Talk:Gender-critical feminism

MOS guidelines on links and exploratory therapy – James Esses BLP

@Raladic: There is a reason why MOS:NOLINKQUOTE exists. The guideline says: Be conservative when linking within quotations; link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author..

The link in the quotation is obviously completely inappropriate. The quote is from a statement made by Metanoia in settlement of legal action against them by James Esses. It reads as if is was entirely dictated by Esses’ lawyers. It is not conceivable that the Metanoia statement intends to, in effect, accuse James Esses of supporting a practice which will probably become a crime in the UK in the foreseeable future. The link has the effect of being a BLP violation against James Esses, and the effect of making it look as if Metanoia are defaming James Esses. You should self-revert. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Not at all, the part linked is about gender exploratory therapy, so it is clear per the to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended and is perfectly in line with our guidelines. There is absolutely no BLP violation and the very same thing was also pointed out to you by @DanielRigal, who also said the very same thing. Raladic (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a BLP violation because there is no way that the person quoted would agree that "exploratory therapy" is a form of conversion therapy. You should self-revert. Void if removed (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

What they belief and what the general consensus of the scientific community agrees is tangential here and WP:OR, the fact that "gender exploratory theory" is a form of conversion theory is agreed upon by the scientific community (and as such, summarized so by us on Wikipedia). We are simply linking to it here and the fact that the institute apologized to Esses due to holding that belief as it is protected doesn't change the fact that we link relevant terms on Wikipedia to help the reader, which in this case, the context is very clear from the inline ref citation by the Guardian as it talks about "gender exploratory therapy" as conversion theory (using the term conversion 6 times). You are welcome to remove the quote itself on the basis of WP:MOSQUOTE and reword the section, but it still is absolutely relevant to link to the article we link to for contextualization. Raladic (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

MOS:NOLINKQUOTE says link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author. This is taken from an article where the clear intent is that exploratory therapy is not conversion therapy, and would be wrongly covered by a ban on conversion therapy. You should err on the side of caution and I ask again to self-revert on that basis. Void if removed (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Ridiculous. The link is to a section about GET, which is clearly the same topic as what the speaker is talking about (MOS:LINKQUOTE). The fact that the target section has negative and well-sourced things to say about that topic which the speaker would disagree with is unrelated. It strains good-faith to conclude that the link is accusing him of a pseudo-crime or misrepresenting his beliefs. There is no separate topic of "GET but not conversion therapy" to which he was referring instead.

Defamation is not transitive in this fashion (John Doe has endorsed quantum magnetoquark vaccine theory. ==> Medical experts describe quantum magnetoquark vaccine theory as "a despicable pseudoscience linked to the deaths of children". =/=> John Doe is a despicable child murderer). Or, if it was, it would be troubling and make linking to anything in a BLP context quite dangerous. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 14:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

For the record I'm okay with moving the link out of the quote, if we mention GET anywhere else. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 14:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Why are you arguing about a quote that's been removed by consensus? Void if removed (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

That was not apparent from this thread (which appeared in my watchlist after YFNS's comment below). I lack the patience for this subject or the discussions below, so am not following this article's text very closely. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 15:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I can’t even find the edit that’s being debated Snokalok (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay I still cannot find the disputed edit but just based on what I’m reading, I’m with Loki, Roxy, Raladic, and YFNS. This is an absurd application of BLP Snokalok (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the quote containing the link, as suggested above. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This is silly, James Esses' website recommends, among other conversion therapy advocates, Therapy first (formerly the Gender Exploratory Therapy Association) and Genspect - both of whom are listed at Gender exploratory therapy.[1] There is a BLP violation because there is no way that the person quoted would agree that "exploratory therapy" is a form of conversion therapy. - Advocates of reparative therapy are famous for insisting it's not conversion therapy, the term still links there and we would link it if we quoted anyone using it... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

A reminder that WP:BLP applies to talk pages too. Void if removed (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The idea that it's a BLP violation to say that:

