This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LokiTheLiar (talk | contribs) at 05:59, 11 April 2019 (→Rewrite and Template Removal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:59, 11 April 2019 by LokiTheLiar (talk | contribs) (→Rewrite and Template Removal)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Feminist views on transgender topics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | Feminism C‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | LGBTQ+ studies C‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
"Criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints"
Right now, the second half of the section "Criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints" in fact just contains trans-exclusionary viewpoints. Literally every single quote is by a person with a trans-exclusionary viewpoint, and trans-inclusionary replies challenging these quotes have not been added. This heavily misrepresents the discourse. It's already not neutral to quote multiple trans-exclusionary standpoints in a completely unchallenged manner, but to do so in a section that is literally about the criticism of said viewpoints is obviously wrong.
I will therefore remove those sections hereafter. If anyone disagrees and thinks of re-adding them, please discuss here before. Maybe they can be re-added elsewhere? --StardustCat (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Per what I argued here and in the #Undue section above, there is going to be criticism and a response to the criticism. I think the responses belong in the same section. That 2012 Sheila Jeffreys The Guardian piece is specifically responding to the criticism; it's about those who "criticised transgenderism." So, in my opinion, the "Criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints" section should not be without rebuttals. I reverted your removals. As seen in the aforementioned "Undue" discussion, we've been discussing what to do about the "Feminist support" and "Feminist exclusion of trans women" sections. You stated that "trans-inclusionary replies challenging these quotes have not been added," but that is not something that can be forced. Such rebuttals must actually exist. You are free to look for them and support them with WP:Reliable sources. Read WP:Neutral. As I've stated times before, being neutral on Misplaced Pages does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse. Regardless of how we format this article, the text you removed should be in the article.
- In the aforementioned discussion, I stated, "I would consider having a section titled 'Radical feminism,' 'Contemporary feminism,' etc., but I feel that redundancy would result in that case because different types of feminists will be in agreement on some things or in disagreement on the same things. Titles such as 'Radical feminism' and 'Contemporary feminism' could cover a lot of material. So I think it's better to specifically address issues, such as 'Socialization differences,' like we currently do and include the views from different types of feminists in those sections. Title-wise, I'm not sure what to do about the 'Feminist exclusion of trans women' and 'Feminist support' sections. Exclusion of trans women is a big deal, as made clear in the literature, and it's a specific issue. Really, the 'Criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints' and 'Feminist support' sections could be merged into one section, and broken away from the 'Feminist exclusion of trans women' section. The anti commentary in it could be cut or moved to the main exclusion section, except for the material that needs context...or the rebuttals like Sheila Jeffreys specifically responding to being criticized for her views. What to title the merged section, I'm not sure. Maybe 'Feminist support and criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints'? That's a bit long." I also told Aircorn that "I thought about just keeping the section titled 'Feminist support' for the reason you mentioned, but I wondered about the rebuttal material in the section. Some might view rebuttal material as not belonging in a 'Feminist support' section. With this, this and this edit, you can see that even including rebuttal material in the 'Criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints' section was questioned. But, yes, I could live with just going with the 'Feminist support' heading after merging."
- As for this addition by you, while Julia Serano is a notable trans voice, it's best not to use blog sources such as Medium (website). I also recently discussed use of Medium here at Talk:Male privilege. If you or someone else wants to re-add that Serano piece, I won't revert, however. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- About your first point, I vehemently disagree. Clearly, the "criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints"-section should focus on precisely criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints. I agree that we can even include rebuttals, but when said rebuttals are given much more space (in the form of longer paragraphs, including a lot of direct quotes - but ONLY from the trans-exclusionary viewpoint), something is definitely not alright.
- I would additionally argue that the text I removed doesn't include any actual rebuttals. For something to be a rebuttal of criticism, that criticism would have to be made concrete and first given comparable space to the rebuttal (especially in this section, but even anywhere else, we otherwise given undue weight to the trans-exclusionary position). But the text I removed doesn't refer to any of the criticism in the earlier parts of the section - both paragraphs are instead trans-exclusionary feminists complaining about a) internet hate speech (which definitely can't even be called "criticism", so the paragraph isn't a rebuttal of criticism) and being disinvited from speaking at one event (which probably was done because of criticism, but the text doesn't actually display said criticism, just its consequence - so it also isn't a rebuttal). This isn't remotely okay and I am not okay with leaving this text in this section. The selected quotes give way too much weight to the trans-exclusionary position in a section explicitly devoted to the trans-inclusionary position.
