, it does seem sensible to add some info here about the use of the word in that context—particularly if the incident led to additional commentary on the word. Where should it go, though? Maybe in the paragraph about deplatforming and violent rhetoric? Cheers, gnu57 18:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I don't know how/where it was included before, nor when/why it was removed. I encourage you to draft its re-inclusion on one or more of the relevant pages noted above—as a bold addition to live content, on a talk page, or in a sandbox. As to where it might go if added to this article, I don't know, it would depend greatly on how it was worded. Perhaps within "opposition to the word"? Perhaps in a new section "political usage" or "connection to violence" (just brainstormed ideas)? Best regards, A145GI15I95 (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree this incident should be included, because this is an article about the term "TERF" itself, not the people that the term refers to. Not every use of this term deserves to be added to the article. The page on the term Asshole doesn't include every time someone has called someone else an asshole, or even every time someone has punched someone else while calling them an asshole. LokiTheLiar (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

While I've not an opinion on whether content regarding the 2017 Speakers' Corner incident could be added to this article, I see now it is included on one of the other articles we've already mentioned above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics#Incidents_between_trans_activists_and_trans-exclusionary_feminists A145GI15I95 (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS "News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Wikipedia is also not written in news style." ShimonChai (talk) 09:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

"Their inclusion of trans men as women"

I notice there's been a dispute between A145 and an IP in the history on the wording of two sentences. One of them I think A145 is right about: that article definitely doesn't unambiguously say that TERF is not a slur, though it does imply the authors don't think it is right now. The other one, however, I think is contentious: the IP has been editing the clause "calling it inaccurate (citing, for example, their inclusion of trans men as women)" in ways that make it clear that trans activists do not regard this as "inclusion" at all. And I think they have at least a partial point here: I don't think we should be saying "their inclusion of trans men as women" in WP's voice, because while the source certainly says that that is what they claim, the way we are currently phrasing it implies not only that we agree that they say it but that we agree that including trans men as women counts as inclusion, which is a very contentious claim to say the least. LokiTheLiar (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Please don't single me out. Another editor reverted the IP's first addition (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TERF&diff=894550891&oldid=894543603), before it was re-added, and I then re-reverted it (and I noted this and linked to the previous diff in my change log). I assume you meant no ill will here, however.

By the way, this sentence previously said their inclusion of trans men until as women was appended (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics&diff=next&oldid=892514624).

I disagree that the wording endorses a perspective. But I appreciate the concern. To improve, we could drop the verbose …for example…. Then, would we qualify that the inclusion is in their definition/viewpoint/perspective/theory (and how many instances of "the/a/an/their" are minimal)?

…(citing inclusion of trans men within their definition of women)…

…(citing the inclusion of trans men within their view of feminism)…

A145GI15I95 (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, whoops, missed that. But, I would say we should break the sentence up, and make it: They object to being labeled as TERFs, calling it inaccurate based on their claims that they include trans men as women. They also argue the term to be a slur or even hate speech. As an aside, I would also like a second source for that claim, since the provided source only says that trans-exclusionary radical feminists "are inclusive of trans men" and doesn't actually say anything about "as women", but even other sources we already cite are definitely enough to prove that most trans-exclusionary radical feminists do not include trans men as men. LokiTheLiar (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Sentence is now additionally sourced. Regarding the latest suggested wording: It seems strange to write "their claims that they include trans men"—they don't claim to include trans men, they do include trans men. Maybe: They object to being labeled as TERFs. They consider it inaccurate (as they include trans men, whom they regard as female). And they argue the term to be a slur or even hate speech. A145GI15I95 (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that you're getting the objection here. Trans-exclusionary feminists say that they include trans men, who they regard as women, but nearly nobody who is not them accepts this, because "including" trans men as women is like a Christian group claiming they "include" gay men as sinners. Most trans groups, and even some neutral observers, dispute the claim that trans-exclusionary feminists include trans men in a meaningful sense. I'll go find sources for this. LokiTheLiar (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

My understanding of the objection is this:

- The group called TERFs sees trans men as females, and thus they include trans men in their vision of feminism, and thus they say they're not trans-exclusive, but rather male-exclusive, because they see feminism as a movement for biologically sexed females, not socially gendered women.

- The objection raised just recently here is to ensure we're not saying in Wikipedia's voice that trans men are female, as that would be an endorsement of a non-neutral view. The IP editor has voiced this objection by adding to the article "even though they are absolutely not women" (diff) and "although they are not women" (diff).

A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I didn't follow Loki's objection at first, because AFAIK even people who don't share the view that trans men are females don't dispute that it is the view of the people in question. In the analogy, certain Christians do include gay men in the category of "sinners" (and in that, the Christians even treat the gay men accordingly), even as others disagree. It did stand out to me that if we were going to say anything about whether the people in question actually help trans men, then we'd probably need to use "they say they do X" phrasing; I guess I see the objection that the sentence should already add something about "[whether] including trans men as women counts as inclusion". Could it be reworded to just say they "consider trans men to be women" (and/or should we say "...females"?)...? But no, the reason for using "include" is that the sentence is about whether they're inclusive or exclusive and of whom. How about let's try to assemble references that talk about why considering trans men to be women should/does or shouldn't/doesn't constitute "inclusion", and perhaps also any references on ways in which the people in question treat, help, or hurt trans men, and then use those to figure out whether and how to expand on the current phrasing. -sche (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

A145: close but not quite. The problem is not that we're saying that trans men are female in Wikipedia's voice. The problem is we're saying that "including trans men as women" counts as inclusion in Wikipedia's voice when most trans men would say that refusing their gender identity is excluding them.

sche: Unfortunately, I can find a bunch of arguments by activists about this but essentially no reliable sources. So, for example this Medium piece by a random activist, or this tweet by Graham Linehan and its replies. The most prominent source I could find was an anti-SJ Youtuber mocking the argument on Twitter LokiTheLiar (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

They still include trans men in their definitions, even though trans men refuse the inclusion. How about modifying the inclusion, such as They consider it inaccurate (citing their misgendered inclusion of trans men as women).? A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I still really would prefer "alleged" or "claimed" inclusion. Alternatively, we could do something like They object to the term TERF, calling it inaccurate, and argue that the term is a slur or even hate speech. without mentioning the particular reason. It only appears based on one quote in one article, and is otherwise extremely hard to reliably source information about, which to me seems to indicate that it's a part of the debate that hasn't really filtered into reliable sources yet, which in turn seems like a good reason to avoid too much detail about it. LokiTheLiar (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The text has three cites. It's helpful to offer readers, as briefly as possible, how the group claims inaccuracy of the label. We could also break the trans-men-inclusion parenthetical to a separate sentence, and add the group's further defense that they exclude trans women because they define TWs as male (as opposed to b/c TWs are trans). But I've only seen one reliably published source for that second defense.

You said "most trans men would say that refusing their gender identity is excluding them". I'd instead say "most trans men would say that refusing their gender identity is misgendering them". TMs wouldn't argue the situation to be exclusion, they'd argue that they shouldn't be included. How does qualifying this inclusion as "misgendered" not concisely show this, please? A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I mean, the Medium piece I linked above has the most explicit version of the counterargument, and it says If you’re not actually accepting of what they’re telling you they are and are instead calling them something they find offensive — you’re not actually accepting or loving of that person. The reason "misgendered" isn't enough is that it's not the (only) contested part here. It's like, we wouldn't say that TERF is a slur in WP's voice because that's contested between the two sides of the argument described in the page, so we also shouldn't say that TERFs include trans men because whether or not they do is contested. We shouldn't accept a quote from an activist as a source for a statement in WP's voice when we can find only one reliable source of the claim and several (admittedly unreliable) sources of trans activists disputing the claim. (Especially since the quote from the Inside Higher Ed article doesn't support the whole clause: the person quoted in the article only says that they accept trans men, not that trans men are women). LokiTheLiar (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it just a sort of ven-diagram inclusion (within their definition of females/oppressed people who need feminism) that they're talking about? I suppose we could make that clearer with "within their definition of women", or "whom they regard as female", as A145 suggested. But I really don't see a major problem with the status quo: it's obvious that the idea is coming from them rather than from Wikipedia (whereas if the article were to say "misgendered" or "even though they are absolutely not women", that would be using Wikipedia's voice). The article should neutrally present other people's arguments, not start making its own or drawing conclusions that one side is correct and the other mistaken. Cheers, gnu57 09:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Loki, I apologize, I didn't look at your unreliable sources, because you admitted they're unreliable. I could also link several unreliable sources that go into further detail on the group's argued defense that they don't exclude trans folk since they include trans men in their definition of women, in their definition of whom feminism covers.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] But I think this is adequately summarized in the reliable sources.

I agree with Gnu's "Venn diagram" assessment. I don't see how "we shouldn't say TERFs include trans men because whether they do is contested" can be argued. The former group includes the latter in their definitions of terms and theory. The latter group may argue against such inclusion (argue it's a rejection of their gender identity and their sense of self), but that can't negate the fact that the inclusion within definitions has already occurred.

Regarding objection to the phrase "as women", would it help to strike those two words? Their meaning seems obvious within the context, whether we include these two words or not.

In writing "misgendered isn't enough", you seem to indicate it would at least be an improvement. I agree with Gnu that we must present sides without taking sides, yet I think the addition of "misgendered" could add enough meaning while maintaining enough neutrality.

…calling it inaccurate (citing, for example, their inclusion of trans men as women)… [status quo]

They consider it inaccurate (citing their misgendered inclusion of trans men).

They consider it inaccurate (citing their inclusion of trans men in their definition of women).

They consider it inaccurate (citing their inclusion of trans men in their definition of feminism and of whose rights feminism advocates).

Thank you for this continued dialogue, by the way. I've honestly been trying to understand your position. A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• I've added a "perceived" so it flows into "citing their perceived inclusion of trans men as women". Hopefully this will clarify things to a limited degree. Alternatively, we can use "citing their classification/consideration of trans men to be women". Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Please don't change this contested line without pursuing new consensus first. As written above, the inclusion isn't perceived. A145GI15I95 (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Reading the discussion above, I don't see a consensus in support of the status quo version you're defending. The rough consensus among experienced editors are certainly in opposition to stating in wikivoice that "trans men are included in women" as objective fact. Since the statement in question is tantamount to "We are not homophobic because we consider gay men to be women" or "We are not antisemitic because we consider Jews to be Arabs". So you can see how "citing, for example, their inclusion of gay men as women"/"Jews as Arabs" are extremely problematic. Even brief changes such as "citing their classification of trans men to be women" and "citing their claim that trans men are women" are infinitely better in terms of clarity. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The current wording has existed since April 14 (over two weeks). There was a bold change on April 28 (three days ago), it was reverted, re-added, re-reverted, and we've since been discussing. Suggestions for improvement have been offered. No consensus exists yet for change. The article doesn't say "trans men are included in women", it says "their inclusion of trans men as women". This means the group (called terfs) is doing this inclusion—not us editors, not Wikipedia. Would you find any of the three example lines above (in green) to be an improvement over the current text, could you provide feedback on them, or could you offer new concrete suggestions, please? A145GI15I95 (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe making it clear that this supposed inclusion of trans men as women is seen by many trans men as cruel or insulting would help resolve the editing conflict here? I think this academic article, Trans Men Engaging, Reforming, and Resisting Feminisms, could be a strong secondary source for that. Rab V (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

In addition to the three current rewords above, here's a fourth: They consider it inaccurate, citing their inclusion of trans men in their definition of feminism (a classification that trans men refuse as misgendering). A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Minor note but I'd prefer breaking off the parenthetical phrase into its own sentence. Rab V (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I am okay with that last rephrasing and I think I also support breaking off the parenthetical? Don't really have a strong opinion on that part though. LokiTheLiar (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

