Talk:TERF (acronym)/Archive 2

Quotation Marks
those quotation marks really aren't "scare quotes". The term "gender critical" isn't commonly known. The quotes serve to let readers not already in-the-know that the terminology is a specific ideology or viewpoint. At least one to start out with to make readers aware of the terminology isn't scare quoting. Terminology that is widely-used and known would be scare-quoted in this instance. This is a very niche term most probably aren't aware of. I suggest putting the marks back.  Gwen Hope  (talk) (contrib) 07:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , are they from a specific source that is being quoted? If not, then no quotation marks, no matter how un-scary they are. I know of no MOS guideline supporting the use of quotation marks for the reason you allude to. (See MOS:QUOTEMARKS, MOS:QUOTATIONS.) Perhaps what you are looking for, is this: "Italics can be used to mark a particular usage as a term of art (a case of "words as words"), especially when it is unfamiliar or should not be reworded by a non-expert." &mdash;MOS:CONFORM Mathglot (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)  corrected WAW target, per  below; by Mathglot (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * While they might not be intended as scare quotes that is the way they come across. In controversial subjects we should avoid ambiguity. I would suggest using italics if you want to highlight the word. I don't think it is necessary though as whether it is commonly known enough is subjective and the sentence makes it clear how the term is applied. AIRcorn (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I was in the middle of adding this, essentially the same point as Aircorn: Even if it is a direct quotation, it shouldn't be quoted if it might be mistaken for scare quotes. See MOS:CONFORM Endangered example. Mathglot (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I knew as soon as I edit conflicted with you that we were both saying the same thing. Thanks for providing the links. I knew they were somewhere, but am a bit rusty. AIRcorn (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Whenever it's an issue of terminology, we should definitely be using italics, per MOS:WAW (not per WP:WAW, which is about something else). I think the first two instances of it in the article should be italicized. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support italicization per above. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with italics. Haukur (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I suppose the MOS page implies we should have terf in italics too, as we did previously. I have no strong feelings about this. LGBT uses italics. Gay is not entirely consistent. Cuckservative uses scare quotes. Haukur (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I hadn't noticed that. The MOS page prescribes (not implies) that all of these articles should be using italics when referring to terms as terms. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As a compound adjective, it should be hyphenated as gender-critical anyway. —&thinsp;AReaderOutThataway&thinsp;t/c 09:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about gender critical being a compound adjective. Last I looked gender was a noun. Then again we live in a world constantly evolving language. Sick use to mean unwell, now it means something analogous to great.Oldperson (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Might I just point out that "sky-blue" (or is it "sky blue"? As I recall, English is not prescriptive here) is considered an adjective in and of itself, despite "sky", well, being a noun? Nouns are often used as adjectives (e.g., nounA nounB == nounB in the manner of/possessing some quality of nounA), and this is nothing new or unique to English. Arguably a number of colour adjectives are just nouns which we have stopped parsing as nouns—consider "gold" and "orange". Generic Rice (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This whole discussion around "gender critical" is a distraction. The term is nonsense contrived to divert attention from TERFs, I have no idea what gender critical or gender-critical means.   As it stands it means someone who is critical of the usage of the word gender. Maybe critical of designating genders.  The phrase would be especially nonsense in languages, like Spanish,which engender inanimate objects like tables(mesa). Maybe gender critical would best apply to those younguns (I'm 80 years of age) that describe themselves as non binary (a term I still don't understand..generation gap).```~

Page views and improving the article
If you look at the page views graph in the header section above, you can see that in the last couple of days the average page views rocketed from around 1,200 per day, to 40,000 on December 19th. What's going on? It is the result of a single Tweet by J.K. Rowling and its aftermath, which you can read about in Forbes, or Vanity Fair or. You can view |TERF|Radical_feminism|J._K._Rowling this 4-way pageviews graph comparing TERF views with J.K. Rowling views, both of which went up, and also with Radical feminism and Transgender, which did not. (You can see how our page views compare with Google searches here.)

I'm not making an argument in this discussion that this Tweet and the kerfuffle that followed should or shouldn't be considered for addition to the article. Rather, I'm calling attention to pageviews awareness and asking for vigilance. I added the page views widget a while back, not just out of curiosity (although that's a valid reason) but so we could monitor fluctuating attention to the article, to help us gauge when something might be going on we were perhaps not aware of that might indicate some new sources that might be useful, or a new event that might need reporting on. So, watch the graph from time to time, and see if the data might be pointing us to something that could be used to improve the article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Self-published sources tag
Which sources in particular do you think should be removed? At least some should be, but I think it would be better to tag the questionable SPS individually while they are under discussion. If the main issue is the Davis and McCready draft paper, which I still maintain should be removed, it may be necessary to start an RfC on it. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily against an Rfc, but not sure it's the best resolution method, either. If this is about trying to figure out whether this source should or shouldn't be used to verify content in this article, then the Reliable sources noticeboard seems like a good starting point, as that is a centralized location for this type of question, and will also attract a broader set of editors who are familiar with the subtleties of this type of question. Someone here could lay out a brief intro of the topic, with links to one or more discussions on this page, and the questionable SPS. That's where I'd start. Mathglot (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I see the worst as Serano, Cameron, Davis and McCready (unless this has now been published properly) and McKinnon. It is not a Reliable Source issue per se as the way we present it with attribution meets our reliable source requirements. Every source is reliable if presented properly. It is more an issue of excessive use of self published sources, particularly concentrated in one section. I would go the undue route personally. Why are we choosing these sources if they are not being mentioned in secondary ones? As to removal I would go for all. I have seen a previous argument that these balance each other out and if that is consensus then fine, I just don't feel this is the route we should go down (a general bugbear of mine at other articles as well). AIRcorn (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally I agree; I'd rather not see an article turn into a bunch of people posting their opinions (even if it's balanced on both sides), since anyone can just use Google to look those up anyway. I'd strongly prefer using peer-reviewed academic journal articles as sources than anything else, especially for a contentious topic like this. Yilangren (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Peer reviewed academic articles are not appropriate, nor will they be found. We are talking about a neologism, a colloquialism, a newly coinded phrase that is just finding it's way into the common language. It is applied towards a very small minority of the population, hardly justification for an academic article. The only sources that make sense or those found in the common realm, which includes (at this point) Youtube and self published sources. When the subject matures to the point that it is ripe and smells like Limburger cheese, then perhaps there will be sufficient mainstream reliable sources and even academic articles, till then we are limited to the limited offerings in popular culture.If Peer reviewed academic articles were the source for subjects like this,then no such articles would exist. That brings me to the objections of Other than the fact that Serrano, DavisMcReadyandRachel McKinnon do a very effective job of discussing and defining Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists, what is your real objection to them as sources? Given my response to Yilangren, if you eliminate them then you eliminate the subject and topic.Oldperson (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A cursory search of "trans-exclusionary" led me to find 36 peer-reviewed academic journal articles, and that's only from what my small university can access. Yilangren (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

There's still one article by Pilgrim which we haven't used at all, it has this:

"Those feminists who resist accepting transwomen, as real women, are often known descriptively, within the debate, as ‘TERFS’ (‘trans-exclusionary radical feminists’). At the outset, this was a neutral description but increasingly it took on derogatory connotations and is now considered a slur by those described, who tend to prefer the term ‘gender-critical feminists’. The latter argue that a man cannot become a woman and that cross-dressing or medical intervention will never create the objective and subjective conditions of full patriarchal oppression. The blurred line between the personal vulnerabilities of individual trans-people and their collective societal position, as a social movement, can prompt trans-activists and their supporters to reject these gender-critical feminist arguments for being bigoted and ‘transphobic’ (e.g. Pearce 2018)."

