Talk:TERF (acronym)

Move discussion at Talk:Gender-critical_feminism
It has been proposed on its talk page that Gender-critical feminism be renamed and moved to Trans-exclusionary radical feminism.

As this also touches upon the contents of this article, I wanted to notify all involved editors here as well. TucanHolmes (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Addition and subsequent removal of material from section "TERF Island"
The previous title of this section was 'Unclear why a source would be needed'. The first comment refers to this original title. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

'Unclear why a source would be needed'
What?  Are you unaware of WP:VERIFY, which says: This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * In your revert, you specifically removed the following material from the article:
 * "A number of anti-trans pressure groups have formed in Great Britain, such as For Women Scotland, LGB Alliance, Safe Schools Alliance, Transgender Trend, and Woman's Place UK."
 * With your stated reason being:
 * "[...] delete unsourced material"
 * While the use of "anti-trans pressure groups" obviously needs more citations, it is clear from the associated articles on Wikipedia that the material you removed could easily be sourced (note that I am focussing on verifiability instead of e.g. notability, since that is the reason you used to delete the material). In the case of LGB Alliance, the trans-exclusionary nature is evident from the name alone. The material could have easily been changed or tagged, but that is not what you chose to do; you simply removed it. Our Editing policy asks us to try to fix problems instead of just removing material, and in this case, the fix was right at hand (simply examining the linked articles would have sufficed). Had you used notability or a similarly different justification, I would not have reverted you outright, but in this case the reasoning was, in my opinion, just insufficient. TucanHolmes  (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So, for example, a simple fix could have been:
 * "A number of anti-trans or trans-exclusionary groups have formed in Great Britain, such as [...]"
 * Easy to cite, easy to verify, a simple rewording, and the material could have stayed in the article. If you wish to remove it on different grounds, I am open to discussing that, but "unsourced" is just not a sufficient reason (again, you could have simply checked the articles that were linked in this paragraph). TucanHolmes  (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I note that you did not provide any citations, so this is still unsourced. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am just a human. I cannot reply and cite material at the same time. TucanHolmes  (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes you can cite . Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That is not what I meant. TucanHolmes  (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * TucanHolmes, we're all humans. Please take your time. Once you have reliable sources to support your proposed content, feel free to re-add it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources are all contained in the respective Wikipedia articles. It is a simple matter of gathering them, although I'm unsure how to handle bulk sourcing in this case. Is there a specific procedure? TucanHolmes  (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you bring all the sources here, I'd be happy to format them for you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have tagged the material for now. I will look for advice on how to handle such a case. TucanHolmes  (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) TucanHolmes, you have again added material without a citation. And please tell me which of the sources refers to Allison Bailey, which was added by the other editor without any additional citation, or comment. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please give me some time. I have to decide on which sources to take from the respective articles so the number is as small as possible. I don't have a magic storage deposit full of appropriate sources. This is not a case where reliable sources cannot be found; they are on Wikipedia, you could go look for them yourself. (Again, the articles are linked. The information is already there.) You don't need to put the onus solely on me, any editor could do this. Verifiability specifically states
 * "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." TucanHolmes  (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised to see the "some time" argument again. There's no rush to add this content. It can wait until there's appropriate sourcing. We're looking not just for articles that call the groups "anti-trans", but sources that talk about them in the context of "TERF island". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I am operating under the assumption that the material in question is merely meant to be supplementary, to give context and illustrate the situation in the UK, since there is no claim that these groups contributed to the label in Wikivoice (merely in the context, if you want to read it that way). If that is the issue in question, it is of course tricky to find citations. I was referring to the claim that these groups are anti-trans or trans-exclusionary. TucanHolmes  (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, we know that, you need sources to make that claim, sources you seemed to say you had. Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you read my response? There is no claim in the material in question that these groups contributed to that label. I read it (interpreted it) differently. And no, of course I can't find sources for this more specific claim, at least not easily. You can stop now. TucanHolmes  (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If there are no sources about "TERF island" that talk about specific groups, then this article—which is meant to summarize such sources—shouldn't say anything on the matter. I'm not opposed to a little supplementary material here and there, but this content is too substantive to not be guided by sources about the actual subject. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The way I see it is that "terf island" is a shorthand for the prominence of GC discourse on the isle. To me, you should totally have a string of notable names and a string of notable orgs in the section, so a Wikipedia user can click on each notable name and notable org to get a sense of what the heck people are talking about when they talk about "TERF island." Also, the same thing or similar should be on the "gender critical" page's UK entry.
 * So i would think we want someone who reads a reference to "TERF island" or reads a sentence in a newspaper about "some folks say that gender critical feminists are prominent in the Uk" to be able to come to Wikipedia and find examples of the scholars and orgs that we mean.
 * Just like if someone looked up "90s East Coast hiphop" ' they need a list of prominent practitioners to understand what people mean by the expression or phrase. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually 90s East Coast hiphop is a bad one bc it speaks for itself. Its more like if someone said "garage music" or "smooth jazz" or "hair metal" - examples of who makes that kind music is critical to get a sense of what the heck folks mean exactly by the esoteric expression. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