If we were to expand that new parenthetical to its own sentence, the new sentence wouldn't fit the scope of the "opposition to the word" section, it would belong instead under "responses". More detail there could help, but would it solve the original concern? They consider it inaccurate, citing their inclusion of trans men in their definition of feminism. [...Next section:] Trans men refuse inclusion in any definition of feminism as a form of misgendering. [Possibly different wording, followed possibly by greater detail...]) A145GI15I95 (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd be happy with They consider it inaccurate, citing they consider trans men as women and include trans men in their definition of feminism, (Immediately succeeding) Trans men and supporters reject this inclusion, consider it contradictory and in line with those feminists' transmisogyny. Note this quote from Socialist Worker source: "It is worth noting, however, the divisive and contradictory position they held, wherein trans men were allowed on the land because TERFs considered them “women-born” as part of their transmisgynist ideology."Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 05:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I've added a response to the "inclusion" defense in the appropriate section (diff). Please feel free to add more detail and more responses there. My concern for maintaining structure is that if we dissolve sections into tip-for-tap, we'll have mud (like this article's parent). A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it's good to mention the relationship of trans men to feminism/exclusionary feminists here insofar as it relates to criticism of/defenses of the term—but more detail on that belongs in the parent article instead, which currently has almost nothing about trans men. Cheers, gnu57 18:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@A145GI15I95: Do you have any specific objection to this reword of mine? calling it inaccurate, citing that they consider trans men to be women (a categorization trans men reject as contradictory and transmisogynistic) Because otherwise I can only see this as stonewalling. You've seen throughout the history of this article numerous people have objected to the "status quo" version you're defending. A minority, mainstream-rejected belief cannot go unchallenged in-line like that, because this is directly equivalent to, for example, "we cannot be homophobes because we consider gay men to be women". Any revision would infinitely less misleading than current one. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to record my opinion: even though I think a smaller change would have been sufficient, it shouldn't be surprising that I'm in favor of Tsumikiria's change and opposed to a revert to the status quo. LokiTheLiar (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to keep all the opposition to the word in one section and all the responses to that opposition in another. (And A145 did add material about trans men to the response section earlier today.) I'm more concerned with ensuring that it's clear that the idea comes from them rather than from Wikipedia, than with whether the rebuttal follows immediately or is given further on. Cheers, gnu57 02:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

My primary objection is that the contested content was added yet again without consensus. Additionally, "transmisogynistic" applies to trans women not trans men, and (less importantly) use of both "reject" and "contradictory" is verbose. / If you'd like more detail on this topic, again please add it to the appropriate section. / I've been very communicative and responsive here, my actions are hardly stonewalling. / Regarding "numerous" objections: Consensus is not a vote-count. If we were to count votes whether to change it or leave it, we appear tied. This wording was stable for over two weeks. / Here is a new suggestion. Note that it 1) uses the word "inclusion" (crux of their argument), 2) concisely qualifies (casts appropriate doubt on) the inclusion, and 3) states clearly it's their definition, not ours: They consider the label inaccurate (citing their misgendered inclusion of trans men in their definition of feminism). A145GI15I95 (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the wording currently on the page and rough consensus are not in favor of it. Read the source. "Contradictory" and "transmisogynistic" is directly taken from the SocialistWorker, repeat: "It is worth noting, however, the divisive and contradictory position they held, wherein trans men were allowed on the land because TERFs considered them “women-born” as part of their transmisgynist ideology.". In other words, SW is saying that TERFs consider trans men to be women precisely because they have this trans-woman-hating ideology. Merely writing "misgendered inclusion" is problematic because it implies unintention whereby TERFs here are deliberate hatred. "Their inclusion of" is still wikivoice implying that this inclusion is correct or unproblematic, which is clearly not. Plus, we can definitely use anchor to link trans men's response inline to the larger section below, for the reader's benefit. And for clarity, I'd propose a rewrite to the entire sentence: They argue that they cannot be trans-exclusionary because they consider trans men as women - an argument rejected/dismissed as contradictory and stemming from transmisogyny by trans men. They further argue the term is a slur and even hate speech. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I like this suggestion because it makes it clear whom the different ideas are coming from. How about just "They argue that they cannot be trans-exclusionary because they consider trans men as women—an argument rejected by trans men.? And then leave the full details of the rejection to the following section.

By the way, sorry, I've lost track of the different sources a bit: do we actually have any right now saying what trans men themselves think of the claimed inclusion? The article Rab V suggested has a bit of related info:

Regardless of any lack of conflict between feminist and other identities, many men had experiences with feminists who were hostile to trans men. Some feminists denied that trans men were or could possibly be men, and others ostracized them from organizations and larger communities because they were either transgender or men, or both. When some feminists saw them solely as men,even if this did validate their identities, it denied the ways that their trans identity and their time living as girls or women modified their experiences as men. Several men reported that other feminists were quite cruel to them early in transition.

Cheers, gnu57 05:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I support Gnu's latest suggested wording, my previous suggestion, and the current wording. / Regarding your source question, Gnu, I don't see which article Rab V suggested, but the current line in our article (which begins "Regarding denials of…) includes a book reference supporting the claim of trans men's (and their allies') opinion. A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I also think gnu's wording is reasonable, and I think that we have enough consensus to put that wording in the article, so I'm going to go do that. LokiTheLiar (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Page protection

{{Edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}

May I ask we protect this page from IP edits? Reason for request is due to POV pushing and BRD ignoring (four times in twenty-four hours).

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TERF&diff=894550891&oldid=894543603
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TERF&diff=894612596&oldid=894611880
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TERF&diff=894717126&oldid=894717081
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TERF&diff=894718667&oldid=894717372

This is my first time requesting this, so I'm unsure of the correct format. WP:SEMI seems appropriate from WP:PROTECT, though I don't understand the wording in the template above ("what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it?"). Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to request pending changes, so that IPs can edit but their changes are vetted before they go live. FYI, the {{Edit semi-protected}} template is for requesting an edit to a protected page. WP:RFP is the central place to request the protection. Cheers, gnu57 16:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for placing the request (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#TERF), and for explaining why the template I inserted above was incorrect. My eyes skipped the hatnote (which points to where requests are made) on WP:PP and went instead directly to the table of contents (which don't mention how to request at all). I've now no-wikied the incorrect template I added above. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Page now protected, thanks. A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

"…but they have a 'high level of social, cultural, and economic capital'"

This text was added to the "Coinage and meaning" section: …but they have a "high level of social, cultural, and economic capital".

The citation is behind a paywall: https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/13/trans-and-feminist-rights-have-been-falsely-cast-in-opposition

Could a quotation with more context be added to this citation? Could a second source be added? Who says they have this? How certain is the source's claim? Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Added per request. Despite strong historic and contemporary links between many sections of feminist and trans communities, the anti-transgender sentiments expressed by some leading journalists and amplified through the use of social media are extremely problematic. While anti-transgender feminists are a minority, they have a high level of social, cultural and economic capital. [...] Within these narratives, trans and feminist rights are being falsely cast in opposition. Feminist principles of bodily autonomy are abandoned as some anti-trans campaigners query other women’s genitals. Reductive models of biology and restrictive understandings of the distinction between sex and gender are used in defence of this position.

The Economist is an reliable source per WP:RSP. Questions on the validity of the source should be addressed to WP:RSN. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about reliability. Thanks for adding the quotation with more context to the citation. A145GI15I95 (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Major violation of WP:FRINGE

...or at the very least, a textbook case of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Per numerous reliable sources(NYT, Economist, Daily Dot, New Yorker, Outline, etc), the trans-exclusionist feminists are only a very resourced minority within the radical feminism movement, where the mainstream feminism movement worldwide have long ago rejected its transphobia and accepted transfeminism and trans people, with the United Kingdom being a sort of last stronghold of TERFism. Our article currently overrepresents this minority fringe opinion head first in even greater length than the mainstream opinion, which is a gravely unacceptable violation of our undue weight guideline. Additionally, writing the minority POV in lead equally as the mainstream one without mentioning that it is only a rejected but resourced minority concentrated in one country is intensely misleading and underserving for our readers. As the article is forked from Feminist views on transgender topics, the active neutrality and undue weight towards TERF banner on that page hasn't been resolved for several months. The following must be done:

• Tag the page with Template:Fringe theories or similar banner until the false balance issues are resolved.
• Trim the opposition section of irrelevant incidents. Major rewrite to reduce WP:QUOTEFARM and reduce it to appropriate weight. Non-prominent or unrepresentative opinions should not be featured at all.
• Greatly expand the response section, with explanation on situation in United Kingdom and comparison to feminism movement of the rest of the world. Section rename. Rewrite to reduce quotefarm and improve readability.
• If necessary, request WP:NPOVN review.

Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 05:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this article, like the article it was split off from, has a WP:FALSEBALANCE problem, but I think that WP:UNDUE is probably a better banner than WP:FRINGE. Even though I do think that trans-exclusionary radical feminism is at least on the line of being fringe, I would tend towards the side of saying it's not quite fringe both because of the UK situation and because there are definitely a few feminists who are well-known for other reasons who believe in it, which is not usually the case for fringe theories.

I would like to refocus the argument around scientific sources, except there are almost no scientific sources. I've been able to find three relevant academics that have said anything about the topic in any medium (Deborah Cameron, Rachel McKinnon, and the authors of the Japanese paper at the bottom of the responses section), and they're all already on the page. I would like to also link McKinnon's actual paper about the topic, though, especially since we're talking a lot about the response to it but are not actually citing it. LokiTheLiar (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Tsumikiria, what reliable source specifically states that trans-exclusionary feminists are a minority within radical feminism? There are reliable sources that state that trans-exclusionary feminists are a minority within feminism (note that "radical" is missing), but some, like this The Economist one, also note the power that these particular feminists have. Second, what reliable source do you have stating that trans-exclusionary feminist views are fringe? And, lastly, this article is about the acronym/term "TERF." It is a term article. All of this is why I reverted your tags.

As for LokiTheLiar speaking of scientific sources, like I told LokiTheLiar at Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics, except for calling this a social science topic, this is not a scientific topic. There are, however, academic sources on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that this is a scientific topic because linguistics is science and whether a word is a slur is a topic within linguistics.

In any case, I'm at least adding an undue weight template because that definitely needs to be there. Wikipedia's rules make it easier to add a template than remove it, and for IMO good reason. LokiTheLiar (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Nothing scientific about it, in my opinion.

That tag doesn't belong either. Removing a template is also quite easy...when there is no valid justification for the template. It's why, for example, Template:POV states what it states about adding that template. There is no proof whatsoever that the assertion that "TERF is a slur" is WP:UNDUE. And looking at the current sourcing, the sourcing for the term being offensive/a slur is significantly stronger than the weak "Responses to opposition" sources (with perhaps the exception of the Current Affairs source). With perhaps the exception of the Current Affairs source, experienced Wikipedians would no way go by those weaker sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Let me go over the sources in detail, and hopefully it will become obvious why there's a problem.

First of all, there are three sources by academics. Of those, none of them say that TERF is a slur. They run the gamut from "almost but not quite" to "no but it illustrates an interesting tension in the definition of slurs" to "the claim is ridiculous", but none actually endorses the claim that TERF is in fact a slur. (The most sympathetic one is also a blog by an academic and not an academic paper.) This alone is reasonably strong evidence that the page is giving undue weight to the opposing claim, but let's continue.

The strongest sources for the "TERF is a slur" side are the Economist calling it one and Teespring taking down a T-shirt. But here's an area where we could use some context: the Economist first of all is a British publication, and so falls into the caveat about this position being much less fringe in Britain. It's also easy to match it with several sources (the Daily Dot and USA Today have been mentioned before on these talk pages; also see the Irish Times and Pink News) who have described the term in their news voice in ways that make it clear they do not think it is a slur. And then for Teespring, the source we have for that incident says clearly that it was the result of a mass-report campaign by TERFs and that Teespring's removal is somewhat arbitrary since they have many things up in their store which clearly do have slurs, and yet we don't mention any of that and portray Teespring's removal of the shirt in a much more objective fashion. LokiTheLiar (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Eh? Besides the sources specifically addressing the slur aspect, they don't need to endorse the term as a slur to be giving the weight they are giving to it as a slur. And, really, "at worst a slur and at best derogatory" and The Economist stating that they would "avoid all slurs, including TERF" is endorsing the word as a slur.

Currently, the sources included in the "Responses to opposition" section are mostly poor. From what I see of the sources on this topic, the article is not lending undue weight to the idea that the "TERF" is a slur. The undue weight tag should be removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the full t-shirt story, Loki. A145GI15I95 (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with adding more content to the "responses" section. I've added another bit today (diff), as I've just noted above (diff). I've not seen any resistance to adding more items and more details to that section, so please do so (WP:FIXIT). The remaining complaints of this new talk-page section seem otherwise reactionary, as already noted above. I appreciate the swift removal of most of these new tags, and I support removal of the remaining "undue weight" tag. A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Economist discussion

Hello all, two quick comments:

1. I've just found out that the Economist never publishes the names of their staff: see here. The "London" in the ref was location, not last name. I think the Economist's editorial position should be retained, but attributed to the publication as a whole.
2. This article was recently spun off from Feminist views on transgender topics. If you'd like to add information on viewpoints and movements, please focus your attention on there, so this doesn't become a redundant fork. Cheers, gnu57 20:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, so that's why. Although I think if we cannot find the credentials of a writer, we should not feature it prominently in equal validity as content by named experts. I've removed it. If we are representing a publication's opinion as a whole, then we need third-party sources for that, not our own summaries. For example we can say The Guardian's US writers repudiated their UK counterparts for publishing a transphobic editorial, because this is featured in NYTimes. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I was thinking we could take the piece itself as a statement of the Economist's editorial line, because it says

To coincide with the consultation, The Economist is hosting a series of essays from a range of people with interesting and varied viewpoints, insights and arguments on transgender identities.... In the interests of fostering open debate we have set ground rules, both for essays and reader comments: use the pronouns people want you to use, and avoid all slurs, including TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist), which may have started as a descriptive term but is now used to try to silence a vast swathe of opinions on trans issues, and sometimes to incite violence against women. Comments will be open but closely moderated.

