Talk:Gender-critical feminism

Radical feminism

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Vaginism

One of the ways gender-critical feminism is described as is vaginism, due to its undue obsession of vaginas. Can this fact be included in the article? Antivaginist (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have sources to support the use of this word? — Czello ^(music) 17:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Where have you seen this used? Zeno27 (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

This looks like just another term of abuse for feminists. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I've never heard of this weird phrase. If there is a contingency of notable GCs who are organising under that term then maybe it could be mentioned but if it is just one or two non-notable people, or its only been going for a few days, or if it is just somebody trolling, then let's not waste our time on it. GC terminology changes on a pretty regular basis anyway and we don't need to keep track of track the more transient/peripheral details, just the main claims and slogans. DanielRigal (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

NPOV is a super important rule, and I don't think it is operating too well here

Even if TERFs are assholes -- sure sounds like it -- that should have absolutely zero influence when we write. We want readers to walk away from any article with no clue about what Wikipedia itself thinks about the subject. I did not walk away with that impression. There's too much material on criticism. It's quite clear to me, reading the article, that the Wikipedia doesn't much like these people. It should not be at all clear.

People coming to any article want to know about the entity. People coming to an article about entity X want to know "What is entity X? Is it a political/cultural movement, or just people writing books and articles? What's it history? When did it start? Is it defunct? Were there precursors? Who are some of the main thinkers and leaders in it? Do they have a political party, and if so do they run candidates, and if so how do they fare? How many adherents? Is it a fringe thing?" Lots of other things like that. Of course criticism should be included, but it should be a distinctly secondary subject.

I get that a lot of editors don't like TERFs, and with good reason I guess, but editors who feel strongly about a fraught subject and can't or don't want to be ice-cold even-handed about it should work on other subjects, not to be harsh but it is what it is. If you can be ice-cold even-handed, that's different. (For instance, I detest Jim Jordan, but I took out a bunch of over-emphasis of attacks on him, because of course how I feel about any entity has nothing to do with my work here. Be like me.)

We don't want to see, let's say, an Israeli chauvinists writing about the Gaza war unless they can put aside any bias. Right? Look at Bolshevism, which is hated by many millions of people. There's plenty to criticize, and it helps put the entity in perspective, and it's important to include, but it's under 10% of the article. "Under 10%" seems like a good goal for any article, granted that might not apply here.

Generally, criticism is not intertwined a whole lot into our exposition on the subject, but rather put in a separate section towards the end called "Criticism" or something. That's not happening here.

There's work to be done. Herostratus (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)