- Some of this can be fixed, of course. Since Jeffrey's article was a direct response to an earlier article by Roz Kaveney, someone who wants to display Jeffrey's position should first display Kaveney's position, and then display Jeffrey's article as a response to that - and not as if it was only prompted by a supposed internet hate campaign. Do you want to try rewriting this paragraph to incorporate that, or should I do it?
- Regarding Julia Serano, the Medium post is I believer a very good source because we can pull quotes form it that nicely summarize her position, while the post itself gives direct sources to her books for these claims she makes. The alternative to quoting her eassy would be for Misplaced Pages editors such as ourselves to summarize her position as from her books. Letting her summarize her position and criticism herself seems like the clearly better way to me, don't you agree? It's not like she only writes medium articles, she has written some of the most influential books in the topic of trans exclusion in the past decade. So I will re-add this section. --StardustCat (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- I get that you vehemently disagree. But have you read WP:Neutral? It's not about creating false balance. We can only follow what is available in the literature (whether in academic sources or in the media) and with WP:Due weight. You stated that the "'criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints'-section should focus on precisely criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints." But it does. It begins with a focus on Judith Butler arguing for feminist solidarity with trans and gender-nonconforming people, and being critical of Sheila Jeffreys, who she says engages in oppressive attempts to dispute trans people's sense of identity. The first paragraph about Bindel focuses on the fact that many considered the language she used in a The Guardian article to be offensive and demeaning. The 2009 paragraph about Bindel does include some of her views, but it also states that there were protests (with regard to celebrities being split over trans protests at the Stonewall Awards, which I will clarify in the article in a moment). The 2012 piece concerning Sheila Jeffreys makes sense to retain because, as I noted before, she is responding to those who have criticized her views and those like them. The Linda Bellos piece makes sense to retain because it concerns her being invited to speak at Cambridge University in 2017, and later disinvited because of her views on transgender people. It was significant enough that The Times reported on it, which is also included in the section...with The Times author's commentary.
- I can see us validly cutting some of the Bindel material, making sure to trim without cutting out essential detail. But most of the text you removed before I reverted should stay. If you can look at these sources or other source and see that more can be added about why these women's views have been criticized from a trans perspective, we can add that. You mentioned Kaveney's position, for example. Just make sure that the sources pass the WP:Reliable sources guideline. If there are no sources that criticize any of these statements, we can't do anything about that. We can add more statements that criticize such views, though. As noted, we can also rearrange and retitle. You can make suggested edits here on the talk page for trimming the Bindel material or rearranging or retitling. Per what I noted above, rearranging and retitlng are things that we need to get right if we are going to do that. Given Bindel's response to the protest, Jeffreys's response to her and others' critics, and Bellos's response to being disinvited to speak at Cambridge University in 2017, I'm going to disagree with your definition of "rebuttal." Like this Vocabulary.com source states, "We often associate rebuttals with arguments made in the courtroom or public debates that occur around election time, but the word can really apply to any situation in which an argument is put forth and someone disagrees, and explains why." And this Dictionary.com source states "an act of rebutting, as in a debate." I see nothing in the rebuttal sources about an argument needing to be concrete. Whether or not an argument is concrete on this topic is an opinion. And complaining about Internet comments, what you and others call hate speech in this case, is criticism. Furthermore, to a number of these feminists, and as made clear by some of their comments, their statements are not hate speech. Regarding "undue weight to the trans-exclusionary position," I go back to what I argued in the Undue discussion above
- As for Julia Serano, see WP:Self-published, which, among other things, states, "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities." Because Serano is a notable trans voice and WP:In-text attribution was used, I stated that I would not revert the Serano piece if you re-added it. But WP:Self-published is clear, and so is its WP:About self section. I was not focused on reverting Serano before. It's just that I wholesale reverted and removing the Serano piece was a part of that. As you likely know by now, another editor reverted your restoration of the Serano piece, stating, "Self-published. If other sources covered it... then that would indicate it's a notable opinion." I have no issue with including a summary of Serano's views from her books as long as it's on-topic and sourced to one or more of her books or a secondary source that passes WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- With trans positions being extremely underrepresented in the media, this is a good example of why WP:Self-published leads to a strong bias against minorities such as trans people. You really gotta decide: do you want to be neutral in this article, fighting against an undue favoring of anti-trans positions? Then you'll have to accept self-published sources when it's abundantly clear to anyone who knows about this topic that someone like Serano is a known and respected voice in this debate. She is even mentioned in the beginning of the article, so I can't understand why we can't actually display her position then. It's nonsensical.