This is recent, academic, and to the point. Haukur (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's recent, and to the point, but it's not academic in the sense we want. We're not just looking for academic papers but for academic papers in the relevant field, and philosophy outside of philosophy of language is not a relevant field. David Pilgrim, whose expertise is mainly in sociology and health policy, might be able to speak on the general conflict between trans activists and TERFs, but that's not what this article is about. This article is about the term "TERF", which means that the relevant experts here are linguists. The reason I found the Davis and McCready paper and why I strongly advocate for keeping it is that since David and McCready are linguists, it's one of the very few academic papers written by *relevant* experts. Loki (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with this restriction. The meaning of a social label absolutely is relevant to philosophy and sociology. I think this source is much better than draft papers and YouTube videos. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I certainly have nothing against linguists (I'm one myself) but I think a published academic paper from any field compares favorably with opinion articles and newspaper coverage. Haukur (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I do wish to point out regarding Pilgrim's (as I am the one who discovered his source) that while it's a journal, it's a philosophy journal about a certain niche metaphysical viewpoint. The papers published are coming from and attempting to wrap the world in that ideology. This isn't a typical journal which focuses on a branch of inquiry or study, but instead is based in philosophic ideology of which the papers are investigations into certain topics or perspectives and whether or not they conform said ideology.
 * Additionally, it's an important point to note that Pilgrim, despite the fact he heavily goes anti-trans and pro-TERF in the sourcing based on his ideology, admits the term/acronym is descriptive. He just says, like those called TERFs, that they don't like it anymore because the term connotes the particular TERF ideology and the majority of usage by people it doesn't describe comes with a negative light because of the ideological attachment. We are running into the divide between ontic understanding of the term and perception. (Which heavily reminds me of a recent twitter thread regarding the term "white supremacy" where Mr. Harriot examines the difference between functional vs ideological usages of the term.)  Gwen Hope  (talk) (contrib) 20:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Crossroads recently removed several of these. Three of them (Serano, Cameron, and McKinnon's video) I'm not terrible broken up about (although I feel like McKinnon's video is justifiable given that she's cited as an academic source elsewhere in the article). However, the Davis and McCready paper is academic and extremely relevant to the page, even if it is a draft paper. I'd very much like to add it back. (Failing that, McCready has a published book that has a part about the linguistics of slurs which would be clearly relevant if it contained the term "TERF".) Loki (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have restored the previous stable version as this discussion proceeds. Also, Crossroads has consistently misread and misapplied WP:SPS, which should not be used as a rationale for removing citations to experts in their respective fields (linguistics, in this case). Newimpartial (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion had clearly run out on its own, with no consensus in favor of including them as WP:ONUS requires: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. It is you who is misusing WP:SPS, and also ignoring WP:SECONDARY. SPS states: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable... - note, not necessarily WP:DUE. And SPS states: Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. Finally, WP:SECONDARY states: Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. The article is complete and thorough without the SPS, so there is no valid reason to cherry pick the ones anyone thinks are appropriate. Note that two sides could play at that game. Better to keep the SPS off the article. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As I noted elsewhere, Crossroads has a habit of misreading WP:SPS, and nobody is suggesting that we include these sources indiscriminately, or without caution-that would be a straw person argument. And Crossroads' reference to SECONDARY is nothing short of hilarious, since the inclusion that I am interested in defending (notably by Davis and McCready) is precisely a self-published but reliable secondary source by acknowledged experts (in this case, experts in slurs). The fact that Crossroads is unable to distinguish among self-published sources based on their reliability according to policy, but only based on which side they are on (see this edit summary) is at least consistent over time. Contra his editing practice, there is no policy-compliant reason to consider non-expert primary source commentary reliable while excluding unpublished work by experts with their field of academic specialization. And ONUS is not the general policy governing inclusion of content that meets WP:V criteria, by the way; that would be WP:WEIGHT. Newimpartial (talk) 18:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure there can be cases for including SPS's in a controversial article. Parity is one that springs to mind. They are generally discouraged though, we can't even use them on non-controversial BLPs. The draft paper was supposed to appear in Grazer Philosophische Studien, but it doesn't seem to be there yet. There is no WP:DEADLINE so it might be best to wait. By secondary I think Crossroads means that the SPSs are mentioned in them, giving them some weight (i.e. a reliable secondary source mentions the youtube series). If that is the case using them is kinda moot as the secondary source itself is more suitable, but they could be provided as a convenience link. AIRcorn (talk) 09:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's slated to appear in the first 2020 issue. Here is the editor's introduction to that issue (mentioning it), which has already been released.  It seems pointless to remove it now only to restore it shortly aftewards when that issue comes out. --Aquillion (talk) 06:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That link just gives a big error message to me. AIRcorn (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Odd, perhaps some sort of direct-link protection. I've updated it to a Google Scholar search result that it can be accessed from. --Aquillion (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Unjustified revert
This revert is totally unjustified. First it not not SUPER POV, it is relevant, in fact the argument can be made that the neologicsm gender critical is in itself POV as it is admittedly an evasion on the part of Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists, and was coined for that purpose. The statement in the edit summary that it is not relevant because the source does not mention TERFs is a non starter, because the source addresses the issue of the word gender critical, which is the term used in the lede. Since edit warring is verboten and there is a 1rr perhaps another editor would consider reverting the revert.Oldperson (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Perhaps another editor would consider reverting the revert" is an endorsement of edit warring, and constitutes attempting to recruit people to do it for you. Instead, you should follow WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. WP:ONUS states: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.
 * Now, what you attempted to add is POV and not needed. The term "gender critical" is not presented in Wikipedia's voice; and that the term is disputed, the various views of the term TERF, and the overall issue of terminology to refer to this grouping, are already well covered. It was POV in how it was framed. We don't need more cherry picked opinion pieces. And the source is not about the term TERF at all, so it is not relevant to this article. Finally, stating "anti-trans" in Wikipedia's voice is effectively the same as "transphobic", which is not allowed per the extensive RfC on that word. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * That whole discussion goes nowhere. There is no resolution and transphobic is still a valid description, just as homophobic,white nationalist, racist. And your comment above is simply your  own opinion, which quite apparently is strongly anti trans POV. And the article uses the term gender critical, and my edit adds information pertinent to  the neologism "gender critical. Oh did I accuse you of not AGF or having an ulterior motive. I certainly did, maybe it is bad form, and Wikipedians aren't suppose to resort to such, however considering your very firm, often stated critical  position and  your self admitted interest in human sexuality. Stating that you appear to  be transphobic is not an unjust or unwarranted accusation, it arises from your hundreds or is it thousands of edits, such as your statement above when you accuse of bad faith, albeit indirectly, by claiming that I cherry picked opion pieces. And yes my edit was necesssary, because you or someone else introduced the neologism "gender critical" which is an obfuscatory term to disguise transphobia.And transphobia is not a prohbited term,Oldperson (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "And your comment above is simply your own opinion, which quite apparently is strongly anti trans POV." This has gone far enough. The personal attacks against other editors you disagree with are unacceptable. You've been editing under your user name since 12 August 2018, and since then you've been warned by several editors about inappropriate behavior. One more personal attack against any editor of this article, or any article, and you will be facing a misconduct ANI. You don't get a pass to attack editors because you've only been editing for 1-1/2 years. And you certainly don't get a pass because of a personal status. Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 06:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

She/he has added more kindle to the fire: 16:46, 3 January 2020. Pyxis Solitary  (yak). L not Q. 02:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * question - is there some precedent on Wikipedia that "anti-trans POV" is treated in the same special class as antisemitic, there use of the term is considered a personal attack? Or should it be in the same category as antifeminist, which is not? This isn't a rhetorical question - I really haven't seen any discussion one way or the other, as far as Tall pages and civility are concerned. Newimpartial (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oldperson also stated, Oh did I accuse you of not AGF or having an ulterior motive. I certainly did...your very firm, often stated critical position...Stating that you appear to be transphobic is not an unjust or unwarranted accusation, it arises from your hundreds or is it thousands of edits. All of those constitute personal attacks. Perhaps  would like to retract their baseless attacks? And Newimpartial, I am frankly sick of your behavior towards me, stating false things about me in the RfC, and now supporting this user's attacks. This is harassment, and if you continue like this, you will find yourself at ANI too. Lastly, anti-trans is obviously an accusation of bigotry, one I strenuously reject, and is equivalent to anti-semitic as referring to being against a type of person. Antifeminist would also be an attack in most cases, however. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to be reminded to read WP:PA, WP:CIVIL. Any questions and comments you may have regarding Oldperson's behavior should be reserved for the ANI.
 * From these deflections, selective quotations and goalpost-moving, I take it that there is to date there is no consensus that "anti-trans POV" is understood as a personal attack on WP. And Crossroads, I have always given evidence for any statements I have made about your editing, quite different from your own attacks (this time you assert without evidence that I have "stated false things" about you, which I have never done. Your false parallel argument about antisemitism is especially laughable given your refusal to respond to my quite apt deconstruction of your argumentation that follows immediately below. I look forward to a higher quality of discourse at ANI. Newimpartial (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment - I would like to set aside the personal attacks and counterattacks and deal with the substance of this discussion. Crossroads, you misstate the content of Oldperson's edit in several ways - it does not even use the term "anti-trans activism" in wikivoice; rather it states in wikivoice that "gender critical" is used as a label for anti-trans activism. You can disagree with the sources - and I'd be interested in seeing the sources you would bring to bear to do this - but calling it a "POV edit" is unsupported by evidence and seems hotheaded on your part. And you insist - again without evidence - that "anti-trans activism" is an equivalent term to transphobia, then cite an RfC about this different term in relation to another part of the article. This obstacle course of slippery slopes and moving goalposts does not represent the values of AGF and WP:V to which we are all supposed to aspire, here on WP. Newimpartial (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is such a contrived defense, I see no need to respond beyond pointing that out. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I also honestly do not think that Oldperson's original edit is "SUPER POV" or even POV. It's got three parts: a part that changes "gender critical" to "gender critical, another word for anti-trans activism" plus adds a source for that claim, a part which changes "point to its use in insults in violent rhetoric" to "say that it has been used in insults and violent rhetoric", and a part that removes the line "Though contested, the term has since become an established part of contemporary feminist speech." Out of those, I would say that the first is anti-TERF (but it adds a reliable source for it and the existing source pretty clearly held this opinion as well), the second is neutral, and the third is actually pro-TERF (since it benefits TERFs to claim that a term they oppose is not well-established). Which is to say, it moves the article in both POV directions and the only controversial claim it added, it sourced.
 * I don't think Oldperson has been arguing their case very well here, but if we focus solely on the edit in question, I think it was overall fine. Certainly not so POV it needed to be immediately reverted. Loki (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The source is a "guest post", an op-ed; not a reliable source for statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice (cf. WP:RSOPINIONS). - Ryk72 talk 22:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I had not read the source before. Its title is "Recognizing Gender Critical Feminism as Anti-Trans Activism (guest post)" with the subtitle " Recognizing Gender Critical Feminism as Anti-Trans Activism by three anonymous philosophers ", because as the article's lead states it is "a guest post by three philosophers who wish to remain anonymous". If we are going to use and include a source by anonymous writers, we might as well open the door to all anonymously written sources. Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 04:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