If you'd like secondary sources which mention the Economist's banning "TERF", how about this or this? (Also, I would guess H.J. is Helen Joyce, but can't be certain). Cheers, gnu57 21:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that "TERF is a slur" appears to indeed be the Economist's editorial line. But I think it's a huge violation of WP:UNDUE to list it and not mention that the Daily Dot, USA Today, and several other publications have all endorsed the use of the term fairly explicitly (not to mention all the papers which implicitly endorse it by using it). This is definitely a case where there is a dispute between reliable sources, and the bulk of the reliable sources lean against the Economist. To mention the Economist alone and exclude all the others is a big NPOV violation, akin to mentioning only pro-rent control economists in an article about rent control. LokiTheLiar (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

If other publications have indeed discussed and explicitly endorsed usage of the word, that's important information, please add it (WP:FIXIT). But that's not a reason to remove relevant, sourced, stable content (ie The Economist piece). By the way, could we please try to keep topics separated on this talk page? It's become difficult to follow, thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The way I see it, the Economist should be included because (a) they made an explicit statement about their editorial policy, and (b) it was found noteworthy by secondary sources. Another publication which did the same is the journal McKinnon published in, which we also mention; I've gone looking for others, but so far haven't turned up any. (Plenty of individual writers using or commenting on the term, obviously, but nothing as explicit editorial policy.) It's true that a number of women's publications have come out explicitly as pro-trans, like the ones that signed the response to AfterEllen, but that belongs on the parent page rather than this one. Cheers, gnu57 01:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

In what way do "the bulk of the reliable sources lean against the Economist"? Where are all these quality sources stating that "TERF" is not a slur? They are not in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

All those reliable sources, NYT, Pinknews, Jezebel, directly call these TERFs out for being TERFs, directly, unambiguously, use TERF to describe anti-transgender feminists throughout those articles. This is a slap in the face against The Economist's manual that TERF is slur and cannot be used. If you successfully framed a word as bad, then the most useful evidence against the framing would be the continual and unabashed usage of it. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

What? Again, this article is about the term "TERF." We do not need yet another Feminist views on transgender topics article or "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism" article. More on that in the #New Sally Hines paragraph section below. I again ask, "Where are all these quality sources stating that 'TERF' is not a slur?" To repeat, they are not in the article. That trans-inclusive sources are using the term "TERF" as a descriptor is not the same thing as arguing that "TERF" is not a slur.

At least try to keep your POV in check. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

If you wanted to be obtuse, there's no news source that I could pull the actual quote "TERF is not a slur" from. However, the reason I call that conclusion obtuse is that while the Daily Dot and Pink News technically never say those words, the context in which they don't say those words is laying out detailed arguments for why TERF is not a slur. The fact that they don't state the conclusion should not be taken as a reason to not include these sources.

I think it's also pretty relevant to this article that this USA Today glossary defines "TERF" as "transphobic feminist". While it technically speaking is not a position on the conflict about whether it's a slur, it is certainly about the topic of this article, and not only that, in context it's an endorsement of the term.

Taking a step back: while I think a statement like "newspapers X, Y, and Z have used the term" is edging too close to WP:SYNTH, I do think that we as editors do not have to, and in fact should not, evaluate the balance of sources based on whether we can put them in the article, and that while it wouldn't be very encyclopedia-like for many reasons to actually include every single news source that uses or permits the use of the word, the fact that many do should be taken into account when we determine the proper weight of the page. I don't think that any of us are fooled when far-right sources say "racist is a slur against white people", even though there are very few explicit rebuttals to that claim in reliable sources, because the overwhelming use of the word "racist" in reliable sources is an implicit rebuttal. I don't think we're even fooled when an opinion piece in a reliable source says "illegal immigrant is a slur", because that term is very commonly used in reliable sources, even though I don't think there's any reliable source that actually refutes the argument. To not use common sense here would lead to absurd conclusions, in this article as in those examples. LokiTheLiar (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You are again using faulty comparisons to argue that Wikipedia should work in a way that it should not.

And there is nothing obtuse about following Wikipedia's rules appropriately. If you want use a WP:Personal attack (like the "obtuse" one) or keep challenging my many years of knowledge of how this site works and is supposed to work, then I suppose I'll have to just prove you wrong every time with an RfC or via taking you to some noticeboard. I don't even know how many times your rationales have been out of step with the general community's at this point. And your comparisons, which are always off, are beyond tiring. I don't mind mention of the USA Today glossary or similar since this article is about the word. But we are not going to include a bunch of definitional text since even our articles about words "must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term. While published dictionaries may be useful sources for lexical information on a term, the presence of a term in a dictionary does not by itself establish notability." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I genuinely did not mean to call you in particular obtuse. That was supposed to be a hypothetical "you" referring to a hypothetical person who made that argument, and I apologize for being unclear.

That being said, I would like to accuse you of something very much like stonewalling here, because you keep accusing me of being "out of step with the general community" and threatening that you would win a dispute when the only RfC we've actually had on any topic was inconclusive. I don't want to claim my views are the consensus either, because I don't think we have a consensus, but I do think that also means your views are not consensus, and I would like to politely request that you stop pretending like they are. LokiTheLiar (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm the one who asked, "Where are all these quality sources stating that 'TERF' is not a slur?" So for you to state that your "obtuse" sentence was made in a general "you" sense is being disingenuous. Of course it was referring to me. Your whole post was a response to me. If you wouldn't keep making comments or edits that are out of step with the general community's views on how Wikipedia is supposed to work, I wouldn't state it. Stating that the general community would agree with me is not a threat. It's a fact, based on years of experience. For example, as is clear to others, it is a fact that your "Many feminist media organizations" addition is out of step with how things are supposed to be done on this site. WP:STONEWALL states, "Status quo stonewalling is disruptive behavior in opposition to a proposed change when substantive argument based in policy." Your arguments are often not based in policy or on a Wikipedia guideline. They are often odd interpretations of a policy to support your argument, addition, or proposed addition. No one would find me pointing out your errors as disruptive. You generally stick to your arguments even when more experienced editors point out why you are wrong. Even in the "Many feminist media organizations" case, you had rebuttals. And that RfC? It was started by you and doesn't really address the issues at the beginning. For editors not familiar with the topic and/or article, more background material/context is needed for them to make a choice on "lacks NPOV" and "undue weight to (trans-exclusionary) radical feminist views." That is, unless they read the talk page and/or article. RfCs started by me tend to go differently. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

New Sally Hines paragraph

What does the new "Sally Hines" paragraph (diff) have to with the word "terf", please? The word isn't mentioned once in the paragraph's single source (which is behind a paywall, but I found a free copy, which I would post here in full for everyone, but I'm afraid that'd be a copyright violation).[21] A145GI15I95 (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be great content for the parent article rather than this one. gnu57 01:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, to be clear to User:Tsumikiria, this article is about the word "TERF", not about TERFs. That's Feminist views on transgender topics. I agree we should definitely move that section to the parent article. LokiTheLiar (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I was just coming to this talk page to state that the current "Responses to opposition" section shouldn't include the "Regarding denials of trans-exclusion based on inclusion of trans men in feminism" piece and the Sally Hines piece...since neither is about the word. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I definitely share concerns that we keep this article's content relevant to the word itself. I think the "it's misgendering" response to the "we're not exclusive, we include trans men" defense is acceptable as a response to an objection to the word. But the Hines paragraph, as I stated above, looks very out of place. A145GI15I95 (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I see. But this article shouldn't be limited to the word. Ideally, this should be a page titled "Trans-exclusionary feminism" whereby TERF is one of the major sections, as an alternative way to resolve the UNDUE FALSEBALANCE problems. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 05:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

As the hatnote says, all of that content is currently in Radical feminism § Views on transgender topics and Feminist views on transgender topics. This page was created very recently as a spinoff, to discuss only the word, as a word. I would be grateful if you would participate in the discussion on reworking/expanding those pages (particularly the main "Feminist views" one): that's where all of the general information on viewpoints belongs. Cheers, gnu57 05:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Tsumikiria, I would love for that article to exist, because it would, in my opinion, solve many of the problems of the parent page. However, it currently doesn't and this isn't it. I agree it would be good if you went over to the parent page and argued for the creation of that page over there. (Or heck, there's nothing stopping you from just making it; I don't think anyone disagrees that it's notable, and while there's certainly at least one person has opposed its creation over on the other page, I don't think there would be a consensus to delete.) LokiTheLiar (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

As I noted at that talk page, I would oppose that creation. "It would truly be a WP:Content fork issue. Like WP:POV fork states, 'In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a 'POV fork' of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.'"

Having both a "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism" article and a TERF article would be completely unnecessary content forking, especially since so many sources about trans-exclusionary radical feminism are specifically about that term (as a simple Google search shows). And then there is the redundancy issue, which would not be a simple redundancy issue that is expected. Trans-exclusionary radical feminism is mainly attributed to radical feminism. Common sense and WP:Content forking tells us that trans-exclusionary radical feminist content that is not redundant to radical feminism content should be covered in the Radical feminism article. It is the term "TERF" that is WP:Notable, not the concept. Again, a simple Google search shows this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

And we do not create false balance. As for you not thinking that there would be consensus to delete? Maybe not among the few involved in these discussions. But among the Wikipedia community in general? There very likely would be consensus to delete after I demonstrate, via the sources (although anyone is free to Google themselves), that the sources are mainly about the term, not the topic. The article might not be deleted, but it would be refocused to be about the term...just like the sources are. Any sources not using the word "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" to add material about trans-exclusionary radical feminism would likely be argued as WP:Synthesis. Don't believe me? Do see Talk:Slut-shaming/Archive 1#RfC: Is it WP:Synthesis to use sources that do not identify the topic as slut-shaming to make claims about slut-shaming?. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware you would oppose the creation; you are in fact the editor I was thinking of when I mentioned there would be at least one person opposed. However, I disagree. For one, I don't think you've presented any serious evidence that it would be a POV fork or meaningfully redundant. For two, the topic is clearly notable (here's three articles from reliable sources that are directly about trans-exclusionary radical feminists), and for three it's a much more coherent topic than is currently presented on the Feminist views on transgender topics page. The existence of Feminist views on pornography and Feminist views on prostitution did not prevent the creation of the articles sex-positive feminism or feminist sex wars. LokiTheLiar (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

No duh that I was the editor you were referring to. As for evidence, I don't know what evidence you are expecting beyond what WP:Content forking states and what a simple Google search of TERF and Trans-exclusionary radical feminist show. Those Google searches show that the terms are mainly about, well, the terms. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Two points:

1. Your searches actually cut against your point. On the first page of your TERF search I count five sources that are about the ideology to three that are about the term (not counting Wikipedia). (The only two reliable sources on the first page are about the term, but then that situation reverses on the next page.) Similarly for the search of the full phrase I count seven which are primarily about the ideology (five reliable) to two which are about the term (one reliable). A couple of these talk about both, but even so your assertion is simply false.

2. Even if you were right, this whole counting thing would be entirely irrelevant, because the important criterion for making a page is not the relative number of sources that appear on a Google search but the absolute number of independent reliable sources about the topic. It wouldn't actually matter if those sources were the minority of sources on Google as long as they exist. Heck, it wouldn't matter if there were no sources on Google at all as long as sufficient sources existed in some form; the internet is merely the most convenient place to look for sources, and not the only place. LokiTheLiar (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Your search results must somehow be different than mine. On that first page for "TERF," I see the following pages: "Urban Dictionary: TERF," "TERF - Wikipedia," "Feminist views on transgender topics - Wikipedia," "Are You a TERF? – Rachel Anne Williams – Medium," "10 TERF 'arguments' that need to stop – Cursed E – Medium," "The TERFs" (from theterfs.com), "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism - RationalWiki," "What is a Terf? How an internet buzzword became a mainstream slur," "TERF | Geek Feminism Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia," "I'm credited with having coined the word 'Terf'. Here's how it happened." Why are you counting sources such as Medium when I've already been clear with you that those WP:About self sources are not WP:Reliable sources? The only WP:Reliable sources on that page are about the term. When we look further past page 1 (meaning so on and so on), we see that most of the sources are also about the term. On the first page for "Trans-exclusionary radical feminist," it's more of the same. That there exists articles talking about the dispute between trans-exclusive and trans-inclusive feminists doesn't negate the fact that material specifically titled "TERF" or "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" are mainly about the term; this is especially the case for "TERF" (without it being spelled out). And although there are sources like this The New York Times opinion piece or this HuffPost piece, most of the articles (the reliable ones) speaking on trans-exclusionary radical feminist views are not specifically about trans-exclusionary radical feminist views. They are about the dispute between trans-exclusive and trans-inclusive feminists. And we already have the Feminist views on transgender topics article for that.