- I'm very frustrated. I don't feel like my intents of improving this article and working against the extremely obvious bias giving way more room to anti-trans voices is actually wanted or even honored here in any way. If you are a more experienced editor, then maybe help me out here and show me how Serano's positions can be represented here, by improving my edit? Because I'm at a loss, but you and I both know that the *outcome* of having her position in the article would improve it and give less undue weight to anti-trans positions, right? It's all about seeing how one can fulfill the Wikipedian beaurocracy to make a good edit stick, as it seems to me. And I don't know how to do that and feel like just giving up and just accepting that this article will remain anti-trans anyhow. --StardustCat (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Misplaced Pages reflects that under-representation in the media. That is the point of WP:NPOV; we reflect reliable sources even if they are WP:BIASED. What is the Truth is always debated, and, in my opinion, defined by the groups in power. Misplaced Pages is a reflection of that, for better or worse. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- StardustCat, I understand that you are frustrated, but, like EvergreenFir stated, Misplaced Pages has its own way of working. We all had to get used to this. We cannot use Misplaced Pages to right the great wrongs. And Misplaced Pages working like this is actually for good reasons, as explained at the policy and guideline pages. For improvements, we can start with my suggestions above in this section. We can add Kaveney's position, like you suggested. Whatever the stated reason, we don't need to add self-published sources to the article. We can add Serano's views to the article (and we do mention her in the "Transfeminism" section, after all), but the sourcing should be one of her books (which counts as WP:Primary) or a secondary or tertiary source addressing her views. Yes, given the views on transgender people (especially transgender women), the article contains anti-trans views, but it contains pro-trans views as well. And we can work to add more pro-trans views. But should we do all of this with WP:Due weight in mind (such as the fact that sources on the topic usually don't address trans men)? Yes. Misplaced Pages is not a beaurocracy, but it has important rules. WP:Ignore all rules is rarely employed; it is used in rare cases because it is not a free-for-all. It is not a "get out of jail free" card to do whatever we want. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Citation overkill
This is citation overkill, especially in the lead. In general, one should pick which of the citations best act as references for the statement and keep those in the article body, omitting the rest. Another method of reducing the excess of little superscript numbers would be to bundle citations which are not used anywhere else in the article into one ref tag. -sche (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed, editing improvement now. A145GI15I95 (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Rewrite and Template Removal
I recently rewrote the article to attempt to move it closer to NPOV. But I'm not comfortable removing the problem template by myself. Do other people agree the problem is fixed, or is more work still necessary? LokiTheLiar (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- The template was added by an editor whose reasoning was that it didn’t reflect what her friends thought. When sources were brought up she disappeared from the discussion. It probably could have been removed a while ago. The problem is that the radical feminist view gets more attention in the media and so what is the correct due weight is more complicated. AIRcorn (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- I mean, as I found the article originally it was clearly correct, which is why I'm still not entirely comfortable removing it. For one, I don't think it's actually true that radical feminism (by which I'm assuming you mean the trans-exclusive position within radical feminism; as the article currently points out, many prominent radfems were trans-inclusive) gets more attention in the media. There's plenty of feminist media that talks about trans women in passively positive ways all the time. And then two, media is not the only reliable source and if you include pop feminist writing on the topic like Julia Serano's Whipping Girl, or academic feminist writing like any of what Judith Butler has written on the subject of trans people, it becomes clear pretty quickly that this is a situation with a clear consensus of acceptance versus a small (I would even venture to call them fringe) opposition. LokiTheLiar (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Where did you recently rewrite the article? All I see is that you removed unused references. As for the tag and your claims, I suggest you read Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics/Archive 2#Undue. Also read what I stated in the section #"Criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints" section above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Loki says in this edit summary that they are the IP who recently revised the article.