And wp:v, specificaly wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment
I mixed up my edit summaries between this and another revert I planned on doing. Apologies; the correct edit summary should have been "[...] we should not just remove material, at least for the organisations which already have Wikipedia articles." TucanHolmes (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Consensus on semantics
There appears to be a substantial consensus that the sentences "A number of groups have formed in Great Britain to campaign against changes to transgender rights, such as For Women Scotland, LGB Alliance, Safe Schools Alliance, Transgender Trend, and Woman's Place UK. These groups have been variously described as anti-trans or trans-exclusionary." in the context of the section "TERF Island" are to be read/understood as claiming that these groups, or rather, the perception of these groups, contributed to the name "TERF Island". I cannot provide citations for that claim, and so unless it is decided that a rewording could clear up this point, I will not go forward with any such addition.

Since these groups are also variously called "trans-exclusionary" (see their respective articles), I interpreted these two sentences as being supplementary, i.e. noting that these groups, individually, are also being called "trans-exclusionary", and I inferred – apparently incorrectly – that their presence was supposed to illustrate that the issue of what is called "TERF"/gender-critical (unsure how to categorize it?) activism in the UK is not just confined to outspoken celebrities / people in the public eye. TucanHolmes (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * THere is no consensus for this, there is a consensus to include any mention of these groups as being against changes to transgender rights yo need sources saying this. Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I cannot make sense out of your response. TucanHolmes  (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No one (apart from you) has suggested this is about they "contributed to the name "TERF Island", it is about the idea they can only be accused of "campaign against changes to transgender rights" if RS make the accusation. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Firefangledfeathers’ comment above of 16:31 15 April 2024. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * it is about the idea they can only be accused of "campaign against changes to transgender rights" if RS make the accusation.
 * From the lead paragraphs of the Wikipedia articles about these organizations:

Safe Schools Alliance is the only organisation mentioned which does not have a Wikipedia article.


 * Judging from this, I'd say that at least "opposition to transgender rights" and "anti-trans" are well-sourced. The "campaign" is indeed debatable, and a matter of how the sources should be summarised. TucanHolmes  (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

New section (Roxy)
I'm not sure where to put this comment so I'm breaking it out here. I don't think we particularly need to illustrate the point here by naming British terves, and it may be counter-productive. J.K. Rowling comes up a few times as the ur-example of a U.K. transphobe, but otherwise, sources don't consider necessary in explaining, so we shouldn't either. I've made this revision to the section, which refocuses the text and citations onto the term, not on proving the prevalance of TERFism inside vs. outside the UK. I kept the Judith Butler sentence and quoted their book, although outside of the interviewer saying the term I don't see its relevance ("TERF island" does not appear in the book, as far as I can tell) so this might also be removed. Most of this material belongs on articles more focused on the ideology itself. If consensus is against this change I hope the new citations are at least useful. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I think that's fine as you have revised it. One thing that would be good is somewhere that a list of links to notable scholars/activists and notable orgs in the UK are collected in a paragraph. Like we need someone who is trying to understand the concept to be able to look at the prominent voices and groups in the field. That was why i had that list of UK humans plus that list of UK orgs in the first place as it it is hard to understand what this thing is without looking at the particular notable scholars/thinkers. It's like trying to understand an article about house music or jazz without naming some jazz artists or house artists.  Bhdshoes2 (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Brave article
I was pleasantly surprised such a balanced article about such a contentious topic on Wikipedia of all places. Rather than just making the word out to be a harmless expression thrown out by perfectly charming and harmless people against evil bigots, it discusses and explains the term in a scrupulously neutral and objective manner. Good job. 2A00:23C4:AA1D:4A01:E501:DC6B:D169:5010 (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)