The most important criterion for creating a Wikipedia article is WP:Notability. And WP:No page is a part of that. When sources are mostly about a term, it's not exactly best to attempt to make the article broader than that. Furthermore, there have been a number of cases on Wikipedia where topics that have support in different reliable sources are deleted; this is sometimes because the different reliable sources don't indicate true notability. Sometimes they don't meet WP:GNG. Sometimes they should go beyond WP:GNG; for instance, in the case of Wikipedia:Notability (events). This isn't about Google. When it comes to Wikipedia, Google is simply there to help assess matters, as it always does in cases of notability, whether or not to move an article, and other Wikipedia issues.

And going back to content forking, it's a fact that having both a "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism" article and a TERF article would be a content fork violation. That is what I was arguing with regard to content forking. I cited the relevant aspect of the WP:Content forking guideline above for everyone to see. As we know, "TERF" stands for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist." So it makes no sense to have an article called "TERF" and another called ""Trans-exclusionary radical feminism." We wouldn't, for example, have an article called "Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender" in addition to the LGBT article. Sure, we have a LGBT community article and an LGBT social movements article, but that's obviously different. Editors would vote to merge the "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism" article with the "TERF" article in a heartbeat. As for the "TERF movement" or "TERF ideology," it's just trans-exclusive material with the label "TERF" on it. Again, we already have the Radical feminism and Feminist views on transgender topics articles for those views. The "TERF" article should remain focused on the term. Even the TERF material in the Radical feminism article is focused on the term. Well, before going into the views specifically. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Gnu, thank you for moving this Hines paragraph to the more appropriate article. Tsumikiria, please join the talk page there for discussions of theory. A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Since you've taken this page off your watchlist, I'm going to be brief, since this is mostly to inform other editors why I disagree and not to actually argue any more.

I think your example about LGBT is interesting, because if you go not too far away we have an article about the term gay and an article about homosexuality. This is basically the exact situation we'd be in with this article. (I agree if we make an article about the movement, we should probably rename this article to "TERF (term)" or something like that for clarity.)

As for the counts: I agree that most of those sources aren't reliable, which is why I gave separate counts for both all and reliable sources. On the first page of "TERF" there's a Guardian source and a New Statesman source, both about the term. On the second page, there's a NYT opinion piece about the ideology, a USA Today piece which is about both but focuses on the ideology, an Insider Higher Ed source which is about a controversy surrounding the term, and two explainers from Huffington Post and TransAdvocate which are about the movement. The stuff in the trans-exclusionary radical feminist search is largely the same: a bunch of explainers about the movement. Some of these explainers also do explain what the term means, but that doesn't mean they're (primarily) about the term. Because of this and the sources on the parent page, I think that the movement is more than notable enough to have its own page. LokiTheLiar (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

It's off my watchlist, but I have checked back for a reply from you. At the Feminist views on transgender topics talk page, I pretty much asked you to ping me if you reply to me, but I also stated that it's best that you don't go and start making late replies to my comments. It's not right if you know that I won't be there to reply back.

Having a Homosexuality article and an article about the term gay is not at all the same thing as having both a Trans-exclusionary radical feminist article and a TERF article, and I think you know that. But if an editor wants to try to WP:Game the system on that matter, that editor will be sorely disappointed when the two articles are merged. I would see to a merge in that regard. A Homosexuality article and the article about the term gay (which also covers its initial usage, "gay" to mean "stupid" or "lame," and "gay" to mean "LGBT community") are not the same subject. No matter how you slice it, trans-exclusionary radical feminist and TERF are the same subject. Even our term articles are about a subject.

Except for "aren't reliable," we won't be agreeing on the counts matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn Sorry for not pinging you; I genuinely did not see that. That's also all I'm going to say for now; I don't have any more interest in continuing this argument with you than you appear to have in continuing this argument with me. LokiTheLiar (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Minority, resourced (capital)

Does this content—feminists who exclude trans women, a minor but resourced faction within feminism (diff)—belong in the lede? I could be wrong, but it seems not directly related to the word "terf". It's also a bit of a bold claim, worthy of additional sourcing, please (its only source appears to be the Hines piece again[22]). Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I'm firmly against pitting this as merely supporter versus opposition in lead because this directly imply they're of equal validity when they're not, creating a false impression of balance. We should definitely note that anti-trans feminists, which are the primary/predominant group being described by the word, are the minority. TERFs being socially, culturally and economically resourced is exactly why they've been able to frame the word as a slur and have this argument proliferate in the United Kingdom. This is pertinent information directly related to (the opposition of) the word. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

When we say "minor faction / minority within feminism", do we mean at a high level (authors, academics), are we talking about advocacy or activists groups, or is this meant to describe the masses of lay folk? It's genuinely unclear to me. The "resourced / high level of capital" claim in particular is bold (as each side has claimed to be the underdog). Having more than one source, with quotes in their citations, for controversial statements, increases credibility and understanding, especially if it belongs in the lede. A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think each side has claimed to be the underdog? Most of the "TERFs are a minority" citations are from trans-inclusive feminists. What I think is actually going on is that American feminists say that TERFs are a minority, while British feminists say that TERFs are alarmingly powerful. LokiTheLiar (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding which side has a "high level of social, cultural, and economic capital", see for example this article (which I found just now on Google) in The Washington Times—"The money behind the transgender movement" ([23]), which seems to claim the trans movement would be nowhere today without old, rich, white men pulling strings (I don't know, I've not read it). And regarding which side is the "minority", see for example this article in NewStateman—"Are you now or have you ever been a TERF?" ([24])—which begins "most people hold beliefs which could see them labelled a 'TERF'". Additionally, it's not hard to google and find blogs and comment sections arguing it's the terf-labeled side, not the trans side, who gets unfairly ignored and mistreated as "underdogs".[25][26][27] To be clear, I'm not arguing one position or the other. I'm saying it's a strong claim that deserves more than one source. A145GI15I95 (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The "American feminists say that TERFs are a minority, while British feminists say that TERFs are alarmingly powerful" statement is contradicted by The Economist source calling trans-exclusive feminists a minority while also stating that they have "a high level of social, cultural, and economic capital." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

An archive of the Hines/Economist article's text is visible at https://archive.fo/7fvsg. The author cites no evidence to back her claims. A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Many WP:Reliable sources don't cite a source, and that includes most of the sources in this article. As has been discussed times before on this site, WP:Reliable sources does not state that reliable sources need to cite sources. And WP:In-text attribution exists for a reason. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A145: I would not consider an opinion piece in The Washington Times a reliable source, especially one which talks about George Soros; read that last paragraph of the lede of its article for why. The opinion piece from the New Statesman, besides also being opinion, appears to be conjuring up a silent minority which the author has no evidence for and says itself "That their position is misguided and morally repugnant is pretty much taken for granted". And obviously neither /r/gendercritical nor any of those forums or blogs is a reliable source. For further proof that trans-exclusionary feminists are disproportionately influential (at least in Britain) see the sources I link below. Several of them say or imply that trans-exclusionary feminists are much less influential in America, so I agree we should not imply that. LokiTheLiar (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22: So, it's also technically true that anti-trans feminism is still a minority in Britain, it's just a larger and more influential minority. (Have you noticed that most of the trans-exclusionary feminist editorials we've been finding come from British media? The Economist, the New Statesman, the Guardian, and so on. In contrast, everything from America that hasn't been written by Michelle Goldberg has been neutral or positive.) If you want proof of the divide, here is some proof. Based on all the reliable sources that say both that TERFs are disproportionately powerful in Britain and also that they're quite marginal in America (the NY Times and the Outline say this explicitly) I think that it's reasonably clear that Sally Hines' statement was based on her own experience as a British feminist and should not be taken as a worldwide perspective. LokiTheLiar (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The question above was whether either side (not whether reliable sources) claim underdog status. I know blogs/comments/tweets are unreliable, and I've seen you link unreliable sources on talk,[28] so I thought this would be acceptable here (not in our article, of course). / Regarding The Washington Times: I don't see consensus against them on our noticeboard. / Regarding the MacDonald piece: It's not labeled an opinion piece, and it cites evidence; the Hines piece reads more like opinion and cites no evidence. / I appreciate the comments here that the US and UK have different situations, and I'd welcome seeing more info on these nuances in our article if possible. A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Does this revert (diff) have consensus backing? The change (now reverted) was from they have a "high level of social, cultural, and economic capital" to they have been said to possess a "high level of social, cultural, and economic capital". Reason for the addition of "said" was to improve NPOV, as one source has said this, and without evidence. Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, my point is that the WP:Reliable sources guideline is clear about what qualifies as a reliable source. It states nothing about sources needing to cite sources. To repeat, "As has been discussed times before on this site, WP:Reliable sources does not state that reliable sources need to cite sources." An opinion piece comparison is irrelevant because that is handled per WP:YESPOV and WP:In-text attribution. We can take this to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources if we must.

You stated, "Several of them say or imply that trans-exclusionary feminists are much less influential in America, so I agree we should not imply that." No, they don't.

A145GI15I95, "said to possess" is a WP:Weasel words violation. The piece should simply be given WP:In-text attribution instead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"No they don't"? What? I can quote two of them saying that very clearly. The NYT source states In America, however, TERFism today is a scattered community in its death throes, mourning the loss of its last spaces, like the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival, which ended in 2015., and the Outline source states 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. Please at least read the sources I link before dismissing them. Also, I'm honestly not sure what we would be taking elsewhere. I don't think that you're saying my sources are unreliable, and I'm not saying your source is unreliable. Do you mean we should go there to resolve the issue of whether there's a source conflict or not? Because I think that's reasonable and in fact a good idea.LokiTheLiar (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The source stating that "TERFism today is a scattered community in its death throes, mourning the loss of its last spaces, like the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival, which ended in 2015" is not the same thing as stating they have no power. Again, The Economist states "anti-trans viewpoints are a minority position within feminism" and "while anti-transgender feminists are a minority, they have a high level of social, cultural and economic capital." So it also calls them a minority. The source stating "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" is not the same thing as stating that trans-exclusive feminists have no power. You are reaching a conclusion not stated by the sources. Regarding Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, I simply meant that if one wants to argue that WP:Reliable sources need to cite sources, we can take the matter there for more opinions.

In any case, I'm taking this article and the Feminist views on transgender topics article off my watchlist, which I know will relieve you and certain others. There are too many contentious topics that I need to worry about, and just being involved with the Feminist views on transgender topics article and now this one...I can see that both will take too much of my time. I don't like being on Wikipedia debating day in and day out. I do not want to substantially contribute to either article and become very attached. I know that my draft of the Feminist views on transgender topics article would be a substantial improvement to that article, but I don't have the time nor patience to deal with POV issues that would continue to happen at that article even if my draft was implemented. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Like before, this is mostly going to be about explaining my position to other editors briefly now you've taken this article off your watchlist.