"in" vs. "alongside"
This edit does not reflect the sources and breaks both WP:NPOV and WP:TONE, since it adds a strident tone that most of sources do not reflect. From the sources for that statement: Emphasis mine. The other sources, at least at a quick glance, do not specifically mention violence or characterize how the speaker thinks it is related to it; furthermore, Inside Higher Ed is the only secondary source, and the quote it highlights clearly uses accompanied by. On an Alleged Case of Propaganda quotes many things that imply the connection, but cautiously avoids stating or characterizing it specifically. We need to be extremely careful about what we say when reporting such contested and controversial claims; the fact that some of the most well-known voices criticizing the term were careful to hedge their words with qualifying statements like "alongside" or "accompanied by" is something that we have to reflect when summarizing their views. I'd accept either "alongside" or "accompanied by" (since the sources use both), but we have to include one of those two disclaimers, since the sources were careful to do so. --Aquillion (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Online, it often it appears alongside violent rhetoric
 * As for Sosa’s response, Allen said it was “inadequate.” TERF is “frequently accompanied by threats of violence, rape and death,


 * Thanks for taking the time to take such a close look at the sources here. -sche (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Since the phrase "alongside violent rhetoric" is copied from the source that you quoted (you didn't provide it, but it's this one), it is not an editor's original composition. Therefore, it should include quotation marks. Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 11:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To include quotation marks, we would have to name the source in prose, but then we'd be ignoring the other source. It's three words long so I don't think there's need for quotation marks, but to assuage this concern we could change it to "alongside violent language". — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that. Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 04:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Is Bitch Media a reliable source?
I'm sorry if I'm offending any sensibilities, I'm not used to these weird Urban Dictionary-style articles, but is the blog called Bitch Media a reputable source?--Adûnâi (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a publication, not a blog, and it appears to exercise professional editorial oversight. So pending additional information, I'd say it fits WP's criteria for a reliable source, which is presumably the relevant criterion. Newimpartial (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. See Bitch (magazine). As with any source, context matters so if it is used to support a WP:REDFLAG claim that can't be verified elsewhere let's talk. That doesn't seem to be the case in its current usage, though. As Newimpartial notes, it's not a blog. VQuakr (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Yes, it's not a blog, it's a magazine with (an online edition and) an editorial board; see our article (Bitch (magazine)) for more. Of course, as editors often say in discussions of whether or not something is reliable, it's good to look at what it's being used for (and whether it's reliable for that), which your comment has prompted me to do. :-) In this case, this article cites one Bitch article to support three sentences; all three are statements "in wikivoice"; the latter two already cite additional sources and the first (Some identify themselves as gender critical, in the lead) could have additional sources added if anyone would like: besides the sources cited for the article-body sentence which that lead-sentence is summarizing, here is (for example) a New Republic piece speaking of "self-described 'gender-critical feminists'—also called trans-exclusionary radical feminists, or TERFs". So, the source is reliable and is being used reasonably, AFAICT. (It's also not vital, since other sources either are or could be cited for everything it's being cited for, but the more reliable sources the merrier...) -sche (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It's the web publication of a magazine, not a blog. And as a well-established feminist magazine, it's a reasonable source to cite for things related to feminism.  Also, the things we're currently citing it for aren't particularly WP:EXCEPTIONAL anyway:  Those referred to with the word TERF typically reject the term or consider it a slur. Some identify themselves as gender critical in the lead, a similar bit in the body, and The people at whom the word TERF is directed often characterize it as a slur or hate speech.  Those aren't things anyone disputes, I think (though some people might say we should word them differently or go into more detail as mentioned in disputes above.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

