Talk:Anti-gender movement/Archive 1

Merge from LGBT ideology
I think those two articles are discussing the same concept. Particulary the LGBT ideology article is pretty bare-bones, and since the term is effectively a straw-man invented by the "Anti-gender movement", I think it would be best for the readers if all of this was centralized here. PS. I'll note that gender ideology is stated as an alternate name for the LGBT ideology but redirects here. PPS. On the topic of "gender ideology", we may need a disambig, as I think there may be a differnet meaning used in academic works like, , , and ; which suggests that in addition to the LGBT area, this term has also been used in the context of sociology of marriage. PPPS. A bit more digging shows that gender ideology used to be an article, which was then redirected by Crossroads to Gender studies, which I think was a wrong move, both as in 'wrong target', and as in 'this should have been at AfD first'. I would therefore suggest restoring the old article and considering merger with this one. And what is the best name for all of this is still up in the air... PS. I'll also ping User:Flyer22 Reborn who took part in the discussions about redirecting the old Gender article a year ago, and the creator(?) of that article, User:Mad Nick. -Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would actually support this suggestion, or actually redirect to Anti-gender movement where it is already discussed. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at the former gender ideology article, I can't see that there's much of anything worth saving. I don't think Crossroads was wrong to redirect it. (Anti-gender movement article did not exist at that time). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The issues of gender and sexuality are ipso facto conflated by dint of 'LGBT+', however there is anti-gender sentiment rising among the LGB side that manifests frequently in user comments under articles in LGBT publications such as https://www.lgbtqnation.com/, chiefly on the grounds that 'bathroom bills' and others are perceived as leading to reversals in public support for rights gains.Chrisdevelop (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose (for now). The LGBT ideology article is "bare-bones" only because it was created just last week to fill a gap in defining what "LGBT ideology" is, or is believed to be. The imperative for this article to be created arose during a discussion (now closed) on a rename for LGBT ideology-free zones, since no-one could explain what 'LGBT ideology' actually was. It may be prudent to allow this new aricle to sit for a while, to see whether other editors will contribute new insights. There are currently over 70 countries in which it is illegal for LGBT+ people to form a relationship with another LGBT+ person of the same sex, and in 10 of those (all under Islamic jurisprudence), the death penalty applies. It would be interesting to see what their views of an alleged LGBT Ideology are. It has also been suggested that this pejorative is a Trojan Horse to whip up dissent against a more liberal ideology by appealing to public prejudices against disliked minorities. It makes sense for the two articles to refer to each other, though. Chrisdevelop (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Both issues are distinctive. Anti-LGBT ideology refers to the idea that the LGBTQ+ is ideological and "attempting" to "convert" young people to LGBTQ+. I'm putting that between quotes because that's certainly not true, there exists a similar belief about Feminism being an ideology (Someone should write an article on that). Anti-genderism is much closely related to "Gender Essentialism", a Conservative belief that there cannot be more than 2 genders due to their false beliefs that sex and gender are synonymous or that adding more genders will ultimately make it harder to distinguish between people due to pronouns, one Conservative professor and spokesperson is essentialist and believes that genderism, the gender spectrum, etc is rubbish, but he has no strong opinion against or for the LGBTQ+ (Let me know if I'm wrong). This is made explicitly clear on the article. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment without opining here, I'd just like to point out that I've tagged LGBT ideology with a "Notability" concern, and added a discussion at Talk:LGBT ideology which may be relevant to this discussion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I have also linked to Homosexual agenda. This article repeats these themes. Zezen (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Lots of unwikified materials: movements much older than 2010s
Let us use sources and text from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_liberation

The first mass protests, religious based or otherwise, were already in the 1970s.

See e.g. 1976 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_in_LGBT_rights .

Or Anita Bryant's 1977 Save Our Children campaign.

Nihil novi. Zezen (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In order to avoid WP:OR, we have to use reliable sources that state these are related to the anti-gender movement. So far, several reliable sources are cited for the anti-gender movement's origin in the 1990s—you would need equal weight of sources to rewrite it something different. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, if you believe that Homosexual agenda or Save our Children is related to the anti-gender movement, please cite some reliable sources which say so explicitly. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I do believe and many more RSes and wikiedians do, too. No ad hominem, please.

More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-LGBT_rhetoric section 1.6 Anti-transgender themes et ff., with "gender" being the nomen omen.

See also your Talk page for more, including your own source. (Am on mobile so will not paste hereto).

-> Do restore, at least partially.

Or discuss here why not.

Bows Zezen (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're free to add anything to the article assuming that the cited source actually supports that it is part of the anti-gender movement. The sources that you previously cited for info, such as do not mention anti-gender at all. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Life is too short. As a WikiDragon I will leave it to others.