Saying those sources don't prove that TERFs have "no" power is a strawman. The claim at issue is that "they have a high level of social, cultural and economic capital" is true in the UK only, and that they are significantly weaker in the US. I think describing TERFism as a "scattered community in its death thrones" in the US does contradict, and in context is intended to contradict, the idea that they have a "high" amount of social, cultural and economic capital in the US. I'm also confused at your emphasis; while it's clear that to some extent the piece is based on the author's opinion, she does go into her reasoning (and, as you say, reliable sources don't have to cite sources). Moreover, in context the opinion being offered is that she thinks that Britain ought to take advice from the US in this instance, and then offers her reasoning being that TERFs in the US are weaker than in the UK. LokiTheLiar (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no straw man. The sources do not state that those feminists have no power. WP:Synthesis understands what I mean. So should you. You have no proof of "in the UK only." As for my bolded emphasis, yes, it's about that author's opinion since that author specifically states "I think." And although I stated, "WP:Reliable sources does not state that reliable sources need to cite sources.," I also stated, "An opinion piece comparison is irrelevant because that is handled per WP:YESPOV and WP:In-text attribution." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The addition of "said to possess" was intended as a more WP:IMPARTIAL tone. It doesn't "[create] an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated" (definition of WP:WEASEL), it does the opposite. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Since I missed this earlier, I'm replying now: WP:IMPARTIAL does not excuse "said to possess." Use of "said to possess" is the type of wording that WP:Weasel words cautions against. It doesn't need to give every example for editors to get the point. If the "said to possess" wording hadn't been changed, someone would have eventually tagged it with Template:By whom (even with the inline citation). And the "while they lack influence in American feminism" piece, which was changed to "while they lack influence in mainstream feminism" in the Feminist views on transgender topics, is WP:Synthesis. And the Inside Higher Ed source is a weak source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight tag

The article is currently tagged "This article may lend undue weight to anti-transgender feminists' opposition to the word". Does this tag have consensus support? The section in question has shrunk, and the other two sections (defending the usage, and responding to the opposition) have grown since its addition. A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree the problem has gotten better but I don't think it's really fixed yet. I think that tag and the tag about expansion of the responses section are still necessary for now. LokiTheLiar (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I trimmed the opposition section down but response section has effectively shrunk as you moved the usage to the coining section. We are making progress, but the section expansion tag on responses is definitely going to be pertinent in a long while. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 02:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that word-counting of the "Opposition to the word" vs "Responses to opposition" is appropriate; the power of arguments stands on its own (what more should be said?). If we're to regard each section as being either pro- or anti-transgender (I don't think we should), then the combined word-count of "Coinage and usage" plus "Responses to opposition" against "Opposition to the word" gives a weight of roughly two-to-one. A145 (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that "the power of arguments stands on its own" is not Wikipedia policy. We don't present both sides and let the reader decide, that's WP:FALSEBALANCE. We present the sides as they have been covered in reliable sources. Now, the opposition section is IMO pretty similar to how it's been covered in reliable sources, but the responses section is definitely missing material. For one, there have been actually a lot of other sources that repeat basically the same arguments as in this section (some examples), leading me to think we should probably be summarizing these arguments in a similar way to how Feminist views on pornography does it. And for two, there are a lot of uses of the word "TERF" in mainstream sources that I think common sense demands we take into account when determining the proper weight of this page: even if we can't exactly list every time "TERF" has appeared in a mainstream news source, the fact that news organizations have mostly come down on the side of "this is a word we let people use in our paper" is relevant. I'd like to get more explicit statements to that effect but in lieu of that I still do think we need to be accounting for that. LokiTheLiar (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I encourage editors who'd like to see more responses to opposition to the word to add such content if it exists. I disagree with the claim that the size of the "responses to opposition" being comparable to the size of the "opposition to the word" section makes the article as a whole unbalanced, when the majority of the article affirms the word as valid/inoffensive. A145 (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Sentence NPOV and run-on length

This sentence has been changed and reverted and changed and reverted (latest diff).

• Most-recent wording: Anti-transgender feminists' attempts to deny their trans-exclusion by arguing they cannot be considered so because they categorize trans men as women has been refuted by trans men and their allies as contradictory, divisive, fetishistically infantilizing, transphobic, and a part of transmisogynist ideology.
• Current wording: Attempts to deny trans-exclusion through the categorization of trans men as women have been refuted as contradictory, divisive, fetishistically infantilizing, transphobic, and a part of transmisogynist ideology.

I've two concerns with the most-recent wording:

1. The most-recent wording is a run-on sentence (its assemblage of phrases inhibits legibility).
2. It's not NPOV to declare one side as "anti-transgender" while citing their claimed defense of not being trans-exclusive. We could alternatively say "the group labeled TERFs", but I thought it better to avoid a label.

Thank you, A145 (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I tend towards the more recent wording but I would prefer "trans-exclusionary" instead of "anti-transgender" for consistency with the rest of the page. (While they do argue that it's inaccurate, it's not an NPOV violation to use the term that is overwhelmingly used to describe them, and this applies even if it's unambiguously inaccurate. So, for example the page "Iroquois" primarily uses the term "Iroquois" for the group of people who call themselves Haudenosaunee.) I also think it's important to mention that it's trans men and their allies that refute it, because that's important information for a reader about the weight of the claim. Who is making these arguments is not irrelevant information. LokiTheLiar (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

TERFs' denial are the subject of that sentence. Removing mentions to TERFs only serves to obscure the important _who_ was doing the denial. Although for more clarity, it can be rewritten into "[TERFs]' attempts to deny their trans exclusion - mainly by claiming that for their categorization of trans men as women they cannot be considered trans-exclusionary - has been refuted trans men and their allies as contradictory, divisive, fetishistically infantilizing, transphobic, and a part of [TERFs'] transmisogynist ideology."

And "anti-trans" is NPOV, interchangeable with "trans-exclusionary", while "the group labeled TERFS" is avoidant and sympathetic. Specifically, "anti-trans" is has mainstream usage supported by most reliable sources (NBC, Guardian, NYT, PRA, Prospect, Outline). Considering that we should not create false balance where the mainstream ("inclusionary") and the fringe TERFs ("exclusionary") are portrayed in equal validity, properly describe them as "anti-trans" would achieve much more clarity without implying that the fringe TERFs was equally opposed to the mainsteream. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it obscurement. It's clear in the current wording to whom we're referring. The repeated additions of the label in one sentence add unnecessary wordiness, and they appear as if done for overemphasis (pushing POV). It's simply not NPOV for us to call the group in Wikipedia's voice "anti-trans" or "terf", when the group (and some neutral parties) have offered reasons why they aren't anti-trans, and when they've offered reasons why they find "terf" to be a slur, as detailed in this very article. I could support "trans-exclusionary" as a middle-ground label, if a label is needed. I don't see why you've included brackets in your example text. I'd reduce verbiage again as Claims that their categorization of trans men as women would negate any status as trans-exclusionary have been refuted by trans men and their allies as contradictory, divisive, fetishistically infantilizing, transphobic, and a part of transmisogynist ideology., but I think the current wording reads more clearly. A145 (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

FWIW I would also say that the shorter wording obscures important information, though I didn't say that explicitly in my previous comment. IMO clarity is much more important than brevity: it's important to note who is attempting to deny that they're trans-exclusionary.

Also, like I pointed out above, even if they could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that those labels were inaccurate it would still be Wikipedia policy to use them because Wikipedia goes solely by the common name with no heed whatsoever paid to whether it is accurate. (Again, see Iroquois: no reasonable person could argue that "Iroquois" is an accurate name for this group of people, and yet it's the one Wikipedia uses because it's the one most people use.)

That all being said, I believe we all think the compromise wording of "trans-exclusionary" is reasonable, so let's just go with that and cut this argument off here. LokiTheLiar (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: Per here, should I conclude that you prefer the explicit use of "anti-trans" over "trans-exclusonary" in pursuant to the sources? Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 07:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Kinda, but that preference isn't strong unless we're quoting a source. I don't support trying to remove instances of "anti-trans" from the article but I also don't have a strong preference between "anti-trans" and "trans-exclusionary". LokiTheLiar (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

May I invite Loki or any other editor than Tsumi and me to offer additional rewords, please? A145 (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

How about: Trans-exclusionary feminists' claim that they are not trans-exclusionary by arguing that they do not exclude trans men because they categorize trans men as women is rejected by trans men, and has been called "divisive and contradictory", "transphobic", "fetishistic", "infantalizing" and "transmisogynistic" by trans men and their allies. LokiTheLiar (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Or simpler, focusing on the subjects: Anti-transgender feminists' claim - that they are not trans-exclusionary because they categorize trans men as women - has been refuted by trans men. Trans men and their allies have called this denial "divisive and contradictory [...] part of their transmisgynist ideology", transphobic, and "fetishistic, often infantilizing". As this point, we do have consensus on 1) TERFs, The subject of this denial, must be noted 2) "anti-trans" is a widely-used neutral term to describe TERFs in practice. Additionally, since the source for this particular paragraph used "anti-trans", it is naturally more preferable and clearer to the softened "trans-exclusionary". I believe this use of dashes would solve flow problems in my previous rewrite. Thanks. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 02:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Tsumi, you're quick to declare consensus when you see it in your favor. There's WP:NORUSH. Not everyone here checks their watchlist everyday. There are more editors here than you, Loki, and me. Give the others reasonable time, and remember WP:CONSENSUS is not a WP:VOTE. I can support Loki's direction, but I'd suggest this reduction of verbosity: Trans-exclusionary feminists' claim that they are not trans-exclusionary by inclusion of trans men in their definition of women is rejected by trans men and their allies. This claim has been called "divisive and contradictory", "transphobic", "fetishistic", "infantalizing" and "transmisogynistic". A145 (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The rough consensus holds when you're in a clear 1AM situation on both pages. Both your initial "concise" version and this rewrite again inappropriately wrote in wikivoice that TERFs "includes" trans-women in men (clearly an insulting one-sided "inclusion"), and omits the important information of who was doing the refutation. There is no way this shy, blurring language was the one we're going to use. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

'TERFism' in quotes, bold, and italics

The word "TERFism" was added in quotes, bold, and italics by one editor.[29] The bold and italics were reverted by a second editor,[30] re-added,[31] re-reverted by a third editor (me),[32], re-re-added,[33] and re-re-reverted.[34]

In the logs, no reason has yet been given for italics. Reasons given for bold have been "bolded per MOS:BOLD, it was a redirect from TERFism, as the term has now been widely used as a search term" and "bold redir search term". I don't see how MOS:BOLD is applicable here. It's also worth mentioning that the redirect was created by the first editor at the same time as this addition.[35]

I've asked in the logs several times on this and other disagreements that we discuss such matters per BRD, which seems to have been ignored. I'd like to ask again here on the talk page that we honor BRD: If you change something, someone changes it back, bring it to talk. Thank you, A145 (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that I would like some proof that this is actually "widely used as a search term" before I'd support the use of bold for it. Google says that there are definitely many people who use the term but I don't know if that means we should highlight it. IMO it's a variant of "TERF" and not really a separate term. LokiTheLiar (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it a significant alternative title? I don't think so.

Google says that there are definitely many people who use the term

No, it doesn't. There are barely 107 uses on the internet; that is functionally equivalent to zero, given the size of the internet. (There are also two in books, and four in Scholar.) Even if used very occasionally as a search term, it's still not necessary to bold it since any WP search for "Terfism" will turn up TERF (as well as LGBT slang, Teespring, Transphobia, and Radical feminism) whether it is, or isn't a redirect to it. Insignifcant alternative titles should not be bolded, and per WP:DUEWEIGHT, terms that are only a tiny minority (this is an ultra-extreme-double-secret-probation tiny minority) should not be mentioned at all. The NYT usage by Lewis isn't enough to trump its rarity. The term should be removed from the article; the section on Lewis loses nothing by not mentioning it. Mathglot (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

This is somewhat of a devil's advocate, but I don't see 107 as much lower than the 121 results that "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" gets, or the 128 results TERF gets. Any Google search is going to be influenced by the fact this is a somewhat niche subject to begin with.

The thing I was asking for was evidence that there's a lot of people who get to this article specifically by way of searching for "TERFism" or by clicking on the redirect from TERFism. I doubt there is, which is why I don't think putting the term in bold is a good idea. LokiTheLiar (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Although comparing a 4-gram to a unigram can be problematic, you may have a point, there. I may have to do some more searches. Mathglot (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of wiki-links.

The following wiki-links in this article's prose have in the last two day been removed, re-added, re-removed, and re-re-added (diffs: [36][37][38][39]):

• …was used to [[Dehumanization|dehumanize]] women who…
• …criticized Linda Bellos' 2017 [[deplatforming|disinvitation]] from…
• …who are critical of [[gender]].
• …[[Normalization (sociology)|normalization]] of the term…

Reasons for removal in logs have read "this is not how in-quote linking should be used", "deplatforming is OR", and "linking in quotes incl. indirect ones may not imply additional meaning; whose attempt? attempt by how? rm wikivoice".

The above statements have not been made in quotes. They present opportunity for lay-readers to learn more about terms that may be considered more specialized to this sociological topic. This repeated removal violates BRD, as these were stable, boldly removed, reverted, and not discussed. I ask please we not re-re-remove them without talk here. Thank you. A145 (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The link to deplatforming should definitely not be there, because since that's not the word you're making the link out of, and the page you're making the link to is charged, it's IMO clear editorializing with a link. I'm also against wiki-linking inside of a quote unless it's a technical term that is only used inside that quote (which gender is not). "Dehumanization" I'm on the fence on, but I think I'm against it on balance since it's also inside a quote. "Normalization" I think I would be for on balance; I don't think there's a good reason not to link it and it is a technical term. LokiTheLiar (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It is wildly inapproriate for you to link your idiosyncratic personal intepretations of Bellos's uninvitation being a form of deplatforming against her in-page. The source does not say that at all, making this linking based on personal POV rather than plain summary. Dehumanize, gender and normalization are all common words, and linking them inside indirect quotes is still a form a inappropriate in-quote linking whereby the linking itself is used to editorialize and validate the quoted content, a form a NPOV violation. One case for an example: "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a country..." should not have that "democratic" linked. You certainly should not add them back without a broad consensus. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

NB: Talk discussion on related redirects

Just a note here that a small discussion has begun regarding how to handle "TERF" and "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism/ist" redirects at the Talk:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism page. A145 (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Avoiding loss of material

I haven't been on Wikipedia much for some months, and have just seen this new article. I think it's a good idea that it split from the parent article. I tried to improve the section on the word itself, back in January, and am concerned that some of the sources and material I added seems to have disappeared. I'll put three here.