TERF is not a subset, nor a term that is used to describe people who are not TERFs
A subseet of radical feminists? How many subsets of RadFems are there? From what I've seen on this page and elsewheres, TERF's are indeed a minority. Calling them a subset enlarges and obfuscates situation and the population. Trans(women) Exclusionary Radical Feminists may not like being referred to as TERF's, but TERFdom is not a physiological or psychological issue, it is an attitudinal issue. And attitudes can be adjusted and even reversed. I know so from personal experience. So tough on Trans(women) Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs)Since TERF is an acronym that includes, specifically, radical feminists. It is illogical to claim that the termTERF has come to apply to persons who are not RadFems.I see where the acronym has taken on meaning as a derogatory term, so has the word gay (i.e. that is so gay (stupid)), amongst others such as "sick"there is nothing one can do about changes in the popular language. Trans(woman) Exclusionary Radical Feminist is an accurate description of those radical feminists who exclude transwomen. TERF is simply an acronym. TERFs who resent the acronym have the option and ability cease and desist from their behavior.Oldperson (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I also agree with this revision but mostly because there's plenty of sources in this article already that say they're a minority and not merely a subset. Calling them a "subset" instead of a "minority" is not WP:NPOV because it artificially makes them sound larger than the sources say they are. Loki (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've looked through the sources and can't find any mention of this term being used against a minority of radical feminists. Can you or someone else please point out exactly where it explicitly says this? Otherwise it should remain "subset" per sources. Thanks. Yilangren (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources don't exist, or at least have not been presented here, in any way like the proponents of this wording suggest. The best source previously was a daily dot article which was far too poor to use without attribution, and probably even with. Another source brought up was a Canadian interview of six people from feminist organisations where the editor promoting it as one of the best sources drew their own conclusions that were in opposition to what the interviewer concluded in the paper. This is all detailed above at . I added a New Yorker article, but even that doesn't really say minority. Vague handwaving and pontificating counts for nothing here. Present the sources which support the wording so we can judge it. AIRcorn (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * My argument is basically that you're applying an insane standard to these sources. We have by my count seven sources, including some quite high quality ones, that all say or imply that TERFs are a minority. We have at least one source (the Daily Dot) that's listed as reliable on WP:RSP saying explicitly "TERFs are a minority". This is opposed by exactly zero sources of any strength that say or even imply they're a majority. Even when they're interviewed in the New Yorker piece they themselves agree they're a minority.
 * Look, here's even another one: "Though TERFism got its start in the US in the ’70s, the ideology has largely fallen out of favor as the country’s mainstream feminist movement has continuously battled against the religious right for abortion access and LGBTQ rights."
 * These sources in favor are balanced against zero sources against. This is the real kicker for me: even if you somehow think that all these sources are flawed, who's saying the opposite? Can anyone find even one opposing source to prove this is a real controversy and not just motivated by a desire for WP:FALSEBALANCE? Loki (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am applying a normal standard if we want to make a generalisation using wikivoice. You are the one that insists on using subpar sources and a major reason why we have so many poor self published sources in this article. The WP:ONUS is on the editors wanting to add information to provide the sources that back up the information in the form they are presenting it, and no the daily dot (reliable for "internet culture", which explains why every article seems to call on random twitter users) does not do it. There is no requirement to prove the opposite unless editors are trying to say that TERFs are the majority. So far nobody is even remotely suggesting that. AIRcorn (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Aircorn. Loki, note how that Daily Dot source you mentioned said that "TERFs are a minority" of feminists as a whole, not of radical feminists in particular. If you (or anyone else) can't find a source that explicitly states that this term is applied to a minority of radical feminists, then it needs to be changed back to "subset" or some other wording that matches the sources. I expect an encyclopaedic article to be accurate, so asking for a source for such a claim is not being "insane" or unreasonable. Yilangren (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I changed it back to subset, in both occurrences of the sentence. I remember the previous discussion on the word linked by Aircorn, and no sources supporting it turned up in that extensive debate. None have done so now either. The Vox piece was only about the United States and is about the "mainstream feminist movement", not everyone who identifies as feminist. And as Aircorn pointed out, no, the Daily Dot is not an RS for this purpose. WP:RSP states that Daily Dot is generally reliable for note this! Internet culture. It also states, Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. It is obviously not at all scholarly, so it does not. As Aircorn also notes, the Canadian interview of 6 people actually reached different conclusions than the claim being made. And no, it is not necessary to find sources that use "majority" unless that is being claimed, which it is not. Either claim is problematic, because "feminist" is vague - is it referring to everyone who identifies as feminist in a survey, to feminist organizations, internet activists, or what. And crucially, the source would need to be not specific to just one country, since the claim being made is a general one that applies everywhere.
 * WP:NOR is policy and overrides any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that it is sourced because 'I just know it is true', or that synthesizing sources together merits inclusion. If there is a source that supports it, then it should be trivial for one of the small handful of editors who really really really want it included to turn up a quote from an RS that says it. The WP:ONUS to create consensus for this is on those who want to include the stronger wording. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But the sources presented above do plainly indicate that they're a minority; your personal opinion that that reading is WP:OR isn't policy. If you disagree with the people who say the sources support the current wording, you need a consensus for that, too.  Obviously every experienced editor always feels that their arguments are supported by policy, but that doesn't mean you can just ignore a consensus that says otherwise. --Aquillion (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion at this point seems to verge on trolling. As mentioned repeatedly here, none of the sources state that the term applies to a minority of radical feminists. Either provide a source that says so, or leave it as "subset" (or some other word supported by the sources). Yilangren (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Most participants here are not trolling, you are just seeing the standard disagreements between editors when it comes to reliability of sources. Particularly on controversial topics that tend to attract editors with strong opinions on the topic. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason I thought it was trolling was because there's yet to be presented any sources (of whatever calibre) that state TERF is applied to a minority of radical feminists. Feminists, yes; radical feminists, no. I really don't understand the need for further debate on something that is literally not there, but I guess I'll wait and see how this discussion progresses. Yilangren (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just saw your edit Aircorn, that addressed my main contention with this wording -- thank you! Yilangren (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Next phase of discussion: Minority of feminists
Now that the "radical" bugbear has been dispatched, can we achieve consensus on "minority of feminists" and remove the godforsaken "disputed"? No sources have been presented that dispute that the term concerns a minority of feminists, so we shouldn't be implying that a non-existent dispute actually exists. Newimpartial (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This has issues of its own. One good thing with the previous wording was that it tried to make immediately clear that not all radical feminists are "trans-exclusive". I think 'subset' would accomplish this as well and stick close to what sources we have; "a subset of radical feminists" would still be my preference. Haukur (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that the words Trans Exclusionary defines TERFs and separates them from Radical Feminists as a whole. An analogy "Log Cabin Republicans". How about TIRFs(Trans Inclusionary Radical Feminists)..Ooops I think I just stepped in it.Oldperson (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no TERF without "radical feminist," it's clear who this term is targeting. As an aside, immature remarks and potty humour don't do you any favours. Yilangren (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Its best to just ignore this editor unless they say anything relevant. They treat this place more like a reddit forum than an encyclopaedia. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think "minority of radical feminists" has the most problems. It is not represented in the body, which just says "feminists", and even the sources we have are about feminists as a whole. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't get this requirement to provide sources that dispute minority. The WP:BURDEN is on those adding the information, not on those challenging it. Anyway I see a new source has been added and I think a relevant part is As Stryker and Bettcher note, anti-trans forms of feminism may have only ever truthfully described a minority, however loudly and destructively that minority may broadcast itself.. Is this right . It seems a reasonable source, (submission policies) what do others think? AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In my view, the two key points the text must communicate are: (1) only a minority of feminists are trans-exclusionary and (2) this minority does not encompass all radical feminists. I am open to any language that would accomplish this. Newimpartial (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think point 2 is already accomplished, and nothing more on it can be done without awkward wording. The very term implies "trans-exclusionary" is a subset of "radical feminism"; and the article goes on to mention trans-inclusive radical feminist Viv Smythe, refers to a "brand" of radical feminism rather than the totality of it, and then refers to "non-TERF RadFems" in a quote. Our other articles that are about the topic (like the Feminist views article in the hatnote), rather than just being about the term like this one, also make it clear that there are 'trans-inclusive' radical feminists. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The foundations of the earth doth shake, as I agree with your assessment?Oldperson (talk)
 * I think it would be unfortunate to de-emphasize radical feminism in the lead. The point of the term originally was to distinguish between different kinds of radfems. It was coined by radical feminists to make a distinction applying within radical feminism. Since then, usage of the term has developed quite a lot but the coinage is still an important and well-documented set of facts. Haukur (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I must have awoke this morning in an alternate reality.I agree with you Oldperson (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe we all needed that month-long break. Haukur (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The above is a prime example of how imprecise language can lead to contention. I first read your statement to mean that the editors involved in this talk page benefitted from my month long break. I would like to read it as "Maybe we all need a month long break"Oldperson (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe the intent was that since there's been a month since the previous argument, everyone has calmed down, which has made the discussion more constructive. Loki (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, yes, that's what I meant. Haukur (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , What's the support for stating that it's a "minority" of feminists? <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px black;font-weight:bold;">May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We have many secondary sources stating that most feminists or feminist organizations are trans-inclusive, both globally and in the US and Canada in particular; some of these have been cited aleady in this article, on this Talk page, or in Feminist views on transgender topics. Newimpartial (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , The sources currently cited by the article for this aren't great. The first is a journal article in something called "Medieval Feminist Forum" which states, in a conclusory manner, that trans-exclusionary feminism is in the minority. The overall article is highly critical of trans-exclusionary feminism and apparently, in the words of the article, relies on "specific subjective experiences recounted by" the authors. Not to mention the fact that the article is bizarrely written and nearly incomprehensible. (I'm still not sure what medieval trans-feminism is.) The other article is a New Yorker article that contains a passing reference to a young feminist group describing them as a minority. Really not great cites for this. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px black;font-weight:bold;">May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 18:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the other sources I pointed to, on this talk page or the other WP article? Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have been one of the biggest critics of the sourcing used here (and at related articles) and while a less obscure journal would be great it is probably good enough for Wikipedia purposes. It does beg the question whether it is the case of editors looking for sources that say what they want to say instead of looking for general sources and then adding relavent information from them. A WP:RSN discussion could be useful as I feel outside input is the next step if we can't come to some agreement here. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I respectfully disagree with you on that. When I try to research this online-only journal, I find primarily links from the journal itself. There's nothing to suggest that this journal is considered scholarly by anyone other than, perhaps, those who write in it. But even without considering the overall reliability of the journal itself, the authors of the cited article make it clear that they're basing some or all of their article on their "subjective experiences." If this were to be used, it would require a very strict attribution. As you've pointed out, though, if this were true there would surely be a better source than an obscure online-only journal. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px black;font-weight:bold;">May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about "Medieval Feminist Forum"? Because the articles and discussions I am pointing to cite many other sources on this point, as you should know. Newimpartial (talk) 14:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure what those other sources are. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px black;font-weight:bold;">May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * They are probably referring to the section above. Apart from the New Yorker and Medieval feminist forum we have had the daily dot as probably the best source given to this statement (there were others that were presented, but they didn't really discuss it in terms of a minority see this diff for my take). Newimpartial gave a bunch of other sources here. This one was given as being a good example and we later discussed its usefulness. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , The Daily Dot editorial seems... well, so inherently biased that it doesn't seem to be reliable on this subject. The CPSA source is an essay that was presented at a meeting and was not published in a peer reviewed journal. From what I can tell, the "sources" for the contention that trans-exclusionary radical feminism is a minority position tend to be from sources that are either (1) explicitly anti-TERF or (2) an opinion piece in itself. I don't think we can make conclusions on whether this forms a majority or minority belief without some reliable way of counting that. Some columnist's knee-jerk opinion is not terribly reliable unless they've conducted some kind of polling. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px black;font-weight:bold;">May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 20:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I agree with you that the sourcing is not sufficient for this statement, and I prefer 'subset'. The academic sources I see on this topic seem to refrain from commenting on prevalence, which is very telling and an example we should follow. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you. The daily dot is a terrible source for this topic area, other articles from it are even worse. I don't actually think the statement is wrong. However, it seems like we are trying desperately to say minority to the extent that we are pulling and twisting the sources just so we can qualify it. Probably as much a case of WP:Undue as anything. I feel this needs some community process (RFC - although we already have another underway so maybe WP:RSN is the best place to go). At least it will force the supporters to qualify how the sources are reliable, instead of expecting others to do all the work. I will be happy to start one if others think this is the best way forward. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , agreed both that it is undue and that a community process is needed. I support you starting one. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , However, it seems like we are trying desperately to say minority to the extent that we are pulling and twisting the sources just so we can qualify it. Agreed. There are really no good sources to back up this claim but there's a big push to get it in the article anyway. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px black;font-weight:bold;">May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. I have started Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I did not ping anyone to that discussion and am hoping this note here suffices. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I've removed this tag for a few procedural reasons: it's not clear how it's actionable (the content certainly has been discussed, and is reliably sourced); it refers to content which is present and sourced in the body (so the tag should go there or both instances of the material should be removed); tag-bombing isn't the way to express that you disagree with an idea; and it's not clear what the reasoning means ("TERF is not a subset" of what? And "[TERF is not] a term that is used to describe people who are not TERFs" is a definitional tautology, not a semantically meaningful phrase). — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

A minority of feminists who ...... ??
Newimpartial, this restored text is problematic in a number of ways IMO.

Firstly, and most simply, it is clumsily and ambiguously phrased. If TERF is the word used to describe "a minority of feminists who espouse sentiments that other feminists consider transphobic", what word is used for the majority who espouse such sentiments?

Secondly, and probably most importantly, it is inherently PoV to ennumerate how prevalent such beliefs are at the beginning of, and as part of the definition. What purpose - apart from implying marginality - could such an inclusion serve in such a place? "Atheists are a minority of people who ...", "Protestants are a minority of christians who ..." and, most appositely in the current context "Transsexuals are a very small minority of people who ...". Even if assertions about how numerous atheists/protestants or transsexuals - or any other human group - could be 100% reliably sourced, including how numerous they were in their definition would be PoV. Therefore, even if sourcing is 100% RS, assertions about how numerous "TERF"s are need to be meaningfully seperated from who they are, and what they believe. This is normal in articles, especially ones about beliefs and ideas.

Thirdly, currently there is a real ambiguity in this article as to whether it is about the term, or the set of beliefs and people who are the target of the term. If the article is about the term, there is neither need nor benefit in quantifying how numerous such views could be. We don't quantify how many people are considered snowflakes - there would be no point in quantifying something which is inherently unquantifiable, ie how many people could legitimately end up as targets of a subjective, and largely abusive term. I realise that this encroaches on the "is it a slur?" question, but even if it is not technically a slur, it is certainly the case that "TERF" is not used by any of those targetted by the word. Thus, the term is somewhat akin to "heretic" or "infidel", ie defining people, not according to their self-descriptions of what they believe, but according to how their ideological opponents have characterised those beliefs. In a sense, it is a pity that this article has been written, rather than one about gender-critical radical feminists, or some other term which those espousing such views would actually use. Apart from being inherently more balanced, such an article might be able to say somewhere in it how numerous such persons are.