Bows. Zezen (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

"so called"
I don't think that we should use "so-called" in the lead. It is a term we generally try to avoid as it can often be weaselly. Obviously, we need to say something to make it clear that "gender ideology", "gender theory" and "genderism" are absolutely not real things but I am not sure that "so-called" is the correct/best way to say that. I tried changing it to what it refers to as "gender ideology", "gender theory", or "genderism" but that was reverted by Buidhe saying "reliable sources say that there is no such thing as "gender ideology", etc." I certainly didn't intend my version to imply otherwise. In fact, my intention was to express exactly that. But, if it could be misunderstood then clearly my version was not good and I'm happy for it to be reverted.

Is there some other way we can eliminate "so-called" which is more acceptable? --DanielRigal (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see the concern. Perhaps we could use your phrasing, but then add that according to scholars there is no coherent definition of these concepts:
 * "Most research starts with a definition of the main concepts and terms under investigation, as well as the issues at stake. In our case, we cannot follow this established practice, as “gender ideology” eludes all attempts to precisely define the meaning and scope of the term..." from "Gender ideology in Austria: Coalitions around an empty signifier", a chapter in Anti-Gender Campaigns in Europe
 * "In recent years several European countries have witnessed the emergence of powerful social movements mobilizing against the enemy they call “gender ideology”, “gender theory” or “genderism”. Under these labels various issues are united and attacked by conservative, partly fundamentalist groups of society, including satellite organizations of the Roman Catholic Church"
 * " Initially, the very concept of ‘gender ideology’ left many of us puzzled, having so little to do with our own perception of what our work was about. ... On the one hand, ‘gender ideology’ is a concept – a signifier for what conservative Catholics construe as the evils of liberalism in the realm of human sexuality. ‘Gender ideology’ is thus a descendant of John Paul II’s ‘culture of death’ and of the ‘bad feminism’, an idea present in Vatican’s discourse in the post-war era and (see Garbagnoli in this volume). It is also a close companion of ‘natural rights’ and ‘complementarity’. On the other hand, there is ‘gender ideology’ as a political slogan, part of transnational anti-gender mobilization, which may mean slightly different things in different contexts. Now, despite its intellectual weaknesses and internal contradictions as a concept, ‘gender ideology’ has been remarkably effective as a rallying cry. It is simply a great name for all that conservative Catholics despise, much better than ‘liberalism’ or ‘culture of death’." 10.18352/rg.10177
 * Maybe "these concepts do not have a coherent definition and cover a variety of issues, but have been described as a catch-all term 'for all that conservative Catholics despise'"? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Wording and neutrality?
I think there should be a distinction made between those who see 'gender ideology' as a grand conspiracy, and those who see it as a destructive philosophy that's being pushed by different groups but doesn't really have a conspiratorial thing behind it. For example, most Catholics I know (yes, I know anecdotal evidence obviously cannot be used in the article) don't think there's a 'secret cabal'. They just think that it's a growing movement (which it is), and that's it's wrong. I think a distinction should be made between these people and the tin-foil hat types who think there really is a new world order being devised in secret. By lumping them all together it gives the impression that they are all uneducated lunatics, when in fact many, if not most of them are not.

Additionally, is this really a neutral source? The use of an emotive term such as 'narcissism' to describe those who don't endorse the idea of gender being separate from sex doesn't seem impartial or appropriate to me.

I realise that this is a very divisive topic so please understand that I'm not trying to be inflammatory. I'd like to hear what others think/suggestions, or some advice. Thanks. 120.151.39.27 (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Editors' opinions on the topics in Wikipedia aren't relevant, only the content of reliable sources is. (And reliable sources need not be "neutral" or "impartial".) -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I recently tried to add an opinion from Debra W. Soh's book The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths about Sex and Identity in Our Society since it is clearly relevant to this article, but it was removed as an unreliable source. How can this be, since she has a recent doctoral degree is sexual psychology from an accredited university? She would appear to be the ideal informed critic on this issue. Vgy7ujm (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The topic of this article is not sexual psychology, but a political movement that is widely studied in many academic sources. WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE come into play here; just because Soh has an opinion on something doesn't mean it merits inclusion in any particular article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This article makes the unwarranted conclusion that the political movement is based wholly or predominantly on Christian scripture. Those people are fully capable of comprehending criticisms of gender studies that are based on scientific or academic grounds, and incorporating them into their criticisms. In its current form, the article should be retitled Christian opposition to gender studies. Also, the lack of primary sources from gender critics forces readers to judge the movement through the viewpoint of its vociferous critics, which may or may not be accurate, but is certainly biased. Also, an article on Christian opposition to gender issues certainly warrants a wikilink to the parallel situation in Muslim countries.Vgy7ujm (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Anti-gender movement" is the term used in reliable sources. It is not synonymous to opposition to gender studies. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is really dreadful. It has a dismissive tone and really shows a lack of curiosity, a lack of effort to understand what the beliefs or positions of this movement are. It simply dismisses it as incoherent, as Catholic religious dogma (as if being Catholic is the only possible reason anyone might have to have any skepticism toward contemporary gender studies), and hateful. Baller McGee (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Socioeconomic context missing
The socioeconomic context, the move towards more neoliberal policy in Europa and probably other countries as well, is missing in this article. There are lots of very good sources explaining this larger detail. I have written some paragraphs in the german Wikipedia and could translate it in this article, if a native speaker could assist me and proof-read the translations I could provide. --TheRandomIP (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am a native English speaker and would be happy to help in any way or copyedit additions. I agree that more context would be helpful. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your welcoming answer. I have two paragraphs. The first one is about the anti-gender movement in Europe in general:

The emergence and success of these movements, which view the term "gender" as an antagonist, is understood as a symptom of a deeper underlying socioeconomic, political, and cultural crisis of liberal democracy. Among other things, these movements are understood as a reaction to neoliberalism, meaning policies of deregulation, precarization of labor, the erosion of the welfare state and the opening of the gap between the rich and poor. In the journal Luxemburg in 2018, sociologists and political scientists analyze the term "gender" as the "symbolic glue" of the anti-gender movement, which unites different political and religious actors who would otherwise not cooperate with each other to form a broad alliance. The "gender ideology" that these actors mobilize against is seen as a metaphor for the insecurity and unfairness produced by socioeconomic order. Illiberal populists, they argue, have succeeded in tapping into people's feelings and directing them against gender equality issues. An opposition to "gender ideology" took the meaning of being against prioritizing identity politics over material issues, and the loss of social, political, and cultural security. The political left and progressives, the authors argue, have failed to stop the growing attraction to these movements. They responded by labeling opponents as backwards, biased, and sexist, and by creating a one-sided narrative of being either for or against equality; a narrative that was more successfully exploited by the right than by progressives.


 * And the second one is more specific to Poland:

Conservative elites and the Catholic Church made national identity the dominant element in public discourse, replacing the class consciousness that had previously existed until the 1990s. Frustration with socioeconomic changes (such as privatization and the weakening of labor rights) was thus directed against liberals, nonbelievers and foreigners, rather than against capitalism and the neoliberal transformation, due to the lack of class consciousness. The discourse of defending national identity acted as a "lightning rod" for social tensions, protecting the new elites and the neoliberal order that has been created in Poland since 1989.


 * Any comments or corrections? --TheRandomIP (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just make sure that analyses like these are presented as opinions, even if they are opinions by scholars. The original paragraph presented the analyses in a fashion where it came off as an objective fact rather than a scholarly interpretation of a larger phenomena. This moreso goes for the second paragraph regarding class consciousness. TomatDividedBy0 (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * TheRandomIP Thanks so much for your help here. I made some minor changes, added wikilinks, and attributed opinions to individual researchers where appropriate, then added to the article in these edits making sure to credit your authorship. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your help. I corrected some attributions since some of the authors didn't express their own opinion, rather citing someone else, or saying something like "in the literature it is seen as a reaction to neoliberal transformation of the society". And I have one comment about the sentence "Opposition to "gender ideology" took the form of prioritizing identity politics over material issues", I am not sure if this reflects the original meaning. "prioritizing identity politics over material issues" is what they are against, in the source it reads like this: "... opposition to this ideology has become a means of rejecting different facets of the current socioeconomic order, from the prioritization of identity politics over material issues, and the weakening of people’s social, cultural and political security ...". --TheRandomIP (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
I feel that the lead was fairly concise, including information regarding the movement's Catholic roots, but I do believe that it could have been explained in a clearer manner. Jakobkatchem (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Anyone can edit! Please feel free to improve the article as you see fit. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Political and Cultura Bias
Much of the article has not proper references or footnotes and the opening lines do not follow the good-faith-based Wikipedia policy. The fact that the anti-gender movement is inspired by religion or any religious movement does not allow outright rejection. Finally, and most clearly, the idea that sexual identity is a social construct has no scientific base. These good-faith requirements must be met before untagging the NPOV.--86.6.148.125 (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * This is about gender identity not "sexual identity". Overall, your complaint seems confused enough that it does not justify the tagging. Referencing is not required in the introduction so long as the intro only includes content that is referenced in the body. If there are any specific thing you feel are not referenced in the article then please feel free to raise those here. Please do not tag it again. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)