It does surprise me that the TERF article as it stands today makes no reference to the thorough discussion of the word by a prominent socio-linguist (though I welcome the addition of the Japan-based scholars):

The term "TERF" (or "terf") is highly contested. Sociolinguist Deborah Cameron wrote in 2016 of how it has evolved, from all-caps to lower case, and from functioning as an acronym to an ordinary word. She concludes that it "does not meet all the criteria that have been proposed for defining a word as a slur, but it does meet most of them at least partially," and given that it is used "in a kind of discourse which has clear similarities with hate-speech...it seems to me impossible to maintain that it is ‘just a neutral description’."

There's also the meta-discussion of academic philosophers. The article today mentions PPR but not the wider coverage given by IHE:

The term became a bone of contention amongst academic philosophers. In 2018, Inside Higher Ed documented how the use of the word in an edition of Philosophy and Phenomenological Research led to a letter of protest from feminist philosophers.

Something from Sarah Ditum is in the current article, but not the publications where they appeared, which I think is helpful to the reader:

Writing for the New Statesman in 2017, she said that "TERF" became a mainstream slur after initially starting out as what was mostly an Internet buzzword. In a piece for Feminist Current, she stated that the term is used to silence feminists through guilt by association.

I think those are the main things. I have no appetite for trawling hundreds of diffs. Nor do I wish to get into lengthy discussion, no matter how good tempered, as this talk page is already too long for me to absorb. I will drop them here, in the hope that other editors - who may not have seen them before - can possibly find some use in them. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The reason the Deborah Cameron piece was removed is that it's a blog by an academic, not an academic paper. It's not even on a relatively more reliable shared blogging site like Language Log, it's just Cameron's personal blog. Since we were able to find better academic sources, we removed the relatively unreliable Cameron piece. I wouldn't mind too much adding it back as long as we made it clear that it was on her blog and not peer reviewed.

We are using the Inside Higher Ed source, we're just not mentioning it specifically because there's no reason to do so. We don't say "the New York Times said" every time we cite the New York Times, either.

The Sarah Ditum stuff was cut down significantly because we don't need the opinion of every single activist separately if they're all saying the same thing. TBH I would like to summarize each position even further and remove most of the names. LokiTheLiar (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Additional sources

It occurred to me to look for more mainstream sources, particularly news, and see how they gloss the term "TERF" (or, increasingly, "terf"). Sometimes it is merely an attempt at a definition, highlighting its contentious use, but in several cases it is the use of the word (rather than the views it purportedly stands for) that has become the story, or at least part of the story.

Manchester Evening News: Tweet using 'slur' for feminists while 'defending trans rights' sparks internal police investigation. This story refers to something that Greater Manchester Police tweeted, and after reflection, deleted.

"The message states: “Hello. The word TERF is not an offensive slur, It is a description. At GMP we stand against hate crime and the Trans community are victims of horrific attacks globally and in the UK. We would like to see you at the event and Hopefully you can gain insight into Trans Rights. Liam” The comment sparked outrage amongst feminist activists who say ‘TERF’ is an offensive term."

Slate: Do I Have to Give Up Lesbian History to Participate in Queer Culture?

"TERF, as an insult, has become so far removed from its original activist intentions (rightly criticizing trans exclusion in feminism) that, at this point, it’s also a word for anything that queer millennials deem uncool. Things I’ve seen called “TERFy” on Twitter and Tumblr include tampon ads, the word “female,” the non-word “womxn,” Janelle Monae’s “Pynk,” the Venus symbol, bangs, Jill Stein, Cardi B, and … trans women. This blanket TERF-ing, which weakens necessary criticisms of transphobia, is today disproportionately applied to anything even remotely second-wave-y."

New Statesman: Are you now or have you ever been a TERF?

"The term TERF - “trans exclusionary radical feminist” has become internet shorthand for “transphobic bigot”. The odd thing is that most people hold beliefs which could see them labelled a “TERF”."

PinkNews: What is a TERF? Debate over transgender rights and Gender Recognition Act explained

"Is TERF a slur? One of the debates surrounding the term TERF focuses on whether the term is an offensive slur on par with homophobic and racist insults—which aim to stigmatise people on the basis of who they are and how they look—rather than a description of a set of beliefs, such as “racism.” It’s hard to disagree with the claim that TERF has assumed a negative connotation, but this has to do more with the nature of the beliefs defined by the word, than the word itself. Another question is whether the term is necessary to describe and challenge transphobic views? While all trans-exclusionary feminists are transphobic by definition, not all transphobia is perpetrated by TERFs. The Economist, which recently published a 10-part series of essays on transgender identities, sided with those recognising TERF as a slur, banning it from its articles because the word “may have started as a descriptive term but is now used to try to silence a vast swathe of opinions on trans issues, and sometimes to incite violence against women.”"

The Spectator: Terf wars and the ludicrous lexicon of feminist theory

"Terf is an unlikely acronym, deriving from trans-exclusionary radical feminist. It is a label given by their enemies to feminists who reject alliances in their struggle with people who used to be men. [...] Some enemies of terfs chant, or post on Twitter, slogans such as ‘Burn terfs’ or ‘Kill terfs’. Thus others regard the very uttering of the word terf as a ‘hate crime’."

NBC News: 'Pro-lesbian' or 'trans-exclusionary'? Old animosities boil into public view

"A transgender-exclusionary radical feminist, or TERF, is a contentious term used to describe feminists whose views about gender are seen as anti-trans.

‘TERF’: A CONTROVERSIAL LABEL

In recent years, radical feminists have been derided as “transgender-exclusionary radical feminists,” or “TERFs,” by many LGBTQ activists and writers for having what many see as illiberal and anti-transgender views. Faderman said the term TERF is “relatively new” and has become synonymous with radical feminism in recent years. “It’s certainly meant to insult radical feminists and to raise suspicion about all of them,” Faderman added. The label, which grew popular on Twitter, has seeped into mainstream media and political discourse. In New Zealand, a member of Parliament was criticized in November for reportedly stating, “I don’t want any f----ing TERFs at the pride parade” in Auckland — a possible reference to the Get the L Out protests at London’s pride event. The San Francisco Public Library came under fire in April for featuring an art display by the feminist and genderqueer art club the Degenderettes, in which a tank top splattered in fake blood read “I PUNCH TERFS!” The library later removed the shirt and issued an apology on Twitter. [...] Those who brandish the TERF label argue it simply and accurately describes feminists and lesbians who exclude trans women from their spaces, while radical feminists see it as a pejorative meant to discredit their views. On her Canadian blog, The Feminist Current, self-proclaimed radical feminist Meghan Murphy claims the acronym TERF is “hate speech” that incites “violence against women.” "

The Telegraph: Bristol University students seek to ban 'Terf' speakers who question transgender status of women

"Terf, which stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, is generally used as a derogatory term to describe those who believe that “identifying” as a woman is not the same as being born a woman. It can also be used to refer to people who are deemed to hold “transphobic” views. In the past, campaigners have attempted to “no-platform” individual speakers for holding such views, but Bristol appears to the one of the first student attempts to instigate a blanket ban."

It's a range of UK & US sources; I looked further afield but couldn't find anything immediately. I hope these quotes can be of use to other editors in improving the article. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

stricken comments 11:26 1 June by cu-blocked IP

===The lead and two pieces in the responses section=== Thank you for trying, Carbon Caryatid. After this, I tried too (diff one and diff two). The only editors I see trying to edit this article neutrally are A145GI15I95, Genericusername57, Prinsgezinde and Mathglot. Meanwhile, Tsumikiria is repeatedly editing the article to their own POV. One example is Tsumikiria adding material that has nothing to do with the term when this is a term article. The other is the "it's fringe" claim. Um, there are no reliable sources that say that opposition to the term "TERF" is fringe. In fact, there are reliable sources and academics saying that the term is a slur or problematic in some way. And then there are all of the sources you, Carbon Caryatid, listed above. On the other side, we have a few supporters of the term saying that it's not a slur. Despite that, Tsumikiria added this to the lead: "the term is applied to a transphobic minority of feminists who exclude trans women from women's spaces or do not consider trans women to be women. While these feminists have claimed that the term constitute a slur, other academics, feminists and trans people have refuted that claim." Um, because of the contentious nature of this term and even the academics who state that it is a slur or derogatory, "transphobic" should not be in Wikipedia's voice. The article itself lets the reader know that the term is not just applied to radical feminists or even feminists, or even a minority of people, but rather "most people espousing trans-exclusionary politics that follow a particular 'TERF logic', regardless of their involvement with radical feminism." And despite this, Tsumikiria has the lead saying "minority" and "feminists." The article itself lets the reader know that those who are called TERFs are not the only ones opposed to the term. And despite this, Tsumikiria has the lead saying "while these feminists." Tsumikiria has the lead saying "other academics, feminists and trans people have refuted that claim" as if academics haven't also objected to the term. And the claim use is inappropriate as well. On top of all of that, the first paragraph in the responses section is not even about the word. It's just Tsumikiria trying to bloat the section because there's so little material out there that actually has responded to opposition to the word. It's Tsumikiria engaging in good old-fashioned false balance, going against what WP:BALANCE says, folks. Even more so troubling is the "Linguists Christopher David and Elin McCready" addition that is obviously meant to prove that "TERF" is not a slur, but does not belong because it has not a thing to do with the topic TERF. It's synthesis, and all the claims in the world that it's not synthesis won't make the claim true. 98.162.170.103 (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Striking comments by checkuser-confirmed block evader. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

For an IP you have a lot of opinions about non IP accounts. Please log in to your named account. --Fæ (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

stricken comments 11:46 1 June by cu-blocked IP

Address the topic at hand and stop reverting to problematic additions just because you like them. You wanted this brought to talk page. I brought it to the talk page. I did so to document the issues with the problematic "summary" and additions in the "responses" section that don't belong and so that one of the neutral editors may fix the problematic "summary" and remove the additions in the "responses" section that don't belong. I'll look forward to hearing from Genericusername57 and/or Mathglot. Carbon Caryatid, too. 98.162.170.103 (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Alright fine, since I've been linked and felt forced to read the article again I might as well pitch in. I think the article has a somewhat strange structure. The "Coinage and usage" section is very good, IMO, but the other two sections (which I combined into one since they were of the same subject) and part of the lead are less coherent. I think this article would benefit from more tertiary sources that could help make it less bipolar. Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you were canvassed on your talk page by the IP account above, that appears to have an inappropriate undeclared history with other editors and this article. The IP account is pinging selected contributors that they believe will support their view, this clearly is against canvassing as well as attempting to game the system for what should be a consensus building discussion about sources.

An obvious objective, based on their own words above, by the anon IP and let's be honest, likely sock, is to remove the word "transphobic" when applied to published statements that "do not consider trans women to be women". Let's not go down the path of responding to tired lobbying arguments that make no literal sense. --Fæ (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fæ: yeah, I figured, that's why I made it clear I was linked here. It wasn't very subtle anyhow since they linked the same users they contacted in their post here. I'm not sure why they think me reorganizing a section and removing an (imo) improperly used tag somehow aligns my values with theirs. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Responding in sequence to the links in the initial paragraph, there are several issues with these as reliable sources:

1. N Telegraph, Beth Abbit, Feb 2019 - Uses "feminist activists" as if all active feminists would find TERF offensive, clearly not sticking to facts and the whole article is based on selected tweets in response to a tweet, including undeclared references to a Spokeswoman for the radical (and radically offensive) anti-trans lobby group Fair Play For Women
2. N Slate, Lena Wilson, Aug 2018 - Long self reflective op-ed, not a survey of anything, or based on stats or interviews, just personal reactions
3. N New Statesman, Anonymous, Feb 2015 - Rambling op-ed by someone under a pseudonym, not a good source. Using rhetoric about 1984 and McCarthyism and unnecessarily name dropping Mary Beard and Peter Tatchell, really?
4. Y Pink News, Sofia Lotto Persio, July 2018 - Appears a reasonable summary by a journalist that reports on many LGBT+ related topics, in this case the GRA and TERF. Care has to be taken to avoid cherry picking.
5. N Spectator, Anonymous, May 2018 - By "Dot Wordsworth" this is a very casual opinion piece, no apparent attempt to do any credible research.
6. Y NBC News, Julie Compton, Jan 2019 - Established journalist on LGBT+ issues with a reasonable summary of a couple of recent events (AfterEllen, London Pride disruption) though relying on blogs and tweets rather than any surveys or statistical evidence.
7. Y Telegraph, Camilla Turner, March 2018 - Summary mainly of the Bristol University proposal to no platform pro-TERF speakers. A narrow article, but factual and does use "TERF" in an official looking way.

