Talk:Anti-gender movement

entire article is not neutral
Opposition to gender ideology is obviously not confined to some sort of right-wing fringe. According to Pew Research, as of 2021, 60 percent of Americans believe sex is not "assigned at birth" and this percentage has been growing for several years. The gender ideology is the anomaly, not the opposition. 68.131.47.147 (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Correction, 2022 is the year. 68.131.47.147 (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have a concrete suggestion for an edit to the article, please propose it. Or, if you have confirmed that it would not violate Wikipedia's, simply make the edit. Please note also that this page is for discussion of anti-transgender movements or sentiments in general, discussion here should be narrowly focused on improving the article.  Sr ey Sr os talk 19:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @SreySros why is it called anti gender movement? There is no one calling themselves anti gender. Anti gender idealogy makes more sense. Youhavetodobetter (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * i agree. blurb on "TERFS" is basically just about how they're fascists. Not neutral. 205.168.122.98 (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This only applies to the US, however. ChillyDude153198 (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Getting rid of the mildly pejorative phrase, "right-winger" and the polemic, "far right" to connote adherents would be a good start. I consider neutral right-wing populists, conservatives. As opposition to gender ideology among Christians is not limited to "fundamentalists", remove "fundamentalists" as the head of the phrase and describe the Christian opposition with "some Christians". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.205.225.132 (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This page isn’t a debate among different Wikipedia editors about what words *we* think the article should use; it's a discussion among editors about how to best represent the prevailing opinion among reliable, secondary sources, regardless of our own views. If you have some backing from such sources for your wording suggestions, please present them, otherwise please kindly refrain from giving your own opinions about what the article should say. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mathglot grand so. Can you give a source that shows any of these groups saying they are part of an "anti gender movement"?
 * All I see are a handful of articles written by biased groups using the phrase in an effort to denigrate any and all differing opinion. Youhavetodobetter (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I can only reiterate what Mathglot has already said. We go by the prevailing opinion(s) among reliable, secondary sources, regardless of our own views. You may think that they are biased but that isn't our concern. DanielRigal (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @DanielRigal so why are there no mentions of polls in the article? Why is the whole article slanted in one direction? You don't think any sort of pushback exists outside of right wing and far right politics? Youhavetodobetter (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, you are asking questions that have already been answered. If you can find reliable coverage of the polls then they can be included. If you can't then that's not our concern. Feel free to make a suggestion for an addition with reliable sources to back it up but please don't kvetch vaguely about bias. That violates WP:NOTFORUM and gets nobody anywhere. DanielRigal (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @DanielRigal didn't post. Blocked? Youhavetodobetter (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, you are not blocked. DanielRigal (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/americans-complex-views-on-gender-identity-and-transgender-issues/
 * There is a lot of nuance in any subject like this. BUt the articles acknowledge this.
 * UK views are pretty much in line with the US.
 * https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2019/12/06/94fe8/3 Nothappycamping (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Some secondary coverage would be good, and I'm not sure that the specific passports question is worth including, but that's a good start. What text do you suggest we can add which is supported by that Pew source? DanielRigal (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/rising-share-americans-say-gender-determined-birth-assigned-sex-poll-f-rcna35560
 * In the opening "The anti-gender movement is an international movement which opposes what it refers to as "gender ideology", "gender theory" or "genderism". The concepts cover a variety of issues and have no coherent definition".
 * Can we get proof that there is actually a joint international movement and not just different people all over the world that are not united in anyway other than that they sometimes agree on some of laws that are aimed at trans.
 * If the polls show that the majority of UK citizens are not 100% behind laws that put trans women in the same bracket as women and same for trans men and men then it cannot possibly be some sort of right wing/christian conspiracry. The numbers just arent there to support it. It has to be clearly defined in the lead that many people from all walks of life are not on board. Nothappycamping (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, is that where you were going with this. Sorry. I thought you were serious for a moment. DanielRigal (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you could stop minimizing genuine concerns from other editors, this article can get somewhere. It is clear that this is a contentious topic; there is no need to riducle what @Nothappycamping wrote above. Zilch-nada (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The article needs to be based on reliable sources that verifiably mention the topic. People who post here to complain about the article generally don't bring any so whatever changes they think should be made, cannot be. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Buidhe but the topic only exists on one side of the debate. The groups or the people who are accused of being members of the "anti gender movement" never use the phrase.
 * Why does an article called "gender critical" not exist? It seems that's used a lot more extensively than "anti gender movement". Nothappycamping (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see any mention of "gender ideology", "anti-gender movement", or equivalent expressions in the articles about the polls, so I don't think they are verifiably connected to the topic of this article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * But no one uses that phrase. ITs not a thing only in a small section of academia. Its not a real world phrase. This is ridiculous.