Lastly what does "minority of feminists" actually mean - and how well is it sourced? If I were to assert "A minority of atheists believe XYZ", is it reasonable to assume that I have conducted research on a randomised sample of those people - worldwide - who self-describe as atheists before making this claim? Or is the truth much closer to, "well I'm an atheist blogger in country X and practically all the other bloggers in country X agree with me?" I really don't see how anyone could possibly make this claim for feminists worldwide (which is what WPVOICE implies), and even on a country-specific basis, the claim could only be at best a vague impression of those "public feminists" - ie bloggers, journalists and academics - who had actually made public pronouncements on the matter. I haven't seen any sources which pronounced on how prevalent these views are with any plausible authority, such is the extent of partisanship in many of the sources used.

If sources are intrinsically partisan, the opinions expressed should be attributed, and if they are inherently locale-specific, the countries which they are speaking about should be named.

So, IMO, the claim that TERFs are "a minority", fails WP:NPOV, (certainly as currently phrased), fails WP:V, and frankly isn't a claim worth making, since the targets of the term would still be called TERFs, regardless of how few or numerous they were deemed to be by those who disagreed with them. Pincrete (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, Pincrete, I do hear you but I don't agree with you, though the one thing we do agree about is that NPOV issues are involved.
 * My reasons for restoring the text, apart from it being (1) stable and (2) discussed at length on this talk page in the very recent past, have everything to do with my sense of what NPOV means for this article in this context, along with FALSEBALANCE and FRINGE issues.
 * In relation to the term TERF, I believe that essentially all parties agree on what the term denotarively means, and disagree about its connotations (whether it is perjorative or not, whether it perjorarive its use can be justified or not, etc.).
 * But what is problematic in your proposed phrasing - that the term "is used to describe feminists who espouse sentiments that other feminists consider transphobic" - is the FALSEBALANCE of presenting the term as the label one half of a divided group uses for the other half. In reality, it is the term that part of the trans-inclusive majority of feminists uses to stigmatize a trans-exclusionary minority. This is what the reliable sources tell us about the term: the debate is whether it is appropriate to use the label, but not whether most feminist organizations in 2019 include or exclude trans folks (most do). Meanwhile, the debate over the term has been co-opted by cultural conservative non-feminists as part of a broader pushback against trans inclusion, just as the term itself has been applied to and by non-feminists as part of that same cultural conflict. But to pretend that the term was not initially deployed by representatives of a feminist mainstream to label what they perceived as a FRINGE position would be a rather POV interpretation, and not ENC at all.
 * As far as the alleged grammatical ambiguity is concerned, it seems obvious to me (just as one native speaker and editor's opinion) that it is describing "a minority of feminists, who X" rather than "a minority of the feminists who X". However, I am entirely comfortable with ways of resolving this that would not be dependent on an added comma. What I am not comfortable with, is throwing away painfully discussed consensus text for no good reason. Newimpartial (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Newimpartial, or anybody else watching this page. I hope to reply to the above sometime soon, but in the meantime (as I have a stinking cold) - I'll just alert people to the fact that the lead says "The term was coined in 2008..... It was originally applied to a minority of radical feminist espousing sentiments that other feminists consider transphobic .... The sense has since expanded to refer more broadly to people with trans-exclusive views." (ie original usage + more recent expanded usage)
 * Whereas the Coinage and usage section says: "It is used to describe a minority of feminists who espouse sentiments that other feminists consider transphobic" (ie what the lead says is the original usage, but in the present tense).
 * Having more detail in the lead, rather than in the body, about coinage and subsequent development, seems perverse! Pincrete (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It is possibly original research. The red flag is the excessive cites following the statement. It often implies that editors believe something to be true and then find multiple sources that say it, but use them to make a general overarching statement that is not actually supported. Just about every use of "widely regarded" here follows this pattern. Much better to look at what the actual sources say and how strong they are.
 * USA today glossary that doesn't mention minority at all.


 * New York Times opinion piece which basically divides it between the US and the UK. In regards to the UK they say There, the most vocal trans-exclusionary voices are, ostensibly, “feminist” ones, and anti-trans lobbying is a mainstream activity.. Contrasted with In America, however, TERFism today is a scattered community in its death throes. Considering it is a opinion piece (I don't know how much of an expert she is, most of the stuff I can find about her is in regards to surrogacy) it is only really useful if attributed and then even it is not strong enough to say minority unless you divide it on geographical grounds.


 * LGBTQ nation news piece which may be relevant. In response to a famous lesbian site being taken over by anti-trans ‘feminists’ other Lesbian publications released a statement in support of trans women. It doesn't obviously cover all feminism and I am not even sure it is strong enough even say a minority of lesbians, but it is definitely useful.


 * Indy100 article, which says Feminism is about inclusivity and empowering women – all women – which is why TERF ideology is so at odds with most forms of feminism. A clickbait site, a lot of the top content seems to be about mocking people. Thi is a very poor source and should probably not be used.


 * An outline article that again bemoans the difference between the Uk and US. Maybe this is something we should be mentioning? Although it is again an opinion piece and not anywhere as good as the New York Times one.


 * The daily dot. TERFs are a small minority within feminism, and they are shrinking as gender is becoming more commonly accepted as a spectrum, rather than two distinct categories. Probably the best source which specifically mentions minority. The site seems to more cover memes, streaming and other internet culture. We do get TERF bangs again though.


 * I don't know if this is enough to say minority in Wkipedias voice, especially twice as we now do for some reason. The sourcing is weak at best. It is usually better to expand on these references in the body and let the reader decide. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Briefly, my claim is not mainly that sourcing for 'minority' is questionable and highly partisan (though I think it is both of these), rather that the claim is irrelevant to understanding the term and its use - especially as the term is 'grapeshot' targetting an amorphous group of individuals who share little more than a tendency to question one or more aspects of trans claims or who assert the right to one or more "female-only" spaces (literal or metaphorical spaces). To me arguing that "TERF"s are/are not a minority of feminists, is a bit like arguing about whether "commies, reds and pinkoes", really were numerically dominant in 1950s Hollywood. Since both the term itself and the threshold for being classed as a  "a pinko" were framed by the persons using the term, asking to quantify prevalence is at best going to supply a loose impression either way.


 * I agree that many sources appear to endorse a UK/N.America difference. Pincrete (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Pincrete, we have high-quality academic sources that explicitly observe that trans-inclusion is the majority position among feminist organizations in the United States and in Canada. We also have sources that generalize this observation globally, perhaps because it is also the situation among global feminist organizations. Even in the UK, the actual configuration of forces favors inclusionary feminist organizarions, although in that case the media landscape seems to see a more even division among feminists than elsewhere, which the article ought to recognize. But the term was coined in the US and it would be unENCyclopaedic to obscure its original and still prevalent connotations because of your own preference for certain media outlets. Newimpartial (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "feminist organizations" is not what the article says, it says feminists. The article is about a word and how it is/has been used - what I don't understand is why it matters at all whether more people agree with one position or the other regarding the targets of the word. FALSEBALANCE and similair policies are about matters that largely factually based. They may be many individual elements of this dis-agreement that have a factual base, but the ultimate question - should feminism (a movement traditionally concerning itself with female-born persons), embrace trans women and does it feel comfortable being asked to do so, is simply not ultimately a factual question. Pincrete (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all, the parenthesis "(traditionally concerning itself with female-gendered persons)" alteady begs the question, since feminism since the 1960s has defined itself as concerning itself with female-gendered persons to an equal or greater extent. So please watch your blind spots.
 * Secondly. regardless of the normative question raised above, there is an equally or more significant question of what feminists actualy do, whether in our events, our spaces, our networks or our efforts to make change. And contra what you write above, Pincrete, this question of practice is played out primarily in feminist organizations, whether that be Dyke march organizers or national women's organizations or the Vancouver Rape Crisis Centre or the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival. And so the factual assertion that the great majority of these organizations (at least in North America) include trans women as women is more important as an expression of what "feminists" think and do than any hypothetical survey of feminist opinion would be. The state of things on the ground is as critical to the term now as it was when it was coined - which already reflected a trans-inclusive majority in the speech community of origin. Newimpartial (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, contra Aircorn, it is not necessary that the reliable sources include "minority" as part of the definition of TERF (and also per NOTDICT). What matters is the reliable sources - found here and in the feminism and transgender issues article from which this was split - that show that trans-inclusion is the prevalent orientation among feminist organizations. It is only in this context that the creation of the term TERF and its stigmatizing connotation make any kind of sense; therefore, it is necessary per ENC to provide this context to our readers. Newimpartial (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't know whether it is a minority or not and I don't really care. I just care that we use the sources accurately and correctly and I don't feel we are doing that in this case.
 * @Pincrete I agree in general that applying a broad prevalence to a diverse group with diverse opinions on a complicated topic is seldom helpful or accurate. Human nature is to do this however and I have no problem that if the reliable sources exist we state whether some view is in the minority or majority. It needs to be a very reliable source however otherwise we have to attribute it. Nothing above reaches the level where we can say so in wikivoice.