@ Loki and indeed anyone editing this or any other article: I know sometimes 'diff-busting' relocations-plus-revisions are unavoidable, but if at all possible it's helpful to make big changes via a series of smaller changes (remove one thing, then remove another thing, then move what's left to another place, etc) so that it's easier to see what's changed when comparing revisions, and agree or disagree with individual changes. I will try to go over the recent changes anyway so I can offer my own feedback on them. -sche (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Loki says in this edit summary that they are the IP who recently revised the article.
- Where did you recently rewrite the article? All I see is that you removed unused references. As for the tag and your claims, I suggest you read Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics/Archive 2#Undue. Also read what I stated in the section #"Criticism of trans-exclusionary viewpoints" section above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I mean, as I found the article originally it was clearly correct, which is why I'm still not entirely comfortable removing it. For one, I don't think it's actually true that radical feminism (by which I'm assuming you mean the trans-exclusive position within radical feminism; as the article currently points out, many prominent radfems were trans-inclusive) gets more attention in the media. There's plenty of feminist media that talks about trans women in passively positive ways all the time. And then two, media is not the only reliable source and if you include pop feminist writing on the topic like Julia Serano's Whipping Girl, or academic feminist writing like any of what Judith Butler has written on the subject of trans people, it becomes clear pretty quickly that this is a situation with a clear consensus of acceptance versus a small (I would even venture to call them fringe) opposition. LokiTheLiar (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I missed that IP edit. And I reverted per what I argued above. I'm not going over all of that again. The IP should propose changes here on the talk page and explain why, according to our rules, they made those changes. I suppose, just like with this other article that recently took up too much of my time, and endures all types of POV-editing about the intelligence of the sexes, I will have to edit this entire article soon. That means appropriate references and making sure that the article continues to adhere to WP:Due weight, not what folks want WP:Due weight to be. I am beyond tired of this article being edited based on the personal opinions of editors. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I read the talk page before editing and so I am aware that neutrality on Misplaced Pages is defined based on reliable sources and not on what the majority of the general public believes. However, in this instance, this doesn't matter, because the majority of reliable sources do not support the TERF position.
- It's not terribly hard for me to prove that the majority of feminist discourse, including especially the majority of academic feminist discourse, is trans-inclusive if not explicitly transfeminist. Just take a look at that Google Scholar link: on the first three pages, there are only two TERF sources versus over half which are explicitly trans-positive. It's also pretty clear if you look through the work of major feminist media outlets like Jezebel or Feministing that they are trans-positive as organizations.
- And even your assertions in the talk archive are not correct, because (as you can see from the same search I linked) the majority of academic feminist discussion on trans issues isn't about the TERF position at all. The majority of it appears to be using transgender people as an example into a feminist examination of what gender is (such as in Judith Butler's work, or the multiple articles about incorporating insights from queer theory into feminist theory). And then even if it wasn't, if the majority position in reliable sources really was trans-positive feminists arguing against TERFs, then we ought to represent that as the majority in the article and not the TERF position itself.
- In light of all this, and in light of the fact that WP:UNDUE explicitly says "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects", this article clearly needs to be rewritten very significantly, because it currently represents the TERF position as the majority position within feminism when it is in fact a fairly small minority. LokiTheLiar (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- You sound like StardustCat and the way you are trying to apply WP:Due is wrong. You definitely are not new, and I am very tempted to contact a WP:CheckUser acquaintance on this matter and other clear WP:Sock issues going on at this article. What I stated in the linked archived discussion, pointing to reliable sources on the matter, are facts. It is a fact that most of the critical debate -- from a historical aspect to modern aspect (but especially years past) -- concerns radical feminists' views and views on trans women. You can call the radical feminists' TERFS all you want to, but the vast majority of the literature does not. I stated, "there simply is not as much feminist commentary on trans men. Furthermore, although the term transgender is broad, the literature on transgender issues is usually about trans women and trans men, not non-binary people (although some people identity as both transgender and non-binary). I stated, "When one looks at the academic literature on feminists views on transgender topics, they mostly cover what this article currently covers. So I can't call the article undue." And no one has been able to disprove me on any