 * Can you show me any "right wing group" using the phrase "anti gender movement". If not then how can you connect them to this? Nothappycamping (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah. You're right. There might be a place for the polls in another article but not here. DanielRigal (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the article does not read as neutral due to issues with the secondary sources already present in the article. Specifically, I question whether they are reliable (or, in the alternative, reliably summarized).
 * For example, the phrase "all that conservative Catholics despise" appears twice in the article from Anti-Gender Campaigns in Europe: Mobilizing Against Equality. This is a rather empty signifier itself (Catholicism is a global movement whose adherents differ radically in belief, plus the meaning of conservative varies dramatically by nation. The intersection of these already vague terms is especially suspect). The phrase does not communicate anything unless the reader is bringing to the table some sort of dogmatic, monolithic view of conservative Catholicism. The phrase certainly does not provide any clarity to the reader. If anything, it reads more like it's appealing to anti-Catholic sentiment. And I say this as someone with no ties whatsoever to Catholicism.
 * The problems may be, in part, inaccurate summations of these sources. Paragraph 3 in the introduction cites the aforementioned source, but says the source claims the anti-gender movement is based in Catholic theology. However, Anti-Gender Campaigns in Europe: Mobilizing Against Equality Wikipedia page indicates the book studies the anti-gender movement both in regions where the Catholic Church is and is not influential (considering, for example, Eastern Orthodox influence). I doubt the source supports the current statement in this article that "The movement derives from Catholic theology" (to be frank, the notion that the entire anti-gender movement is specifically Catholic in origin is bizarre, esp. since this article already notes distinctly non-Catholic actors like TERFs).
 * I examined these two statements just because they stuck out to me. I didn't check any more, but when three out of three statements had reliability issues, that's not great. My sense of things is that if I continued doing so, I would find more such problems throughout the article. I had started writing up a few more, but this comment is already lengthy. In any case, the sources already present in the article and the way they are summarized by the article need serious reexamination. Jakovnewman (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Am I reading this correctly that you haven't actually read the sources you are complaining about? Is that correct?
 * The quote about conservative Catholics is not from the source you mention but from an entirely different source. That quote is clearly attributed as a direct quote from a Agnieszka Graff. The cited source is freely available online. Graff explains what is meant by conservative Catholics, by, for example, placing "gender ideology" in a lineage with John Paul II's "culture of death" among other things. That some Catholics differ with the Vatican on some issues is mostly irrelevant to Graff's point.
 * As for the 'Anti-Gender Campaigns in Europe' source, it doesn't appear to have a Wikipedia page, so I have no idea what your comments are referring to. If you have some reason beyond your own WP:OR to say the source isn't reliable, you should present it, but I would recommend actually reading the source, first. For example, that source says in its first paragraph: These campaigns, started in the mid-1990s as a Catholic project in reaction to the results of the UN conferences of Cairo and Bejing, but developed significantly in several European countries after crucial encounters with right-wing populism. (emphasis added, ISBN 978-1-78660-001-1) Nothing about this contradicts the notion that Eastern Orthodox activists and TERFs also adopted this rhetoric. Grayfell (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * (Anti-Gender Campaigns in Europe does have a Wikipedia page.) LightNightLights (talk) 06:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent lead edits saying "Anti gender has nothing to do with LGB" are wrong
Two editors have recently changed "Members of the anti-gender movement oppose some LGBT rights" to "Members of the anti-gender movement oppose some transgender rights" with the reason (first time): "anti gender has nothing to do with LGB, but has to do with T" by which is false, because it started out more anti-feminist/anti-abortion/anti-sexual freedom for women. So I reverted. Then, it was changed back again (second time) with the reason: "I'm reading the citations so I might revert later, but wouldn't opposition to that World Conference be anti-feminist/anti-equality, not anti-LGB(T)?" (by ). Yes, of course, duh, but when you add the anti-feminist from that part of the body, the anti-hommosexual (elsewhere in the body) and the anti-T that IP 98 noted, what do you get when you sum all that up because you want to summarize it in the lead in a few words and not duplicate five sentences? You get, "anti-LGBT". Also, the anti-T is a johnny-come-lately addition; it didn't start out that way, although that is a big part of it now. The passage was correct before, it's wrong now. It needs to be put back the way it was. If you want to add "anti-feminist" or "anti-women" to "anti-LGBT", I won't object. Mathglot (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm indifferent on whether we should say "opposing some transgender rights" or "opposing some LGBT rights"; our citations determine that, and I haven't read them yet. I only reverted because Mathglot's rationale in their edit summary (link) seemed irrelevant on whether the anti-gender movement opposes LGBT rights or only transgender rights. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 17:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that one of the early manifestations of the movement was the manif pour tous (?) protests against gay marriage, cited sources do not support that the movement is against trans rights only. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This page is almost entirely biased
This is not an objectively written article. 170.199.130.5 (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * That isn't even close to a helpful comment. Grayfell (talk) 05:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Considering that a topic almost identical to this exists here, and there's no substantial evidence to any of your claims, it might be worth removing this topic. ChillyDude153198 (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Reproductive rights is a liberal framing term. The article uses this mutiple times so clearly it's biased. Majority of sources for the article seem to be liberal also and the article has a haranging tone and throwing around the term far-right too loosely. WP:NPOV means we should avoid bias so the comment is helpful actually. --2001:BB6:7A98:2358:F001:B12E:34D8:B145 (talk) 08:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * 2001:BB6, You should come with better, more specific arguments than assertions of "liberal bias" before removing referenced content in the article. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Oceania Section
Thanks for assuming good faith, @Buidhe.

