[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/Jump to content

Talk:Gender-critical feminism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:TERF)

Not a euphemism

[edit]

@DanielRigal: How is ‘gender-critical’ a euphemism? Vorpalm’s changes look reasonable to me. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally in the Gender-critical_feminism#Terminology section how the "Gender-critical feminim" as a rebranded dog-whistle of its original of "trans-exclusionary radical feminist", so it fits the definition of wikt:euphemism. Raladic (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is attributed there, because this is simply the opinion of a critical academics. Escalating attributed opinion from the body to wikivoice in the lede is inappropriate. The change was reasonable enough, though I would have said "gender-critical feminism". Refusing to use common terminology because it is an alleged "dog-whistle" is a bit WP:RGW. Void if removed (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Righting great wrongs is not an appropriate guideline in this situation, since "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" is literally the prior name coined to describe this movement, with the usage of "gender-critical feminism" being a later development (as mentioned in the article). Righting great wrongs is about the existence of sources and statements, not terminology, and not about their relative weight. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radical feminism

[edit]

Even the derogatory term for g-c feminism says that this is a radical form of feminism. Therefore the sidebar for radical feminism is appropriate and I am reinstating it. 18:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC) Sweet6970 (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't need to re-hash this. This is a pretense often used by people to try to justify the anti-trans nature, but is contentious as reported by reliable sources.
The two sidebars that are there are enough. Raladic (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Nobody disputes that there are links to Radical Feminism but the GC movement has a, shall we say, fluid relationship to feminism, never mind Radical Feminism. If we look at the sidebar it includes some individuals and groups associated with the GC movement, who came to it via Radical Feminism, but not other individuals or groups who came to it via other paths. It doesn't include GC itself, under any name, which perhaps provides the strongest case for removing it. DanielRigal (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gender critical feminism has a strong and notable tie to radical feminism. the 1979 book The Transsexual Empire was written by a radical feminist. I really can't believe anyone would try to make gender criticism somehow not related to radical feminism. Vorpalm (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not strong enough to establish a link which would warrant inclusion in that list. This is just one author, and the entire § Early history section is about the developing schism between (trans-inclusive) radical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism.
Selected quotes (emphases mine):
Although trans people were active in feminist movements in the 1960s and earlier, the 1970s saw conflict among some early radical feminists over the inclusion of trans women in feminism.
The same year, Elliott was scheduled to perform at the West Coast Lesbian Conference, which she had helped organize; a group of trans-exclusionary radical feminist activists calling themselves the Gutter Dykes leafletted the conference protesting her inclusion and [a keynote speaker] updated her speech to [denounce Elliott]. An impromptu vote was held with the majority supporting her [Elliott's] inclusion in the conference; […]
The Transsexual Empire is the work of one radical feminist, and predates the modern movement described in this article. Just because something was written by an adherent of X, or has roots in X, doesn't mean it has to be automatically included in Wikipedia as part of X. If we were to follow this logic in other areas, categorization would break down, because the natural occurrence of ideological shifts in people's thinking would mean that we had to include everything under everything. Horst Mahler, a prominent Holocaust denier in Germany, was one of the founding members of the Red Army Faction. But we don't list Holocaust denial under Red Army Faction, because it wouldn't make sense.
Also, Feminist views on transgender topics is already listed in the radical feminism sidebar, with a whole section devoted to gender-critical feminism / trans-exclusionary radical feminism. This is more appropriate, since it highlights the diversity of views on this topic within (radical) feminism. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With a topic that is so connected to radical feminism, it would make sense to have the sidebar for radical feminism. Vorpalm (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could go under a section, such as #Trans-exclusionary radical feminism, which explicitly mentions the term radical feminism in the subsection title, however even there it's specifically about terminology and that term is also used to refer to people who are not always feminist or radfem too. Web-julio (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Gender-critical feminism § History section would be more appropriate, since the roots in radical feminism are the only link between the two which we can establish reliably and without dispute. Later developments indicate a clear schism. TucanHolmes (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender-critical_feminism&oldid=1260397918"