Revised --Fæ (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

stricken comments 08:45 2 June by cu-blocked IP

Oh. So you think it's fine to keep this wording in the lead despite what WP:WIKIVOICE says? You think it's fine to keep pieces in the responses section that don't belong there? And you think you get to dictate which reliable sources should be used and have more weight, when the sources in the responses section are almost all crap? Okay, then. Let's see what editors from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics, Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia talk:No original research have to say. I'll point those pages this way now. Going to the WP:Neutral noticeboard would be a waste of time since it would just be me and you, and those from this page who agree with you. If contacting those pages doesn't bring in other opinions, we can then head for an RfC. Even if contacting those other pages does bring in other opinions, an RfC might be needed. The "transphobic" text really went over your head. Or you're acting like it did, putting words into my mouth, just so you can keep on keeping on with your inappropriate lead. I hear ya. You want to label everyone who has been called a TERF transphobic. But here's the thing: "TERF" is a controversial word. It is undoubtedly so. It is used not just for people who are undoubtedly transphobic, but also for those who have criticized any transgender views or said something that some transgender people consider transphobic. By some people's standards, feminist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie is transphobic and is therefore a TERF. There are transgender women who say the same thing about certain views being called transphobic even when they are not coming from a place of hate, fear, or ignorance. Although the trans women in that link don't believe that trans women are women in the same sense as cisgender women, they are not spewing the type of hate and bigotry that the term "TERF" is supposed to cover. I see that these trans women aren't even mentioned at Feminist views on transgender topics or in this article, even though that source is used in both articles. Are these trans women TERFs too? And please don't tell me you're one of those Twitter or Tumblr people (that Slate mentions) who think that tampon ads and the word female are transphobic/TERF-Y. WP:WIKIVOICE says, "Avoid stating opinions as facts." Saying that everyone who is called a TERF or all views that are labeled TERF views are transphobic is an opinion. Even "trans women are women" is a debated topic, and not just by feminists. There are trans women who argue the same. Even the Feminist views on transgender topics page does not state "transphobic" without a qualifier. It says "and are often considered transphobic" and uses similar qualifiers. WP:WIKIVOICE also says "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." Saying that everyone who is called a TERF or all views that are labeled TERF views are transphobic is a seriously contested assertion. And the "while these feminists have claimed" sentence? Yeah, I've tackled that. Seems like you're just fine with canvassing. You also voted against adding pinging to the guideline, but now you are suggesting that pinging editors who have edited the article is inappropriate? I don't think I acted inappropriately by seeking the opinions of editors who have edited this article and might have opinions contrary to Tsumikiria's and yours. I could guess that Genericusername57, Prinsgezinde and Mathglot would see the issues that I see with the lead and seek to fix them, but that's based on them on being neutral editors at this article. 98.162.170.103 (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

For an IP you have a lot of opinions about non IP accounts. Please log in to your named account, your comments show you have a long history. If you have been blocked on Wikipedia, do not use IP editing as a way to circumvent your block.

Wikipedia is not a place to promote bigotry, homophobia, racism or transphobia, even whilst we edit articles about these subjects. It is encyclopaedic to state that anyone that publishes or states that "transwomen are not women" or any variation thereof is making transphobic statements. This is very much "Wikipedia's Voice". If you want to carry on arguing about it, raise an RFC or an Arbcom case so that others can quote back at you what the meaning of plain English definitions are.

Lastly, log in to your named account. Sockpuppeting is not a credible way to make any case here, regardless of how many pro-TERF editorials you throw around or cherry pick. --Fæ (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

stricken comments 01:55 3 June by cu-blocked IP

I know you are familiar with WP:TPOC. Do not do this again. The only gaming and manipulative behavior I see is from you, by removing a heading that explicitly identifies what my issues with this article are and then subjecting editors to WP:Too long; didn't read in the hopes that they will not comment here. I am allowed to create a heading for the material I created, especially when I linked to those headings in other places to bring in more opinions. I'm not even going to bother with your sock accusations or ArbCrom threat. No one said that Wikipedia is a place to promote bigotry, homophobia, racism or transphobia. You obviously think it's fine to violate WP:WIKIVOICE, as if it's okay to call everything someone deems transphobic as transphobic. What is considered transphobic varies among people, including among those in the LGBT community. I could link to reliable sources from transgender people who state the same, but it seems you'd consider all of those trans people who disagree with you transphobic as well. To you, they are suffering from internalized transphobia. You apparently think that all transgender people think the same or the only transgender people who matter are those in your small world. Well, it's not the case, no matter how much you wish it so. While some transgender people think that tampon ads and the word female are transphobic, many others (the ones with common sense) do not. I have not cherry picked or thrown around any "pro-TERF editorials." And my issue is not the "trans women are not women" text. So do stop trying to make it about that. RfCs below. Don't tamper with those either or claim that they aren't presented neutrally. 98.162.170.103 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Should the lead be changed back to its previous incarnation?

Procedural close; improper RfC by now-blocked sockpuppet of banned user, see ANI.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is the previous lead. This is the current lead (second version). A comparison of the leads and issue at hand are in the Discussion section below. The dispute is about whether or not the second version adheres to WP:WIKIVOICE. 98.162.170.103 (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC) Survey Change back. To repeat myself, there are no reliable sources that say that opposition to the 'term "TERF" is fringe. There are reliable sources and academics saying that the term is a slur or problematic in some way. Because of the contentious nature of this term and even the academics who state that it is a slur or derogatory, "transphobic" should not be in Wikipedia's voice. The article itself lets the reader know that the term is not just applied to radical feminists or even feminists, or even a minority of people, but rather "most people espousing trans-exclusionary politics that follow a particular 'TERF logic', regardless of their involvement with radical feminism." And despite this, the lead says "minority" and "feminists" at the moment. The article itself lets the reader know that those who are called TERFs are not the only ones opposed to the term. And despite this, the lead says "while these feminists" at the moment. The lead says "other academics, feminists and trans people have rejected that claim" as if academics haven't also objected to the term. And the claim use is inappropriate as well. 98.162.170.103 (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC) Improper RFC - See the discussion section, apparently. Wow, you really don't want this RfC to happen, huh? After doing exactly what WP:RFCBRIEF says, the RfC is still somehow improper? So even though it gives an example of listing a question without context and tells us "If you have lots to say on the issue, give and sign a brief statement in the initial description and publish the page, then edit the page again and place additional comments below your first statement and timestamp.", I still did it wrong? I don't think so. What is it now, you have an issue with me linking to the Discussion section, where I state more? It isn't as though others cannot voice their opinions in that section. That is what the section is for. But if you and predictably Fæ want to keep objecting to the RfC, I can just keep doing something different. Either way, this RfC will be happening. 98.162.170.103 (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC) Discussion The lead previously stated "TERF (also written "terf") is an acronym for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". The word is applied to those who exclude trans women from women's spaces or do not consider trans women to be women. Supporters of the word's usage say it is descriptive and politically neutral, while opponents say it is a slur." It was changed to "TERF (also written "terf") is an acronym for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". Coined in 2008, the term is applied to a transphobic minority of feminists who exclude trans women from women's spaces or do not consider trans women to be women. While these feminists have claimed that the term constitute a slur, other academics, feminists and trans people have rejected that claim." The dispute is about whether or not the second version adheres to WP:WIKIVOICE. A concern has been expressed that the because the term is controversial, disputed (by both those to whom the term is applied to and by some academics), and is broad (also referring to people who are not feminists, and to views that may not be transphobic or are contested as transphobic), the lead should not use "transphobic" in Wikipedia's voice, at not least without qualifiers such as "considered to be," which are qualifiers used in both the lead of the Feminist views on transgender topics page and in the "Coinage and usage" of the TERF page. At the moment, the lead presents academics as only being for the side that supports use of the term "TERF." Counterarguments are that the lead is fine as is because views from people called TERFs are usually transphobic. Because a statement such as "trans women are not women" is widely considered transphobic by feminists, we should just state "transphobic" in Wikipedia's voice. Because people referred to as TERFs are a minority, we should present the "transphobic" text as fact. To do otherwise might be sending the message that Wikipedia promotes transphobia. So which incarnation should we use? Or should we use different wording? 98.162.170.103 (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC) ____ Moved from the Survey section What? - As someone who hasn't been following along, this description of a lengthy previous debate is basically incomprehensible, among other issues. I could say more, but it's impossible not to get lost in the weeds on something like this. Please review WP:RFCBRIEF and try again. Grayfell (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC) I shortened it, but what were you confused about? 98.162.170.103 (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC) And the debate is current. Asking "Which lead to go with?" without context helps no one. 98.162.170.103 (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC) That's... not my point. I do not think this is a well-formed RFC, so I do not think consensus is possible. That's my WP:!VOTE. I think it's phrased in a leading way to suggest a specific conclusion, and this prevents clear discussion. There can be no valid consensus for these changes until the issue has been clearly, and neutrally, established. As I said, it's too easy to get lost in the weeds. There are many problems here, and I know from past Wikipedia experience, that discussing any one in isolation will create the mistaken impression that the others are less important. With that in mind... A concern has been expressed... by who? By you, correct? How is it controversial, and what does controversial mean in this context? How is being controversial different from being "disputed", and what does that mean in this context? Seriously, is the concept being disputed? Its applicability? Its existence? As another example, At the moment, the lead presents academics as only being for the side that supports use of the term "TERF." Is this true, or is this your perspective on it? I read this as saying that TERF academics don't support the use of the term, which contradicts your claim. Therefor, this doesn't seem like a neutral point to be introducing. It seems like something you should be mentioning, if at all, briefly in your comments about the issue. This is not the only example of this problem, either. A non-neutral RFC will not lead to consensus. Grayfell (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC) In a leading way by reporting both sides of the dispute? That is not a non-neutral RfC. You want me to just ask which version we should go without giving any backstory? You are seriously questioning "A concern has been expressed by" when this has been asked in various RfCs? There is no need for a Template:By whom tag. I'm not going to say "by me." I'm not going to name the other editor. That is non-neutral. I know from experience. There is nothing about the way that I reported both sides that isn't seen somewhere else at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. See, for example, the Talk:Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union listing. It seems to me that, just like Fæ would do, you just want take issue with the RfC for no solid reason at all. And I don't have time for it. I'm going to go ahead and heed the WP:RFCBRIEF advice, which says, "If you have lots to say on the issue, give and sign a brief statement in the initial description and publish the page, then edit the page again and place additional comments below your first statement and timestamp." 98.162.170.103 (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC) From experience? Grayfell (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC) Additionally, I don't understand what you mean by "Is this true, or is this your perspective on it?" regarding the academics text. My point is that the lead is talking about "other academics" without noting that there are academics who also do not support the term. The text saying "other academics" doesn't mean that it's saying the "TERFs" are academics. And how is it "controversial"? So the sources in the article and the Additional sources section above are not indicative or explicit that the term is controversial. Are you of the belief that the word is not contentious and that "contentious" means something different than "controversial." I can't help but think you are just being difficult to be difficult. 98.162.170.103 (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC) Should the "Responses to opposition" section retain the first and last paragraphs? A concern is that the first paragraph is not about the term while this is a term article, and so it should be removed. Another concern is that the last paragraph is WP:Synthesis because the source is not about the topic, and so it should be removed. So should either or both pieces be removed? 98.162.170.103 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC) Remove both. The first piece is not about the term, and the second piece is not about the topic at all. 98.162.170.103 (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC) Keep with the understanding that they can (and should) be rephrased. What is a term article? WP:Term article? The sources for both paragraphs specifically discuss TERFs as a term/concept/topic whatever. If sources discuss TERFs as a concept, this article is the logical place to reflect those sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC) What is a term article? See WP:WORDISSUBJECT. We have articles that are about words. See #New Sally Hines paragraph, where editors stated that text not specifically about the word does not belong in this article. So considering everything else that was removed, why should that first paragraph remain? And that last paragraph? It is not about "TERF" at all because the source is not about "TERF." Nor does the source (or paragraph) address that topic. 98.162.170.103 (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC) Ah, okay, that makes sense. That discussion was specifically about a source which did not use the term TERF at all, correct? My past experience with WORDISSUBJECT issues (no ideological comparison is meant, but the example that comes to mind is white pride) tells me that WORDISSUBJECT is both vague in practice and poorly agreed-upon. Readers come here looking for specific information, and Radical feminism#Views on transgender topics seems like an odd place to send them when sources are about TERFs. As that subsection makes clear, TERFs are a subset of radical feminists, who are a subset of feminists. If sources discuss this topic, we should adapt the article to match sources, right? Are sources discussing the term as a euphemism (as with "white pride") or are they discussion the movement while using the term? My impression is the later, but either way the merits of these source will have to be evaluated in context. As an aside, Gender-critical redirects to Feminist views on transgender topics#Feminist exclusion of trans women which currently doesn't exists as a valid anchor. This seems like the obvious target for this link. As another aside, linking to #New Sally Hines paragraph is another thing which makes it very clear that you are not a new editor. I would strongly encourage you to log into your account. Grayfell (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC) Comment - Malformed, premature, and obvious bad-faith RfCs created by a possibly block-evading sock looking to undermine pertinent and well-sourced RS content. I have started an ANI discussion on this incident. IDHT isn't a good trait, and the smell of sealions is astounding. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• I've removed the RfC template based on the view expressed above that this RfC is premature and the fact that the editor who filed it has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user per ANI. (I hatted the other RfC above because there seemed to be an early consensus formed that aside from the aforementioned problems that RfC was also improperly started. Whether to close/hat this one or attempt to "mature" it, I leave to other editors.) -sche (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

  Both RfCs hatted. Both paragraphs suggested by the IP for removal are directly relevant. This is some blackwhite-level trolling attempt. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

watch out for brigades

this article was recently posted on a forum for terfs, so be extra careful and make sure all new edits have sources listed and facts checked.