1. Person A advocates for Thing B (when they clearly do and can be clearly sourced saying so themselves)
2. Thing B is pseudoscience (as can also be clearly sourced)
3. Therefore Person A advocates pseudoscience

is absolutely absurd. We make this connection all the time in other articles: see Deepak Chopra, Mehmet Oz, and Gwyneth Paltrow, among many others, all of which explicitly mention the subject promotes pseudoscience or has been criticized for promoting pseudoscience in the lead, as well as David Icke, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, and Mike Lindell, among many others, all of which explicitly call their subjects "conspiracy theorists" in their leads. Loki (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a BLP violation to imply someone advocates conversation therapy without a source, yes. Void if removed (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Void if removed by this logic Joseph Nicolosi said "reparative therapy shouldn't be covered by laws against conversion therapy" is somehow a BLP violation... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there’s no amendment to the article currently being proposed. So I think everyone should drop the stick. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

That is because we're discussing your removal of links from the article. Not just from the part about Esses,[2][3], but the section literally about conversion therapy that mentions Genspect supporting "gender exploratory therapy".[4]

By my count, me, Raladic, DanielRigal, RoxySaunders, Snokalok, and Loki think we should link exploratory therapy to gender exploratory therapy, only you and Void if Removed don't. There is clearly a consensus to link it (so you should drop the stick).

So, unless consensus drastically shifts, I say we:

1. update the Esses sentence to include this Times article and say something like Esses campaigned against the government's ban on conversion therapy for transgender people, arguing it would criminalize exploratory therapy
2. update the Conversion therapy section so the sentence Genspect promotes what they call "gender exploratory therapy" actually links to gender exploratory therapy (which repeatedly mentions Genspect)

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

so you should drop the stick

You reopened this discussion about linking text in a quote about a week after the quote itself was removed. The quote hasn't been reinstated. That several editors started arguing about MOS:NOLINKQUOTE when there was no longer a quote to link in just took up space for no clear reason. Void if removed (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with YFNS, and think that this is a good way to link the thing that Esses endorsed without falling afoul of MOS:NOLINKQUOTE. Loki (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

TO YFNS: Have you not noticed Luna’s amendment to the text on James Esses? Sweet6970 (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Anti-rights movements

There is nothing contentious about the Category:Anti-rights movements. It is literally an anti-rights movement by its common definition – opposing transgender rights is their sole focus – and is described as such by e.g. UN Women. It belongs in the category just as much as anti-gender movement. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is by definition a pro-rights movement – feminism promotes women’s rights. And it is obviously contentious, since your addition of the anti-rights category was reverted by Barnards.tar.gz. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Trans women are women, this ideology opposes this, so it is anti-rights by definition. The United Nation defines trans rights as basic human rights, so any movement opposing them is by definition anti-rights. Raladic (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary "Trans women are women" is not a statement about the rights, or otherwise, of trans women. So your comment is not applicable to the point in question here. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Raladic you've reinstated the contentious category, but there is an ongoing discussion which is not showing consensus and the WP:ONUS is on you to establish consensus first before including material, rather than edit-warring. Both WP:POVCAT and WP:CATV have been referenced, and neither answered. Please self-revert until a substantive policy-based consensus emerges. Void if removed (talk) 09:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the reversion from Barnards prior to this discussion as their edit summary appeared to be lacking per the policy on POVCAT, which states "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition - this category is clearly applicable, and referencing to it is already in the article and has been so for a long time, which means it is not a POVCAT, as I explained in my edit summary. Barnards reversion did not suggest any talk page discussion was happening in their reversion. After I reverted it, with my explanation of why POVCAT is satisfied already by the existing sourcing, I came across this talk page discussion, but again, no good policy-based reason appears here. We have strong sourcing for it, which has already been in the article, so the category just helps readers for navigation to other similar anti-rights movements. The category is not adding any new facts that were not already established as such in the article.

The facts for this category are both verifiable and included in the article body, covering CATV, we have reputable RS that supports it (and had so for a long time). As well as neutral statement of facts (per my above, which is why I reverted the revert prior to coming here) as supported by one of the world's largest human rights organizations of the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women charged with protecting the rights of women and various other refs. There are many more refs that could be added dating back many years (e.g. [5], [6]) that call out this movement as being anti-rights, being against the basic human rights of transgender people, thus being an Anti-rights movement by definition.