of this. And that Google Scholar link you pointed also does not. I also pointed to a 2014 The New Yorker source that, when quoting Robin Morgan's anti-trans woman view, states, "Such views are shared by few feminists now, but they still have a foothold among some self-described radical feminists, who have found themselves in an acrimonious battle with trans people and their allies." In that same discussion, I pointed to this 2018 The Economist source stating, "What is a woman? Who can be a feminist? These questions have been central to feminist theory and activism since the 1970s, proving to be particularly controversial in the relationship between feminist and transgender activism. In recent years, these questions have returned to haunt feminism. . By the 1990s multi-faceted gender identities and experiences were embraced by feminist scholars who wrote against a biologically-determined feminist theory that excluded trans women. Similarly, the development of several queer movements positively acknowledged difference and argued against the understanding of identity categories as fixed. I am deeply saddened that in recent years there has been renewed antagonism from a section of feminism towards trans people, and especially towards trans women." I noted that the source does state that there is a "small number of feminists loudly opposing changes to the Gender Recognition Act" and that "anti-trans viewpoints are a minority position within feminism," but the source doesn't state that these views are minority views within radical feminism. It also states that these views "are championed by several high-profile writers, many of whom reinforce the extremely offensive trope of the trans woman as a man in drag who is a danger to women" and "while anti-transgender feminists are a minority, they have a high level of social, cultural and economic capital." So despite all this talk about anti-trans views being a minority, it is clear that the literature is rife with the debate. In that archived discussion, even that "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" source that another editor pointed to in order to show diverse aspects of this topic states, "there has generally been an over-emphasis on MTFs in particular." The literature mostly focuses on trans women. That has been my main point. The literature mainly touches on the debate regarding trans women. That has been my main point. I have seen nothing in the literature, in my reading beyond the abstracts, that shows differently. Like I stated, I will be overhauling the article. I am working on a draft now, and I will present it on this talk page (via a link to my sandbox) when I am done...before implementing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- I was a little bit active over a decade ago under a different account, and have since occasionally edited as an IP. (User:Snake712 was my old handle, if you really need to know.) Because of this I picked up some understanding of how to argue for a position on Misplaced Pages, how to cite Misplaced Pages policies, etc. But I think the accusation that I'm a sockpuppet just because I agree with someone else is pretty ridiculous.
- I'd like to point out that even your sources say that trans-exclusive feminists are a minority within feminism. This article as it currently is presents them as if their view was equivalent to the trans-inclusive view, when nobody thinks they are. I'm not against talking about the trans-exclusive viewpoint and the debate between trans-exclusive and trans-inclusive feminists; what I'm opposed to is representing the trans-exclusive view as more prominent within feminism than it actually is. This is pretty explicitly what WP:UNDUE is about: articles should not present a minority view as if it is the majority. To use a more neutral analogy, the article on protectionism shouldn't be just a list of economists that are against free trade, because most economists are pro-free trade even though the argument over protectionism vs. free trade is a huge historical debate within economics. Covering the argument itself is totally compatible with WP:UNDUE, but covering the argument in a way that makes it unclear that one side is the clear majority position would definitely be against WP:UNDUE. (And to bolster my point, the article on protectionism does in fact say in explicit terms that most economists think it's a bad idea.)
- I'm also wondering why you're trying to argue so hard that the article should focus on trans women. I'm not disputing that this debate is mostly focusing on trans women (and, y'know, feminism is a movement for women's rights) so this page ought to mostly focus on trans women. I agree that trans-exclusive feminists overwhelmingly focus on trans women, to the point that this is actually a major counterargument used against them by their opponents. I frankly think you are projecting your past arguments onto me. LokiTheLiar (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- You sound like StardustCat and the way you are trying to apply WP:Due is wrong. You definitely are not new, and I am very tempted to contact a WP:CheckUser acquaintance on this matter and other clear WP:Sock issues going on at this article. What I stated in the linked archived discussion, pointing to reliable sources on the matter, are facts. It is a fact that most of the critical debate -- from a historical aspect to modern aspect (but especially years past) -- concerns radical feminists' views and views on trans women. You can call the radical feminists' TERFS all you want to, but the vast majority of the literature does not. I stated, "there simply is not as much feminist commentary on trans men. Furthermore, although the term transgender is broad, the literature on transgender issues is