 * @Newimpartial. we have high-quality academic sources that explicitly observe that trans-inclusion is the majority position among feminist organizations in the United States and in Canada. Well where are they? I have watched this area on and off for over a year now and in all my time here (editing some pretty knarly topics) I have never seen such a lack of high quality academic sources (or academic sources in general). It doesn't seem to stop editors from stating with absolute certainty their view is the correct one though. Why are we citing indy 100, persona blogs, youtube, and a bunch of opinion pieces if we have these high-quality sources out there? One high quality source is worth more than any number of poor or average ones. Also this is not the American wikipedia, so we can't use something that may be true in America and extrapolate it to include the whole world.
 * Also, contra Aircorn, it is not necessary that the reliable sources include "minority" as part of the definition of TERF Yes it is. This is the whole point of writing an encyclopaedia. We use the sources and say what the sources say; taking into account reliability, due weight, and how much attribution is needed. If we say it is the minority in wikivoice, then we need some very good sources to say it is the minority. Our own feelings and opinions on the topic matter not at all.


 * FWIW I would expand on each of the cites given here and attribute them accordingly in the body. In particular highlight the geographical difference. I would remove the Indy100 one though. Then we can argue over how to present it in the lead, because as Pincrete says above the lead should summarise the body, not repeat it. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The trans-inclusive majority is documented here, here, here, here and here - all of which are currently cited in this article or Feminist views on transgender topics - as well as this article, this one and this book - even this UK source - all seem quite clear on where the feminist majority resides.

And no, it isn't necessary for sources to include "minority" in the definition of TERF for it to be relevant to the lede here. It is quite sufficient for the majority to be Verifiable, and for it to be relevant to the origin and use of the term. It is a matter of reliably sourced evidence and weight - when all of the most important organizations and the majority of all organizations are trans-inclusive, as is already documented in both articles with RS, then the majority is established and is relevant context. To insist pedantically on regurgitating only the definitions certain sources provide is a violation of NOTDICT and ENC policies at the same time. Newimpartial (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I went through every source presented at this article for that statement. That is how we cite information here, by putting the source next to the statement it is supporting, paticularily for definitive statements. We don't rely on other sources from other articles. Can you give me the relavent text from those sources that support minority/majority so we can add them. If we say something is a minority then we need sources to support that. Sure it doesn't have to exactly say "minority" but it still needs to support us using minority. I have no idea where you are going with the NOTDICT or ENC arguments. Using sources to write an article is exactly what we should be doing in this encyclopaedia. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * To take the fiest source as an example, Aircorn, I am not going to copypaste the entirety of pages 6. 7 and 8 of the paper in order to provide the information you seek-you can read it for yourself. Those pages describe the methodology (who the interviewwer spoke to) and a summary of what the interviewees said about trans inclusuon in feminist organizations. There is no requirement that a short sound-bite of text be provided to document that the paper says what it in fact says. Actually, if you are wondering in good earnest why this WP article depends so heavily on shoddy op-ed souces, it is largely IMO (1) because those are essentially the only soueces objecting to the term, as so many POV editors want to do and (2) because many editors are too lazy to read actual LGBT and feminist scholarship and are therefore dependent on media reports and sound bites. Of course YMMV. Newimpartial (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay. I will look through the links above provided by you and also the ones from Gwen above. Since the poor sourcing is coming from both sides it is probably more a case of editors looking for sources that match their pet theory, opinion or POV and inevitably finding it in blogs and biased opinion pieces. Then the other side tries to counter that using equally poor sources. We end up with the mess we have at the moment since objecting to one source means rejecting ones you agree with as well. Anyway that is really by-the-by and I feel we are making improvements. I will add that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with using opinion pieces and media reportscan be very useful, its more that they should not form the bulk of an article and the structure should not be based on them. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Read the first article. It is an essay that interviewed five participants of feminist organisations in Canada. The interviewers themselves are personally very inclusive of trans people, but do bring up some issues within the various organisations. The interviews themselves are primary, but there is a conclusion at the end from the author. It says Feminism in Canada as embodied by national feminist organizations, still has a long way to go towards clearly stating that the ‘women’ that it speaks for may include transgender and transsexual women; however, it seems that given the responses of the interview participants there is much potential for the realization of trans-inclusion in national Canadian feminist organizations so long as they can overcome the challenges posed by generational divides, theoretical challenges, funding, and indulgence in debate rather than meaningfully moving forward. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I would interptet the paper's findings differently, given that all five subjects agreed on both the principle and the practice of trans inclusion. While they noted that there was work to be done (back in the mid 200s) to promote trans inclusion, note this paragraph Thus, the general consensus amongst interview participants was that trans-inclusion at the organizational level should not be a major issue at all. One participant simply said of transgender individuals that “…if they self identify [as women] and I’m able to reach them with my emails, my call outs, then they’re included [in the constituency of my organization].” As such, she stated that general inclusion simply should not be of concern at the national, organizational level, but rather should work at an individual level, enabling those women who self identify as women to be included and organizations to facilitate their inclusion as necessary and appropriate. The recognition in the conclusion that "there was still a long way to go" in 2007 should not be read as undermining the two key points identified on pages 7 and 8: theat there was a generational divide within their organizations about the inclusion of trans women as women, and that the way thus was being resolved was to include trans women in the basis of self-identification going forward. It is clear from these interviews that the majority was already trans-inclusionary back in 2007, and this has only developed since that time (e.g., Quebec's largest and most visible feminist organization is now led by a trans woman). Newimpartial (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It's hard to get a global picture here and I don't think we have any source that really tries to give one. We have some sources that play up the strength of "TERF" perspectives in the UK, which I suppose is something to take into account. We have very little information so far on the state of play outside the English-speaking countries but the term TERF has been picked up to some extent in other languages. Haukur (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * We do know per RS that all major North American feminist organizations include Trans women. It may be harder to get a picture of the rest of the world (and the UK and Australia may be different), but this is already a not insignificant fact. Newimpartial (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is probably getting off topic for this article and would be better discussed at the views one. I just want to reiterate though that it wasn't my interpretation of the essay I presented, but the authors own conclusion quoted verbatim from their last paragraph under conclusions. This is kind of a case study for why we have to be careful when using Primary Sources. Analysing them yourself is great when writing your own paper, but as Wikipedia is a tertiary source we really should present other peoples analysis of the material. It is probably one of the more difficult things academics struggle with when they edit here. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 07:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that reading academic sources and presenting their findings impartially can be hard. What I am also saying is that a verbatim quote from the "conclusions" section is not always the best way to do this. In the specific case, the barriers to "meaningfully moving forward" in 2007 posed by generational divides, the need for additional theoretical work, "indulgence in discussion" and funding limitations does not undermine the point that the paper is cited here to show: that the feminists interviewed and the organizations they represented all agreed that trans women are women and that feminist organizations included them as such. Which was what I was asked to show with scholarly sources. Newimpartial (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm mindful of the fact that the article is (necessarily) about the word, not about the people targetted by the word. If the article were about the people, all kinds of nuance and detail would be apt about what their beliefs/doubts/questions actually are, rather than a summary of how they are perceived by their 'ideological opponents' - which is what we mainly currently have and which is wholly apt for an article about a word and how that word is used. IMO, apart from sourcing considerations, it doesn't in any way help to understand either the word, nor the nature of the dispute(s) to know which party is more numerous - that is incidental info on THIS page IMO.
 * I completely reject the idea that supported by feminist organisations = supported by most feminists. It's pure SYNTH and we wouldn't make such assumptions with a religious or political group, so it seems even more inapt to do so with a loose group like feminists. I also reject the idea that 'minority' should have 'pole position' in the definition, even if it were better sourced. Would we do that to any other 'belief' group .... "Atheists are a minority of people who ..."? I don't think so, it reeks of NPOV to do so. Pincrete (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not SYNTH to point out that the debate about trans inclusion and feminism, in which the term TERF originated, has always taken place within feminist organizations. Anyone who "conpletely rejects" recognizing this reality simply should not be editing these articles: literally dozens of sources show this and none take the contrary position. Newimpartial (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It meets our definition of WP:SYNTH though. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 07:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Very little of the debate in the UK has taken place within feminist organizations, I've no idea whether what you say is true about US+Can, but do know that "the Pope says", does not = "most christians think", ditto any 'belief' organisation, even the most doctrinaire and authoritarian. As said, it's pure SYNTH to imply that the two are synonymous. I think it probable, given the breadth of US sources, that the "trans inclusive" position enjoys greater sympathy among the left than the "TERF" alternative. That does nothing to alter the fact that no source says this explicitly - even regarding US - and no precedent justifies putting 'minority' in 'pole' position in the definition. I unapologeticly admit that I am inexpert in both 'trans' and feminist matters, I understand NPOV though. Pincrete (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have said "within or among feminist organizations", but that would have sounded rather pedantic to my ears. Most of the UK debate has consisted in organizations confronting one another, either in their competing submissions to parliamentary or other government bodies or in their conflicting participation in organizing and demonstrations. But this is most definitely an "organizational" matter in the UK and Australia, as it is in the United States and Canada. Newimpartial (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And Aircorn, I am not opposed to reformulating the text to more nearly approximate what the sources actually say, e.g., that most feminist organizations take trans-inclusive positions and that the term TERF originated to label those dissenting from those positions. What I am opposed to is restating the lede based on the FALSEBALANCE implication that feminists are equally divided between trans-inclusive and trans-exclusionary positions, a description of the situation that is not given in any RS I have seen. Newimpartial (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * That is all I really ask. We tend to do these backwards and write the and fight over the lead first before developing the body. That is why in my early comments I suggested expanding on the sources in the body and then working on the lead. FWIW I added what I think is a better source for "minority of feminists". Still not quite the academic one we are searching for, but at least it has a higher quality of journalism. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * So, to summarise, not a single RS says that "TERF"s are a "minority of feminists", but not only must it remain, but it must hold 'pole position' as the first thing said about "TERF"s in the definition. FWIW, I think that it could well be true - but this is essentially a moral dispute (should non-trans feminists embrace trans-women as "sisters"). Including "minority" has always seemed to me to be intended as a clumsy, way of minimalising one side of the dispute and what you say confirms that suspicion Newimpartial.