OliviaEljest (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that does explain the history. Jeez. Glad it got protected at least. LokiTheLiar (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Should the IPs comments be stricken and collapsed? My eyes hurt. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

The reversion of my careful, small, edit to improve the neutrality of the opening para was in plain violation of WP:NPOV. Educres (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The precise wording of the lede text of this article has been debated several times, see the above discussions. The change you made here was therefore highly controversial and WP:BRD is wholly appropriate.

You appear to make a couple of edits each year from your account, with just 110 edits in total over many years before touching this article, and you have never edited this topic before. In the light of evidence of aggressive and recent on-wiki and off-wiki canvassing, it seems fair to ask how were you attracted to this article? --Fæ (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I have now put the full weight of 1RR and 500/30 DS into effect. El_C 17:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Could someone provide Educres with the DS Alert on their talk page so they have the GG related links? After asking the above question, it would look a bit pointy for me to add it. --Fæ (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 17:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is not a fair question, Fæ. Impugning the motives of other editors, especially in such a bitey way, is definitely in poor form. It might help to instead provide an actual substantive rationale for your revert, rather than doing this or pointing to a wall of text. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I have "impugned" nobody. This article is being actively canvassed, today. Someone with a nearly dormant account and 100 edits, appears just after we see significant related disruption and, bang, goes right to the lede text and changes exactly the text that the disruption yesterday was all about. In that context it is perfectly reasonable to ask if in good faith they came to this article as a result of possible canvassing.

We should not be frightened to ask about, and highlight, very obvious canvassing issues that are manipulating this article and this discussion page.

Editors with LGBT+ interests are being actively targeted for harassment and scared off from contributing to this topic. That is not good for Wikipedia in anybody's book. Us long term Wikipedians should not be a tacit party to allowing that to happen regardless of our views about the article content. --Fæ (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Reasonable or not, it's a violation of WP:AGF and impugning their motives as you continue to do is not the appropriate way to deal with the problem of canvassing. We have talk page guidelines. Please follow them. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

By definition, if the question is reasonable, and as you agree it is that's a given, then there is no bad faith in asking the question. There is no failure to assume good faith, as my assumption from the start was that Educres was likely to have been attracted here via canvassing elsewhere, and made the changes in good faith as they were unaware that the canvassing itself is counter to Wikipedia guidelines.

Again, long term Wikipedians should not be scared off from discussing canvassing when we explicitly know it is happening. Thanks for your advice, but your own statements appear conflicted.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

It is not unreasonable for editors to raise concerns about canvassing for new and dormant accounts when we know canvassing is actually taking place. AGF is not a suicide pact. El_C 19:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:IAR is not a general invitation to breach our behavioral guidelines. If you're going to invoke IAR, then you should do so while articulating a clear and compelling reason why doing so helps the project. Both the guidelines and IAR should be used in order to further the goals of the project. So far, I've seen IAR used in this thread to avoid discussing the merits of a particular edit. Invoking IAR to justify an ad hoc investigation about whether canvassing has occurred at the expense of productive dialogue seems quite inappropriate to me. Perhaps you can fix this oversight. Or you can continue wasting time and energy justifying poor talk page behavior. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 21:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I evaluate that behavioral guidelines have not been breached, due to known WP:CANVASS. El_C 21:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Support Educres's edit. The current text isn't neutral. It picks a side. 24.252.174.130 (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

With regard to the removed contribution to this section, note that the blocked IP 24.252.174.130 is a highly likely user match to 98.162.170.103. By 'highly', statistically less than 0.01% that a different user would be using this IP address by random chance. A checkuser could probably pin that down much further. We may well see more IP hopping. --Fæ (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I restored IP's contribution of 14:38, 4 June. I realized you weren't the one that removed it, but it's a TPO violation, nonetheless. If someone believes the comment is invalid, belongs to a sock, or whatever, then raise it at WP:SPI, WP:ANI, or whatever you believe the problem is. You can state a good-faith reservation about the comment (as you did above). As a first step, one could (should) leave a (neutrally-worded, good-faith) comment on the IP's talk page, with diff links, stating their concerns about their editing, so future admins and others will have access to it. But what one cannot do, is just remove it without evidence based on their own (or someone else's) opinion; otherwise every controversial Talk page would devolve into a shoot-out. Mathglot (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I also lean pretty heavily towards favoring Educres's version. Anyone care to make an actual case against this version that focuses on content, rather than contributors? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Having looked at the lead now, it has some clear POV aspects that need adjustment. Then again, so did the attempted change which was POV in the other direction, as people with strong opinions on both sides of the issue lean, understandably, towards their own view of the situation. I'll have a more in-depth look at this and make a comment later, but for the time being, I'll just remind us all of some general principles: the lead summarizes the body, it doesn't introduce new information; the lead does not normally need citations, because the more detailed body should have citations for everything summarized in the lead. Having said that, citations are not prohibited in the lead, either, and in a controversial article like this one, this might be one of those cases where citations in the lead would be worth while.

Besides POV, another general problem to watch out for in articles is WP:SYNTH, a type of WP:Original research. If the lead ends up saying, "these people believe X, and these other folks believe Y" then we have to be careful if we are saying that in Wikipedia's voice, that there are single sources that have that whole assertion, i.e.: "some X, and others Y"; if we have to resort to two (or more) separate sources where #1, 2, & 3 say "some X", and sources 4, 5, & 6 say "some Y" then if *we* say "some X, but others Y" then that is SYNTH. In an uncontroversial topic, one could be perhaps be a little bit more lax about this, but not here. Core principles of Verifiability, Original research, neutral point of view and Due weight need to be observed strictly in this article, and anything that doesn't, needs to be removed. Mathglot (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The lede's second sentence says the word is "applied to a transphobic minority of feminists," however, the (cited) first paragraph of the article proper describes the views of the article's subject as "often considered to be transphobic" [emph. added]. This implies that the description of the "minority of feminists" as "transphobic" is not uncontroversial, and per MOS:LEADREL it should not be in the article lede. Test piggy (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Given that WP:NOTDIC prompts us to focus on things, rather than terms, it might make sense to do that here. If we focus on the referent that TERF applies to, rather than the referent itself, that might also help us find NPOV language when covering the topic. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]}

Consensus isn't achieved by recruiting a couple of buddies on some forums to stan each other and say exactly the same things. Meatpuppet's numbers doesn't count in a good-faithed consensus-building discussion. Everyone opposed to this so far are either new accounts or IPs, or accounts dormant for a couple months or years that suddenly flocked upon this obscure but highly contentious topic, plus at least one block evaders. Unless people are bringing up high-quality reliable sources, comments that merely express support with no content suggestions and no sources are nothing of value. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Haven't looked carefully at the content yet, but I will in the next couple of days, but in the meantime, just a response to remind us again, about some policy-related points, regardless how this shakes out: Tsumikiria's point about canvassed users or socks, or Meatpuppets not counting when trying to determine consensus is absolutely right; ditto for reliable sources, which are crucial in this article. At the same time, we have to remember that if 2 or 25 or 250 canvassed users or socks come here and all say X, that's not an argument against X either, it only means, they don't get to be part of a consensus. Finally, the burden of proof is on people making the changes, not on those that wish to remove them, which has a lower bar; see WP:BRD. Given that WP:1RR is in effect on this article, people should pay close attention to BRD and 1RR, as well as all the other policies involved. Given that that is the case and the nature of this article, it wouldn't hurt for editors to mention policy right in the edit summary, and/or a link to whatever Talk page section is discussing material relevant to their change. Very few editors have done this, lately (including me), other than Educres and Sandstein. It would help keep things stable, if we all did that. Sometimes, being forced to quote policy, and not finding one that fits, can make one stop and think whether this is really an improvement to the article or not, and every edit to the article should be an improvement, or it shouldn't be made in the first place. Mathglot (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Because of the recent canvass attempt, I would not support any major changes to the article for at least the next week or so. I don't think we can have a terribly useful discussion right now. (I would also like to strongly encourage anyone who came here because of the canvass to admit it. It doesn't mean you can't participate if you do, and it will at the very least make you look suspicious if you don't.)

My short comment for now about the underlying issue is that it's possible to source that these feminists are transphobic using only reliable sources (for example). LokiTheLiar (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Can’t agree with you there; “some editors” behaving badly does not mean good-faith editors should not edit. Otherwise, you hand over an article lockdown tool to anyone who wants to behave badly. Worse: it gives them a tool to attempt to establish bad faith WP:EDITCONSENSUS. On the contrary: we should ignore them, and carry on. Mathglot (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did not come here because "the canvass attempt", in fact I have no idea what you mean by this. I happened on the article by a series of coincidences too uninteresting to relate. I thought I could spend 2 minutes improving the article (as someone observed, editing Wikipedia is not something I do a lot, but I think it is important to have many people who make small contributions so I try to be one of them) and move on. Evidently this topic is too hot for that, and I am not up for a protracted discussion. Never mind, I tried.Educres (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

In the spirit of using the talk page to come up with better wording, let's hash out how we can reword the lede to get it more in keeping with an encyclopedic tone. Per WP:NOTDIC and WP:ISAWORDFOR, we would want to structure this lede (and accordingly tweak the article) to have its scope be primarily on the concept, rather than the term. Here's my stab at it:

Trans-exclusionary radical feminists or TERFs (also written "terf" and pronounced like "turf") are those feminists who exclude trans women from women's spaces or who do not consider trans women to be women in every sense. Coined in 2008, the acronym TERF is typically considered a slur by those it is applied to, who typically prefer the term gender critical instead.

We should also probably change the redirect of gender critical to go here. Thoughts? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This wording just looks like trying very hard to appease the active TERF lobbyists who object to calling transphobes transphobes. By definition refusing to recognize that transwomen are women is transphobic.

Note that it is factually wrong to say that TERFs do not consider transwomen to be women "in every sense", this is just wooly wording. --Fæ (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not going to happen. "in every sense" means that this is more about POV editorializing rather than neutral content. TERFs don't just oppose a simple identification, they're actively against human rights. Writing their self-promoting "gender critical" in lead is obviously promotional and undue. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I can see merit in striking out "in every sense" since that might give undue weight to the idea that someone isn't a TERF if they consider trans women to be women in certain senses but not others. But I'm not sure if it's consistent with an encyclopedic tone to use the term "transphobic" as we currently do in the lede, especially when we indicate clearly how TERFs are transphobic in the rest of the sentence (there are, after all, other ways of being transphobic, so this isn't "by definition" transphobic). If altogether removing the term transphobic seems too politically correct, is there another way we can incorporate the term that's in keeping with an encyclopedic tone?

Given that the term gender critical is the only alternative given in the article, and the article currently provides a lot of coverage over the controversy around the stigma attached to the term, perhaps someone can articulate with more clarity why it wouldn't be appropriate to mention this apparent synonym in the lede. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 01:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow... just wow!

Let's examine what you are stating as if it is "fact" by comparing "transphobic" with the word "racist".

You are trying to write a Wikipedia article about the KKK where you want to avoid using "racist" in the lede. Your justification is that you should not call someone a "racist" unless they are a "full on" racist. You insist that because someone states they think non-whites are genetically inferior, we should not call them "racist" as some KKK members state they are definitely not "racists" because they are quoting "science" not that they hate black people for irrational reasons.

Now, step back and reexamine how someone who argues that "TERF" is offensive and they are not transphobic, is definitely not "transphobic" because they are quoting "facts" when they say that transwomen are not women and do not hate transwomen for irrational reasons.

How about not making contortions in interpreting Wikipedia guidelines about 'tone', to appease lobbyists who will endlessly state that when they make blatantly transphobic statements they are not being transphobic?

Wikipedias "voice" is to stick to facts and state reality in a simple way, not a convoluted way. Transwomen are women. People who hate transgender people are transphobes. It's really, really, simple. Let's keep it simple and avoid letting this article be hijacked by obvious lobbyists, canvassers and meatpuppets. --Fæ (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)