Also, I'd like to remind you to WP:AGF and not accuse others of edit-warring, when no such thing happened. This is a very normal and common pattern of someone reverts something, a different editor then comes and finds the original reversion lacking, thus it gets reverted again (with an explanatory edit summary of why the initial reversion was not good), you can refer to WP:BOLD, revert, bold (again). Typically, after this then discussion happens, such as is happening, but so far again, it appears the sourcing supports the category. Raladic (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

this category is clearly applicable

Then why not come to talk and make that case, rather than reverting?

not accuse others of edit-warring

When three edits in a row add, remove and then re-add the same material on a WP:CTOP with no discussion in between, that is the beginnings of an edit war and I would urge you to follow WP:BRD.

The category is not adding any new facts that were not already established as such in the article.

Yes it is - it is turning an attributed opinion into a category. This is not NPOV. Void if removed (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

No editor is required to come to the talk page if an initial reversion didn't appear good, that's how most WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS is formed. Most editing on Wikipedia happens through editing and the edit summary. Only a small portion changes happen on the talk page for the most part. Most active editors on Wikipedia spend around 50% of their edits in the main space and only a fraction in other areas or talk space.

I wasn't aware of a talk page discussion when I reverted the change, as you can see from the time stamps of my reversion and then subsequent stumbling across this talk. which I did comment on then after I had reverted with my explanatory edit summary. As you can also see from my reversion, I tagged it with the the assumption of good-faith on Barnards part, but felt it lacking, which is why I boldly reverted it, supporting Amanda's original change. This is a perfectly common pattern as I linked. Raladic (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

TERF ideology is a form of transphobia. It is not feminism, and it is singularly focused on promoting discrimination against transgender people, so it is by definition an anti-rights movement, and described as such by major authorities like UN Women – the world's premier organization that works for women's rights. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

But it is not singularly opposed to trans people, it just believes biological sex exists, its not opposing biological males in womens sports as they are trans its doing it as they are biological males, like it has no problem with biological females who are trans competing in womens sports, thats a huge nuance. 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:F4A3:F91C:3779:C87E (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The removal was just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is no policy-based reason to remove the category – that reflects a description that has been in the lead for a long time and that is reliably sourced – and it was rightly reinstated by another user. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

A "by definition" argument based on a name doesn't work for the same reason that the people who loudly insist that National Socialism is "by definition" a type of socialism/leftism get very short shrift on articles related to that. You can't argue these things based on what names imply because names can be (intentionally and unintentionally) deceptive. It is also a mistake to assume that "pro-rights" rhetoric can always be taken at face value. People who are anti-rights often frame their rhetoric in terms of being "pro-rights" for some other group. After all, if you see banners saying "Rights for Whites" you know that it means "No rights for non-whites" and that you're at a Nazi rally (and also that it's well past time to not be at the Nazi rally).

Of course, none of that argues for the category, just that these are poor reasons to oppose it. So, let's look at whether the category is actually supported by the article.

In the lead we have "is an ideology or movement that opposes what it refers to as "gender ideology", the concept of gender identity and transgender rights, especially gender self-identification." That says that it opposes transgender rights, as well as those other things. There is more along these lines in the article body. It does seem to support the category. Ironically, if we take the phrase "sex based rights" at face value, the exact opposite category might also be supported. Maybe it could be a rights movement and an anti-rights movement at the same time if it promotes some rights and opposes others, but that would require Reliable Sources to take the idea of "sex based rights", as used here, seriously. DanielRigal (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: Your comment includes: "After all, if you see banners saying "Rights for Whites" you know that it means "No rights for non-whites" and that you're at a Nazi rally (and also that it's well past time to not be at the Nazi rally)." Would you care to clarify that (I hope) you are not accusing me of being a Nazi? Sweet6970 (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not! My point was that the language of rights can very easily be coopted for insincere/deceptive purposes and that people as smart as us should keep an eye out for that and, if we do fall for it briefly, we should extricate ourselves as soon as we realise that we have made a serious mistake. The "you" in my comment was the generic "you" not you specifically. I probably should have used a more formal tone and said "one" instead of "you" but I didn't even think that you might think I meant you specifically. DanielRigal (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Just before the remark about Nazis, you said “You can't argue these things….” which was presumably addressed to me – so I think my concern was reasonable. It would be more conducive to calm and civil discussion if everyone agreed not to use the word ‘Nazi’ on this page, in view of the potential for misunderstanding. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliable Sources to take the idea of "sex based rights", as used here