On the Oceania section: I don't know as much about Australia but I think that the anti-gender movement definitely does exist in New Zealand and is significant enough to merit inclusion in this article. The sources I have used tend not to specifically mention the anti-gender movement and the sources don't usually tie it to the anti-gender movement overseas but nevertheless the exact rhetoric, style, proposed policies and so on are used as in the US, UK et al. Tamaki and Peters regularly refer to and whinge about 'gender ideology'. There are also more fringe groups that complain about it as well like and Family First New Zealand but I don't think they have enough coverage to be included in this article.

Sources:

New Zealand First 2023 election policies - https://www.nzfirst.nz/2023_policies "Remove gender ideology from the curriculum"

Brian Tamaki / Destiny Church - https://www.apostlebriantamaki.com/single-post/transgender-agenda-it-s-gone-too-far the stuff on Tamaki's website speaks for itself and this rhetoric been reported in secondary sources too https://www.starobserver.com.au/news/churches-make-lastditch-attempt-to-stop-nz-gay-conversion-therapy-ban/205495 - "An article that Tamaki wrote on August 12 this year titled ‘Are We Being Bullied & Overpowered By A Gay Agenda?’ has recently been circulating around on social media. ... Tamaki claimed these laws are being used to bully Christians into silence."

Because of this, I think the section should be put back. Not exactly the same as in my original edit but it should still be there.

Thanks - Watch Atlas791 (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The sources I have used tend not to specifically mention the anti-gender movement That's the crux of the issue. We are not supposed to use original analysis of the exact rhetoric, style, proposed policies and so on to decide if it's the same. One form of original analysis is classifying certain statements, individuals, etc. as part of the anti-gender movement without a source that explicitly says so. I can not find much of anything about Aus & NZ on Google Scholar, so it may be WP:UNDUE for the time being—most of the reliable sources are about Europe & Latin America. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * True. I stand corrected. Watch Atlas791 (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

"Gender Ideology" Really Shouldn't Redirect Here
I was reading an article and noticed that "Gender Ideology" redirects to Anti-Gender movement. This doesn't seem right to me, as when clicking on the page it took me to an article that opposes it, not explains it.

I think that, instead, it should redirect to this article - this better defines what the movement calls "Gender Ideology."

As it's a redirect, I posted it here rather than the talk page on the redirect itself.

ChillyDude153198 (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It looks perfectly correct to me. There is no such thing as "gender ideology". It is a concept (more or less a conspiracy theory) that only exists as a part of the rhetoric of the anti-gender movement and hence this is exactly the correct article for that phrase to redirect to in order for a reader to find out what it means and to understand its context. This article does not "oppose" anything. It just explains the anti-gender movement and their terminology including the phrase "gender ideology". Where else would you expect the phrase to redirect? We don't have, or need, a separate article for the phrase itself as that would just end up repeating more than half of what is in this article. DanielRigal (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've adjusted the redirect at Gender ideology to go to Anti-gender_movement. I hope this resolves the issue.OsFish (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Works much better, I agree thanks. I also agree that whilst "Gender Ideology is a concept,"
 * @DanielRigal My entire point was that by redirecting where it did, the link never explained what it meant. (The fact that it is more or less a conspiracy theory creates even more of a reason to show what anybody who uses the term is actually talking about) Happy editing :p ChillyDude153198 (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, next time try WP:RfD -- MikutoH talk! 22:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Eh, I think it's reasonable to ask if you're confused before jumping straight to RfD. It's pretty clear to me they're a newer editor so they probably aren't as comfortable taking leaps like that. If they had started an RfD, it probably would've been a snow keep anyways. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah not familiar with that much at all (new editor), will try using it in the future though thanks both of you guys :)
 * Additionally, the talk page for the redirect said that any changes to that page should have been discussed here, which was also I guess another point for confusion. :P ChillyDude153198 (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)