 * You cannot invoke WP:FALSEBALANCE on an issue that is fundamentally non-factual - you might as well argue that any more numerate group is always right, whereas the number of adherents - is at best an incidental detail if a dispute is non-factual and the intention is to understand the dispute rather than 'take sides'. Besides, failing to enumerate which side of a dispute is the "minority", doesn't present them as equal, it simply sidesteps the issue by treating WHAT is being disputed as more important than HOW MANY adherents each side has.


 * I honestly can't be bothered, I came here initially for the RfC and have only the same interest as I would have in any other WP article. That it should be informative, NPOV and contain only WP:V info. Apart from being unsourced, largely meaningless (who knows what a "majority of feminists" think? ditto atheists/liberals/gay people/christians or any other broad human group, and are there no feminists who are "undecided" or "torn" or who have "never given much thought to" an issue?). Apart from all these considerations, the text is clumsily PoV IMO, but so be it. Pincrete (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, Pincrete, you can disagree with me if you like whether the majority position of feminist organizations can or should stand for the majority position among feminists, but you really ought not pretend the argument hasn't been made or attribute heavily discussed, multi-partite editing decisions to an editor's POV. If you can't see the difference between "minimalising (sic.) one side of a dispute" and documenting the power dynamic in which a label was coined and was originally used, then perhaps you should not be writing articles about political labels. Just saying. Newimpartial (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * We really don't have strong enough sources for how this is worded. My issue is that the wording of minority here seems to be used to justify not just falsebalance claims, but also parity, fringe and oddly exceptional. If we have a good source that says most feminist organisations then lets just say that. Let the reader decide if this equates to most feminists. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is difficult. And it's not clear that we have the sources to back up our current wording, "a minority of radical feminists". It's important to note, however, that not all radical feminists hold the positions in question and if we just remove "a minority of" we could accidentally give that impression. Maybe we could have something like "a faction of radical feminists"? The Guardian article that is our first source uses "cohort" (one cohort of feminists who self-identify as radical). Another source uses "sections of the left". Maybe we can take a closer look at how the best sources put this. Haukur (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * As AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> correctly notes, there is no hard evidence verifying that it is a minority (as opposed to, hypothetically, a silent majority.) Therefore, it should not be in Wikipedia's voice. We could either leave out the minority/majority thing although (not clear it is due) or simply say it is a minority according to various sources. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: Fix the italics and spacing in the lead.
The currently-protected version has the following line of text in the lead: There's a few style errors in it that should be uncontroversial to fix - the italics are too broad (they should just be for the term being defined), and there's a space between the refs. The fixed version should therefore be: This request doesn't imply anything about whether or not that line should stay (which might require a bit more discussion), just that the clear style errors should at least be fixed as soon as possible so they're not left visible for the full duration of the page's protection. Note that there has also been some discussion of reverting the page entirely to before that edit, here; obviously such fixes shouldn't interfere with that if that's what happens. But I thought I ought to open this request just to be sure that these errors are fixed quickly either way; I imagine the more controversial discussion of which version to protect or whether the line stays at all might take a bit longer. --Aquillion (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Those referred to with the word TERF typically reject the term or consider it a slur. Some identify themselves as gender critical, another word for anti-trans activism.
 * Those referred to with the word TERF typically reject the term or consider it a slur. Some identify themselves as gender critical, another word for anti-trans activism.
 * ✅. El_C 08:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Special:Diff/934342518 was poorly implemented, as instead of changing only the text the user wished to change, the diff also threw out various unrelated and AFAICT-uncontroversial fixes which had happened in the body over the intervening time, principally the edits to display references with their superscript numbers in numerical order. The only other substantive change I see in that diff is the removal of the sentence Though contested, the term [TERF] has since become an established part of contemporary feminist speech., which I would be surprised if the editor meant to remove. Regardless of whether the change to the lead is kept, the technical fixes to the body should be re-implemented (and, IMO, the one body sentence should be restored). As for what appears to have been the only actually intended change, I think its stated goal (of explaining the meaning of the newly introduced term) could be accomplished in better ways, including by simply changing the period before "Some identify..." to a semicolon. -sche (talk) 09:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Lets just revert it back to this version. Oldpersons version has introduced multiple errors throughout the article and even the wording he wants makes no sense from a prose point of view. It is also now in the lead with nothing in the body and WP:BRD recommends discussing additions (especially controversial ones). If had only protected for a couple of days then we could just ignore it, but 2 weeks is two long to have poor editors in an article with no easy way to fix them. We could then use those two weeks to decide if and how to present the information. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Concur with Aircorn - and as pointed out by -sche, many good edits were thrown out by Oldperson's revert.
 * said, If Oldperson fails to engage the article talk page (doing in so in a civil and collegial way), I will revert the protected page to the other version. Oldperson has not done so in all the time they have been arguing over this since 31 December (as seen in a discussion above), nor has he done so now. Based on the concerns raised above, I hope El_C will consider reverting Oldperson's edit.
 * I myself also object to the edit because Oldperson should not have the satisfaction of winning their edit war when nobody else was edit warring. The phrase is also problem because it is based on a source that is not a WP:RS for this purpose as discussed above, is not necessary as it is a poorly written attempt at having the last word (the trans-related views of the group calling themselves gender critical is mentioned right before), and, unless one wants to engage in wikilawyering, violates the RfC on not saying transphobic in Wikipedia's voice (transphobic and anti-trans are obviously equivalent). -Crossroads- (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * while your honesty is refreshing, your admission is not. All other issues aside, worrying about who has "the satisfaction of winning" is simply the wrong attitude to be taking in any content dispute. That said, Oldperson is currently blocked indefinitely so I would not wait for them to return here to discuss the edit. VQuakr (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Full protection was lifted and I reverted the article back to its status on 18:43, 5 January 2020; "gender critical" has been italicized. Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 02:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding MFF and TSQ
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TERF&type=revision&diff=935320128&oldid=935319899 this removal] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TERF&diff=next&oldid=935320128 restoration]: I note that the RSN thread referred to had a grand total of four (4) participants, including the OP and one person whose sole contribution was to ask whether TSQ was peer-reviewed or not. Only one of the other editors opined that the source was not reliable, at a time when they also thought the source journal was not peer-reviewed; one other editor opined that we should perhaps attribute the statement rather than presenting it in wikivoice. "Consensus" to remove the source this is plainly not. I would, however, think that if MFF indeed attributes the statement we're discussing to TSQ, we might look directly at what TSQ says and, if TSQ indeed supports the statement, add TSQ as a source, potentially replacing MFF if MFF indeed does no more than say TSQ said it. (In turn, while the suggestion of name-checking the sources of the information in the prose could work if the source under discussion were the only source for the information, it is not.) -sche (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am one of those participants. To clarify, my position is: MFF is not a reliable source for It <TERF> was used to describe a minority of feminists, because the only supportive text in the MFF piece explicitly attributes the viewpoint to Stryker & Bettcher in TSQ. This is not dependent on the peer reviewed nature of either MFF or TSQ. The MFF source should be removed and replaced by the TSQ source. Additionally, Stryker & Bettcher's piece in TSQ is the Introduction to that issue, not peer reviewed, which includes only the following as supportive text Rather than cede the label feminist to a minority of feminists who hold a particular set of negative opinions about trans people, and rather than reducing all transgender engagement with feminism to the strategy embraced by some trans people of vigorously challenging certain forms of antitransgender feminist speech, we should instead demonstrate the range and complexity of trans/feminist relationships. This is background prose explaining the intent of that TSQ issue; not a work of scholarly study. It should be attributed. Or, other sources should be found. - Ryk72 talk 05:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Question on italics
Forgive me for my ignorance, but why is this term italicized? Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 11:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is about the term rather than what the term refers to per MOS:WAW. I had not seen this before this article either. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The article that focuses more on TERFs themselves rather than the debate over the term is Feminist views on transgender topics, which covers both trans-exclusionary people who identify as feminists as well as trans-inclusive feminists. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Still way biased
This article used to be much worse (favoring the side saying TERF isn't a slur) and it's good that it's improving but there's still lots of bollocks. Example: TransAdvocate is not a reliable source. Cristan Williams also created the website theterfs.com which to me is honestly reminiscent of "Zionism" conspiracy theories. (Apparently there's a powerful group of radical feminists who control the United Nations. Would be a good joke if they didn't mean it seriously!) If TransAdvocate is to be considered a reliable source, so should for instance Feminist Current and Meghan Murphy which represents the polar opposite viewpoint but I don't see her being cited at all. In fact I would say Feminist Current has much better journalistic standards but that's just my opinion. What's a fact is that TransAdvocate/Cristan Williams are at least as biased as FeministCurrent/Meghan Murphy.