They do. That's the issue with sourcing and the use of criticism throughout, rather than in its own section. Instead of, say, something explanatory from the extensive chapters on sex-based rights in Sex and Gender: A Contemporary Reader, we have a critical blogpost and a (white paper?) from Catherine MacKinnon. These don't explain to the reader what "gender-critical feminists" believe, and are lower quality sources. Void if removed (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it could be a rights movement and an anti-rights movement at the same time if it promotes some rights and opposes others, but that would require Reliable Sources to take the idea of "sex based rights", as used here, seriously. An example of a reliable source taking the idea of sex-based rights seriously. So what you’re saying is correct: this is a group of people whose rights claims come into conflict with another group’s rights claims. The claims are mutually exclusive so each side is an anti-rights bogeyman of the other. This is not dissimilar to any political conflict where opposing sides disagree on the application of the harm principle. Are we going to put every political movement in the anti-rights category because their perspective on rights is the logical inverse of the other’s? It has been argued on this page that the GCFs are some kind of fringe holdouts that nobody takes seriously, but the core rights issue here is a fully mainstream debate with pluralities and majorities on both sides depending on how the issue is polled. It is not at all analogous to white supremacism or religious terrorism or whatever. There are (at least) two high-profile, broadly supported, significant mainstream POVs in this space. We have a policy on how to treat this scenario: WP:NPOV. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

You are aware that most hate movements against a particular minority group frame themselves as being in favor of protecting rights for the favored group, yes? Anti-poc groups frame themselves as pro-white, the Nazis framed themselves as pro-German, misogynist campaigners frame themselves as “men’s rights activists”. It doesn’t change the fact that terfism is commonly considered an anti rights movement, and thus the category reasonably applies. Snokalok (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean, this is a category you created 2 days ago, into which you have placed this page, anti-gender movement, and White supremacy.

I think that's pretty inflammatory, per WP:POVCAT, and in terms of WP:CATV seems to rely on a controversial statement by UN Women. Void if removed (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

If the category is legit then I think this article clearly belongs in it. If the category is not, and that seems to be the real bone of contention here, then that's an issue for another venue, probably WP:CFD. DanielRigal (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

How are you establishing "clearly"? Categories require broad agreement in secondary sources that commonly and consistently refer to the subject in those terms, not a vague political statement that's been criticised in the Times. This is inherently POV. Void if removed (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Rather than argue about that here and now, why not clear up the issue of whether the category is valid and, if so, what its inclusion criteria are? That will probably answer the question for us. DanielRigal (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The onus is on those who wish to apply it to this page to demonstrate it is applicable. If you aren't even sure it is valid as a category, then it definitely isn't valid for this page. Void if removed (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Void, I fail to see any criticism from the times. The times just quotes Gender critical activists who deny the claims. This sentence that the movement "opposes ... transgender rights" has been in the lede since at least October 2023 (diff) so even if UN women's discussion was controversial in rs, we don't cite it to that. The idea that the movement opposes rights, and therefore would fall under an anti-rights movement category, clearly has long-standing basis. LunaHasArrived (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem contentious at all that gender-critical feminism is opposed to transgender rights. That is the defining feature of "gender-critical feminism", rather than plain old "feminism", so describing GC feminism as an "anti-rights movement" is not only sourced, but also seems pretty plain.

Raladic has summarised the case for inclusion very well, as far as I can see. This definitely feels more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT than an actual evidenced complaint of controversy. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 15:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

What you have not offered is enough neutral, secondary sources that commonly and consistently call "gender-critical feminism" an "anti-rights movement" for categorisation.