usually about trans women and trans men, not non-binary people (although some people identity as both transgender and non-binary). I stated, "When one looks at the academic literature on feminists views on transgender topics, they mostly cover what this article currently covers. So I can't call the article undue." And no one has been able to disprove me on any of this. And that Google Scholar link you pointed also does not. I also pointed to a 2014 The New Yorker source that, when quoting Robin Morgan's anti-trans woman view, states, "Such views are shared by few feminists now, but they still have a foothold among some self-described radical feminists, who have found themselves in an acrimonious battle with trans people and their allies." In that same discussion, I pointed to this 2018 The Economist source stating, "What is a woman? Who can be a feminist? These questions have been central to feminist theory and activism since the 1970s, proving to be particularly controversial in the relationship between feminist and transgender activism. In recent years, these questions have returned to haunt feminism. . By the 1990s multi-faceted gender identities and experiences were embraced by feminist scholars who wrote against a biologically-determined feminist theory that excluded trans women. Similarly, the development of several queer movements positively acknowledged difference and argued against the understanding of identity categories as fixed. I am deeply saddened that in recent years there has been renewed antagonism from a section of feminism towards trans people, and especially towards trans women." I noted that the source does state that there is a "small number of feminists loudly opposing changes to the Gender Recognition Act" and that "anti-trans viewpoints are a minority position within feminism," but the source doesn't state that these views are minority views within radical feminism. It also states that these views "are championed by several high-profile writers, many of whom reinforce the extremely offensive trope of the trans woman as a man in drag who is a danger to women" and "while anti-transgender feminists are a minority, they have a high level of social, cultural and economic capital." So despite all this talk about anti-trans views being a minority, it is clear that the literature is rife with the debate. In that archived discussion, even that "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" source that another editor pointed to in order to show diverse aspects of this topic states, "there has generally been an over-emphasis on MTFs in particular." The literature mostly focuses on trans women. That has been my main point. The literature mainly touches on the debate regarding trans women. That has been my main point. I have seen nothing in the literature, in my reading beyond the abstracts, that shows differently. Like I stated, I will be overhauling the article. I am working on a draft now, and I will present it on this talk page (via a link to my sandbox) when I am done...before implementing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- I missed that IP edit. And I reverted per what I argued above. I'm not going over all of that again. The IP should propose changes here on the talk page and explain why, according to our rules, they made those changes. I suppose, just like with this other article that recently took up too much of my time, and endures all types of POV-editing about the intelligence of the sexes, I will have to edit this entire article soon. That means appropriate references and making sure that the article continues to adhere to WP:Due weight, not what folks want WP:Due weight to be. I am beyond tired of this article being edited based on the personal opinions of editors. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
A145GI15I95, you recently expanded the "TERF" section. How much of the "TERF" material do you think we should keep? I'm asking you because that is one section I will be looking to downsize. I will also be looking to remove some blow-by-blow material. The article shouldn't be so focused on incidents. I also will be looking to add academic sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Difficult to say. Re-summarizing from series of incidents to more academic prose is reasonable. Themes/points might be:
- Coinage;
- Evolution from all-caps acronym to lowercase word;
- Shift in application from persons of specific philosophy/politics to generally anyone of opposing views;
- Arguments regarding being a slur and/or hate speech, being used to shame and silence targets.
- Perceptions and actions in social media, conventional media, private companies/workplaces, educational institutions, and/or government.
- Opinions of philosophical and academic professionals.
- Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Difficult to say. Re-summarizing from series of incidents to more academic prose is reasonable. Themes/points might be:
- User:LokiTheLiar: In the interest of civility, may I ask you please to avoid characterizing writers and publishers et alii as "terfs"? Many persons (especially the subjects of this article and likely some editors here) believe the word to be a slur and/or hate speech, used to shame and smear dissenting individuals, and to silence and censor reasonable debate. Whether we each agree or disagree with that interpretation, it would better to avoid using or appearing to use the word in that regard. Thanks for considering, A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- I could, and I will make an attempt from here on out, but please be aware that most feminists who are not trans-exclusive consider TERFs themselves to be a hate group, and this insistence that "TERF is a slur" to be basically gaslighting.