So far, there seems to be one on offer - a political statement - and the subjects are on record rejecting it. Categories are not just there to promote and endorse UN Women's political POV, that's what WP:CATPOV is for.

You haven't even defined what an "anti-rights movement" is. Can you explain the term and who it applies to? Libertarians would consider every other ideology to be an anti-rights movement, and most other ideologies would consider libertarianism to be anti-rights.

Right now editors are using it for:

• White supremacy
• Lawful beliefs in the UK that have successfully been defended in over a dozen discrimination claims, including ones where the victims were falsely compared to white supremacists

Void if removed (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The times just quotes Gender critical activists who deny the claims

Right, so it is contentious and WP:POVCAT. You're can't generalise from what you understand the phrasing in the lede to mean to the specific claim of a nebulous "anti-rights movement" categorisation on the basis of a statement from UN Women. Void if removed (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for not making this clearer. My comment showed that the designation of opposing transgender rights predates the un women saying so and therefore can not be based on UN women saying so. LunaHasArrived (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

But could you say that opposing the rights of women, to have same sex spaces only for biological women, is a anti-rights movement as in anti biological women's rights. Indeed even Keir Stamer and the Labour Party believe there is a right to same sex spaces. 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:F4A3:F91C:3779:C87E (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean opposing that "Right" to same sex spaces is a anti rights campaign, am I right surely, as rights rub against others some times, 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:F4A3:F91C:3779:C87E (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Rewrite per WP:CRITS

As mentioned in a previous discussion, this page violates WP:CRITS for ideologies and philosophies.

As such we should be moving all critical commentary down to its own section, rather than peppered throughout, and we should be favouring sources in their own words rather than critical ones for the explanatory sections about what "gender-critical feminism" is and its history. This is probably the root of the current confusion over categories and distinction between this and the "anti-gender movement".

Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets.

Because of the POV material throughout, editors are confusing what adherents of this philosophy believe vs what critics say they believe. Both viewpoints need fair and neutral representation, and as is standard for philosophies that means a dedicated criticism section, rather than the current WP:COATRACK. Void if removed (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

We should rely primarily on mainstream scholarship in the field. There is a growing scholarly literature in gender studies and other relevant fields on anti-gender and "gender-critical" movements. I don't think Nazism is favoring Nazi sources to explain the history of Nazism or what it is about either. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

We should rely primarily on mainstream scholarship in the field.

There are now plenty of mainstream gender-critical feminist sources. Nazism is a hyperbolic comparison, can you please try to consider how to present this with NPOV. Perhaps something less inflammatory like Anarchism as a comparison. Void if removed (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

AAB, you are aware that gensex is a Contentious Topic on Wikipedia. A comparison of gender-critical feminism to Nazism is inflammatory, and does not encourage civil discussion. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Nazism is a common rhetorical device for a set of WP:FRINGE beliefs which are universally understood as indefensibly evil. The analogy compares the situations (how to balance secondary material about a controversial group against what they say about themselves), not the groups themselves. However, I can acknowledge the analogy is in poor taste here, given that some sources describe GCs as employing "fascist" rhetoric or "converging" with neo-Nazi movements. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Given the subject is not "universally understood as indefensibly evil", this explanation simply indicates why the analogy is inflammatory, hyperbolic and inapt. I have offered Anarchism as a straightforward comparator. There is no reason we cannot neutrally describe what anarchists believe, and offset that with a criticism section, per WP:CRITS for philosophies/ideologies. Why is gender-critical feminism different? Void if removed (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, my problem with this is that it feels like people are just going to define "criticism" as anything that says things about the topic they disagree with, or that they'll demand that we give WP:UNDUE weight to non-independent "gender-critical" sourcing. That isn't what it is - criticism, in this context, means WP:RSOPINION stuff; only opinion pieces are meant to be moved to a criticism / reception section (and even then, that doesn't mean they can't be cited elsewhere, just that they have to be clearly attributed.) The bulk of the article should be based on what independent secondary high-quality academic sources say about the topic; the purpose of WP:CRITS is not that the bulk of an article about an ideology should be sourced solely to adherents. --Aquillion (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see anyone suggesting that an article about an ideology should be sourced solely to adherents. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes the mainstream view, which shows that most people do not support this fringe movement. As such, this article also focuses on the criticism of this anti-rights ideology and it is absolutely appropriate that the article contains this criticism throughout the article to accurately summarize the state.

Wikipedia isn’t a platform to WP:PROMOTE fringe anti-rights ideologies, or to whitewash them, so we accurately write such articles with the due criticism of them throughout the article. Raladic (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

No-one is suggesting that Wikipedia should ‘promote’ anything in this article. And, as I have just explained in the ‘Anti-rights movement’ section above, gender-critical feminism is not an anti-rights movement. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds a bit WP:RGW to me. It is pretty obvious that an article about a belief system shouldn't be peppered throughout with the criticisms of its ideological opponents. That's why WP:CRITS has the exception for philosophies and ideologies. Void if removed (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The text at Wikipedia:Criticism § Philosophy, religion, or politics (an essay, thus impossible to "violate") does not use the word "ideology", and is concerned mostly with Wikipedia not mistaking Critics say Capitalism dehumanizes and exploits people as A core tenet of capitalism is dehumanization and exploitation. It does not demand writing sections like #Criticism of Nazism Race and intelligence, and certainly doesn't override WP:DUE (a policy, which is possible to "violate"). The rest of the essay makes many compelling arguments about why presenting criticism in context is a very good idea and results in more balanced articles. I'm not convinced that this article is about a particular point of view any more than pseudoscience or biography articles are. This is an article about a hate anti-rights political movement, who take actions, as opposed to holding beliefs. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

"I'm not convinced that this article is about a particular point of view any more than pseudoscience or biography articles are." That is exactly the problem with the article as it stands – it is more about those who hate g-c feminism than it is about g-c feminism itself. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

who take actions, as opposed to holding beliefs

That is not what WP:RS say. Void if removed (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

But it is no more fair to call gender critical opinions a hate movement, than it is to call people who are hateful against gender critical beliefs, the particular hate movement. Most gender critical intelectuals have no hate of trans people, they just believe biological sex exists and has consequences. Yes there are people who hate trans, and we must condemn those people, but feeling this issue has nuance, is not hateful. 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:F4A3:F91C:3779:C87E (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Transphobic sources are not "mainstream" any more than racist sources are mainstream. There are many books published by Nazi authors, but it is not a "mainstream" perspective. Transphobia – including TERF ideology – is exceedingly fringe in academic contexts. Anarchism is not a relevant comparison because anarchism is a legitimate political ideology with a positive vision for society, it's not just a form of bigotry focused on promoting discrimination against a vulnerable group. TERF ideology is just one specific form of transphobia. White supremacism and homophobia are similar concepts and more relevant comparisons than anarchism. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