- I can definitely call them "trans-exclusive" spelled out, following the article, and I will try to do so in the future, but the simple fact is that any terminology for this group is going to be taking some side or other, in a similar manner to "Holocaust denier" vs "revisionist", or "racist" vs "race realist". LokiTheLiar (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- That you compared using "TERF" to the Holocaust denial is asinine. Same goes for the race comparison. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Flyer, I don't think that is a WP:CIVIL response to that user and don't see a priori why the comparison is asinine. When people are seen as bigots, the issue of how to speak about them becomes contentious. Names that reference this perceived bigotry and ones that elide it often butt heads. Rab V (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- If you don't see the problem with that comparison then you should not be editing this article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- WP:CIVIL pretty clear speaks against acting superior and talking about editors instead of arguments...Rab V (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- We have the article speaking of how "TERF" is used very broadly and that this a problem. There are transgender people who have also spoken about overly broad use of that term and the term transphobia. Ask enough lesbian feminists about being called a TERF or a bigot simply because they are not sexually attracted to male-bodied people or people who have a penis, and it's clear just how the term has been used in an overly broad way. An IP linked to a published collection of tweets that highlight this topic. Of course, I will cover the topic with WP:Reliable sources. Like I stated at Talk:Transphobia, the "Is it transphobic if a cisgender person doesn't want to date a transgender person?" debate is part of the topic, and as some know, is very strong in the lesbian and bisexual communities because some trans women suggest being open with regard to genital preferences or that genital preferences shouldn't matter, while a number of cisgender lesbians argue that sexual orientation is not about sexual attraction to gender identity, their attraction is not really a preference, and that to insist that a cisgender lesbian should be sexually attracted to a person who has a penis is akin to conversion therapy and is homophobic. I have seen "TERF" and transphobic used in ways that even many transgender people do not agree with. So, yes, I find comparing "TERFs" to Holocaust deniers an asinine comparison. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining your point of view, I think that is helpful in keeping a contentious topic more civil. WP:CIVIL also suggests using less intense language, trying not to come off as condescending and trying to remain calm in the talk page. It is hard to focus on bettering an article when comments get too heated. Rab V (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm trying to remain as neutral as possible here despite the fact that it's increasingly clear that the two sides of the dispute over the content of this article also have opposing biases on the underlying topic. However, again, any use of language around this topic is going to be contentious because the fundamental debate underlying the language regarding trans-exclusive feminism is whether it's acceptable at all (/counts as feminism at all) or not. This isn't a scientific debate, it's a moral and political debate, and any use of language around it implies a moral and political position. If you want a slightly more neutral example I could point to "the ACA" vs "Obamacare", or "pro-choice" vs "anti-life" and vice versa. Any language I use here is going to implicitly take a side, and given that I would prefer to use the language of the side I believe rather than the side I don't.
- I also would really like to talk about the article, but it's sort of difficult in this case because based on what I've seen in this discussion so far, the dispute over whether trans-exclusive feminism is given undue weight in the current article boils down to the underlying dispute the article is supposed to describe. I suspect that the surface-level "legal" debate over WP:UNDUE is in fact a proxy for a debate which is part factual and part political over the issue of whether trans-exclusive feminism is in fact fringe or not, and that this is the reason why what ought to be a pretty dry argument over the exact meaning of WP:UNDUE has gotten so contentious so quickly.
- In particular, I notice that the argument Flyer22 Reborn just made is a fairly common argument among trans-exclusive feminists, which makes me suspect that Flyer22 has trans-exclusive feminist sympathies. I don't say this to discredit them; it'd be pretty hypocritical of me to think that having an opinion on the topic of this article discredited them, since I haven't exactly made a secret of the fact I'm a trans-inclusive feminist myself. But I do want to suggest that I don't think that the content of the article should require us to resolve the debate described in the article, and that maybe involving some kind of neutral party here to settle the questions at issue (especially the one about what WP:UNDUE actually means in the context of this article) would be a good idea. LokiTheLiar (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining your point of view, I think that is helpful in keeping a contentious topic more civil. WP:CIVIL also suggests using less intense language, trying not to come off as condescending and trying to remain calm in the talk page. It is hard to focus on bettering an article when comments get too heated. Rab V (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- If you don't see the problem with that comparison then you should not be editing this article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Flyer, I don't think that is a WP:CIVIL response to that user and don't see a priori why the comparison is asinine. When people are seen as bigots, the issue of how to speak about them becomes contentious. Names that reference this perceived bigotry and ones that elide it often butt heads. Rab V (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- That you compared using "TERF" to the Holocaust denial is asinine. Same goes for the race comparison. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- User:LokiTheLiar: In the interest of civility, may I ask you please to avoid characterizing writers and publishers et alii as "terfs"? Many persons (especially the subjects of this article and likely some editors here) believe the word to be a slur and/or hate speech, used to shame and smear dissenting individuals, and to silence and censor reasonable debate. Whether we each agree or disagree with that interpretation, it would better to avoid using or appearing to use the word in that regard. Thanks for considering, A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)