It is appalling to compare gender critical beliefs to the Nazis. That is absolutely ludicrous, most people who were the victims of nazi-ism would have believed in traditional gender critical beliefs, and most humans believe in some GC ideas today. :( 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:F4A3:F91C:3779:C87E (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, WP:SOAPBOX
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article is purely a attempt to frame gender critical feminism as some extremist ideology, which is astounding. Gender critical views such as protecting womens sports and safe spaces are believed in by pluralities of opinion in almost every country on the planet, and in some to not believe those views is regarded as super fringe. To compare it with Nazis, is disgraceful. Look at this article it uses the terms like, terf, far right, conservative and right wing and even nazi over 100 times, it never mentions the word left wing, even though most gender critical people like Dawkins and Rowling, and the Communist Party of Britain, the Alba Party, and former Scottish Greens Leader, Harper (Who is even I am proud to say, proudly LGBT himself), are of the left, but even the article on Hitler only mentions far right once and in relation to where he is in a photo, In other words Wikipedia is more nuanced on the most evil man in history, Hitler, than on a belief, Gender critical feminism, that has aspects believed in by the plurality of people in every country. 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:5D54:7200:E4C:B0D9 (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC) You are so cheeky, you give a disgraceful insulting opinion that gender critical views can be likened to Nazi-ism, which is utterly appalling to the victims of Nazi-ism, as the plurality of them would clearly have believed in traditional gender critical views, and then claim anybody who disagrees with that is having a "opinion". You should be ashamed of this miss characterising of gender critical beliefs of good kind people, like Dawkins, Joyce. Stock, Ash Regan, Rosie Duffield, JK Rowling, Robert Winston (Who is Jewish, how dare you compare a good compassionate caring left wing man like him, who is Jewish, with Nazis) and so many left wingers, how dare you, you should be ashamed ashamed, ashamed. It is dreadful what gender ideaology believers are doing, and nobody will fall for it who looks at the issue for over a half a hour. Shame Shame Shame. And the Orwellian nature of gender ideaology, will show up by the excuse for deleting this comment, come on lets see 1984 gender ideaology in action come on lets see the excuse for deleting this comment, and all opinions and facts that contradict this Kafkaesuqe Pythonesque world view, 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:F4A3:F91C:3779:C87E (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC) If you are new to Wikipedia, you should read our policies on WP:CIVIL, particularly noting that attacks on other editors are what gets comments deleted and accounts banned. There are people on this talk page who radically disagree with each other, but are still here because they figured out how to focus on content. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC) Well you just personally attacked me, by saying "You", surely then in that case all your comments should be banned for that. This article is offensive disgrace, that labels good nice kind left wing people, who do not hate trans people, and never could, as "far right", some gender critical people are Jewish, some are other ethnic minorities, some are LGBT, some are even Trans, how dare you link them with nazis, it is a disgraceful and bigoted what is spewing from gender ideaology and dont think that when you Orwellian 1984 delete my comments, that you have deleted gender critical ideaology, it is more a sign that you cant win the debate. 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:F4A3:F91C:3779:C87E (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC) I get it. Articles can get into bad states. People can say outrageous things. But if you are here only to vent about it, you will eventually get blocked to prevent disruption, particularly because this is designated as a contentious topic where the expected standard of conduct is highest. If you are here to improve the article, please read the discussion carefully and comment thoughtfully. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

only opinion pieces are meant to be moved to a criticism / reception section

This is a philosophy/ideology subject, virtually all the sources are opinion.

For example, in Sexed, Susanna Rustin draws a thread in British feminism from Mary Wollstonecraft to current British gender-critical/sex-based rights/radical feminist movements, to explain why the movement is stronger here than anywhere else in the world. This is a far cry from the opinion of eg. Cristan Williams, who thinks this dates back to lesbian separatists in the US in the 60s.

Opinions differ. Void if removed (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Totally agree, my criticism of this article, detailing how when talking of this left wing ideology gender critical feminism, which is believed in by Robin Harper former Scottish greens leader, and left wingers like Joyce, Stock and Dawkins, Duffield, Chapelle, Robert Winston, Gervais and Cherry, the Alba Party, and a British Communist party, , well this article disgracefully tries to link GC beliefs with the far right, it mentions far right, conservative and terf and even nazi over 100 times, and mentions left wing no times, whereas the wikipedia article on the most evil man in history Hitler, mentions far right just once, in reference to where is in a photo. Well my comment about that disgraceful mischaracterisation of gender critical beliefs that wikipedia is being more nuanced on Hitler than gender criticalism, is being deleted, as ever Orwellian style dissapeared. But a sick twisted comment likening Gender Criticial beliefs, to the Nazis, is being kept here, this when gender critical beliefs are basically about protecting womens sports and womens safe spaces, and are believed in by a plurality of people to a extent in every country on earth, and often a majority, this article is a disgrace, and the editors doing this mischaracterisation are a disgrace. 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:F4A3:F91C:3779:C87E (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, given the current state I think it might be better to rename this article "Criticism of Gender Critical Feminism" and start a new one. Void if removed (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That is not necessary. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hyperbole is unhelpful. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 15:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)