Also "the view, predominant in feminist organizations, that trans women are women" is not supported by any unbiased sources. It's just trying to make that perspective seem like the "normal" one. The whole article still reads like it was written by people who are on the side of transgender activists who can't take feminist criticism and try really really hard to be objective but ultimately fail at it. Words like "espousing sentiments that other feminists consider transphobic" set a biased tone. (Instead of just saying, you know, "expressing views" or something that's both simpler and sounds much less accusatory than "espousing sentiments".) Another example: "The people at whom the word TERF is directed often characterize it as..." why say "characterize it as" instead of simply "see it as." Because when you say "characterize" you imply that they're wrong, simple as that.

To those who care: PLEASE improve the page further. I would try but I don't have the nerves to be called a bigot for supporting women's rights and remain calm about it. DungaroosAreCool (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * To start with, the view ... that transwomen are women is predominant in feminist organizations, as established through many sources. This is a factual statement, not a biased one. And in my view, the word "characterized" is used in people at whom the word TERF is directed often characterize it as a slur not because it implies that they are wrong (it doesn't) but because what we know about the situation is what the recipients of the term say, but not what they "see" or how they "feel".


 * Finally, this is a page about a term used in political and cultural discourse. The page that deals with Trans issues in feminism is Feminist views on transgender topics. Both of these articles reflect (somewhat) the reality that most feminists and most feminist organizations support gender identity rights and LGBT2Q alliances, while Meghan Murphy represents a controversial minority and provokes large demonstrations from feminists who do not share her FRINGE POV. By all means let us improve the coverage of feminism in WP, but not through imposing FALSEBALANCE or POV-pushing. Newimpartial (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have yet to see an authoritative source which states that "the view ... that transwomen are women is predominant in feminist organizations." This kind of remark is sometimes stated by bloggers or advocates but it's clear that there's never been a serious inquiry into this statement (as far as I can tell) outside of the bare allegation made in furtherance of a political argument. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px black;font-weight:bold;">May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 18:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC - Draft paper
Should this self-published source, a prepublication draft paper, be used? Here is a diff showing how it is being used. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Survey

 * No, this is not a proper use of a self-published source. WP:SPS states, if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. The authors' peculiar definition of slur has zero uptake or endorsement in published reliable sources. We as editors should not cherry pick self-published opinions and use them to counter published sources. The POV of the source is already represented in the article by better sources anyway. Using this source constitutes undue weight.


 * I'm sure "yes" voters will emphasize this portion of WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. This is not a free pass for inclusion, however. Note 3 things: (1) It says such a source may be reliable; however, a source being reliable does not mean the source's opinion is due. It is not, because again, this definition is unique to a single preprint. (2) WP:SPS then immediately says in a note, Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources. Claiming to have the one true definition of "slur" is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, one that [is] contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, because, again, this definition exists nowhere else. (3) After the note, WP:SPS states, as quoted above, if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. All this together weighs against inclusion of this material.


 * Note, too, here that one of the authors states that revisions are currently in progress. The paper is not even finished. And think about if this was an article about biology or physics. Would we then cite some preprint's peculiar opinion as equal to published sources? The same principles apply to linguistics and the social sciences. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I honestly find some of the claims you make here rather bizarre. You say that the authors' definition of a slur is exceptional, because it's contradicted by the prevailing view within the academic community, and as evidence of that you give... nothing. Literally: you assert that it's contradicted by you not being able to find it anywhere else. But that's not what "contradiction" means: being unable to find a confirmation is not a contradiction. A contradiction requires someone else to contradict, and to say their research is contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, you would need not only one other researcher but enough to be convincing evidence of a prevailing view that is contradictory.
 * Then you apparently acknowledge that other researchers are unable to agree on a single definition by saying this paper claims to have found "the one true definition of slur". But obviously every paper that defines a term believes that definition is the true definition. And this claim undermines your other claim that there is a prevailing view within the community that this paper contradicts. Loki (talk) 04:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The authors themselves did the job for me of establishing that their view is theirs alone, as they introduce their paper by saying, In this paper, we argue for a particular view of slurs which they refer to as our theory. The whole paper is clear that this definition is original to it. The paper is not published and has not had time for others to endorse it, and it has no cites on Google Scholar aside from one of the authors. Therefore, any other definition of slur anywhere contradicts the one in the paper. This includes dictionary definitions. This is supported further by what Ryk72 quoted below where the theory is referred to as controversial. As for me supposedly contradicting myself, you're reading too much into my phrasing. The point is that this definition of slur has no endorsement from anyone else, and the prevailing view of the academic community does not include the features it introduces by the authors' own admission. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Further comment: I still have WP:DUE concerns even when the paper is published. The in-text attribution helps with that, but I also agree with Aircorn's suggestion that we can include relevant information from the editors' introduction to that issue of the journal. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * No; not before publication. WP:SPS is not blanket permission to use unpublished "draft" sources which have not (yet?) passed through peer review & editorial stages of publication. Sources should be "published" to be reliable. WP:RS: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources...; WP:V Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". A draft paper, still in flux, and currently undergoing revision, is not, for mine, "published". Additionally, as this viewpoint runs contrary to dictionary definitions, I share concern as to how DUE inclusion is. I note that this the controversial nature of the viewpoint is explicitly called out in the putative Editors' Introduction to the journal in which the paper is proposed to be published: In relation to the test for slurhood, the most interesting (and perhaps most controversial) claim the authors put forward is that, at least prototypically, slurs are those expressions that target groups which stand in a position of subordination (according to flawed ideologies implemented within society) (emphasis mine) - Ryk72 talk 01:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC) - clarified - Ryk72 talk 06:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC) - add - Ryk72 talk 09:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No. A "draft" paper is a work in progress. It cannot be used as a definitive RS. Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 04:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes as noted above. In addition to being a better source than many already in the article by virtue of coming from two established experts on the topic of linguistics, honorifics, and slurs, the paper is, as I noted above, in the upcoming first 2020 issue of Grazer Philosophische Studien, which comes out shortly.  Removing it only to restore it a few weeks later is silly, especially since the fact that it's confirmed to be in there means it has already passed peer-review. --Aquillion (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes - Agree with Aquillion. From WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Both authors credentials as experts are established here and here. --John B123 (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait This will probably end up being included, but there is no harm in waiting for it to be published. That way we get the final peer reviewed version and if the editorial is anything to go by it may include some other commentary that we can also include. As for using SPS's I am strongly against it, even for established experts, in controversial topics. We are not short of commentary on this subject so WP:parity doesn't apply and it seems silly to use a SPS that is likely to become a genuine RS soon. There is no WP:deadline and we are not a WP:crystal ball so I feel we should wait. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait. I was scratching my head about this yesterday and I didn't !vote because I wasn't sure. Now, after reading what Aircorn says above, I think that waiting for the paper to be published, and then using it, is the best approach. The paper is so perfectly on-topic for what we are trying to cover, giving a very formal definition of a slur and carefully discussing how it does and does not relate to the term TERF, that I understand the appeal of using it. It is so much better than a lot of other sources which tend to boil down to people shouting "Is!", "Isn't!", "Is!" at eachother. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, if/when it is published in Grazer Philosophische Studien, and until then no. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it's one of the few academic sources we have going into the actual meat of the term "TERF" and the slur debate. I'd also like to echo . Most of these sources lack any academic backing and even the few that do are heavily biased and typically political opinion pieces — not the best sourcing by far. This paper, as it stands, actually examines this issue in-depth and gives credence to different points from both TERF and trans camps, which seems better from an NPOV perspective. (Yes, I know sources don't have to be NPOV, but neutrally-weighed sources are typically more reliable than ideology-heavy or propaganda sources.)  Gwen Hope  (talk) (contrib) 19:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes - most of the "No" !votes are ignoring or fudging the authorship of "work in a relevant field" criterion. Nobody is saying that a pre-publication paper is equally authoritative when compared to a peer-reviewed draft of that same paper, which would be absurd. But a pre-publication paper is almost certainly more authoritative than a blog entry or an op-ed written by the same acknowledged expert, and all of those scenarios are included in the WP:SPS endorsement of appropriate uses of self-published sources. That Crossroads constantly defends the inclusion of non-expert commentary in various articles, e.g. that of Andrew Sullivan, while advocating the exclusion of actual academic work, shows that the underlying principle is IDONTLIKEIT rather than consistency with policy, for all his red herring comparisons with scientific studies.
 * Given the actual state of sourcing on this topic and in this article, in which Pyxis Solitary and Crossroads have constantly defended the shoehorning in of op-ed content that suits their POV while advocating the exclusion of actual RS expertise with which they disagree, the WAIT !votes above actually promote BIAS within this article. And Ryk72's position that the authors' claim is "controversial" runs afoul of NOTDICT and, if followed to its logical conclusion, would lead to WP providing journalistic over academic sources, a very UNENC position to maintain regardless of their intentions. Newimpartial (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ryk72's position that the authors' claim is "controversial" runs afoul of NOTDICT. No, I don't think it does. The "position" is also held by Cepollaro & Zeman in their editorial introduction. If followed to its logical conclusion, would lead to WP providing journalistic over academic sources, a very UNENC position to maintain regardless of their intentions. No, this is not a logical extension. And certainly WP providing (sic; preferring?) journalistic over academic sources is not a position I have ever espoused. Reductio ad absurdum is very close to strawmanning. - Ryk72 talk 22:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cepillaro and Zeman argue that because the conceptualization n of "slur" developed by the authors is somewhat novel, controversial, and different from the one in dictionaries, it therefore should not be considered as reliable as a dictionary for purposes of an encyclopedia (which is what NOTDICT and ENC bear on)? Could you point me to where they make this argument, please? You most clearly do espouse this (non-policy grounded) argument, AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cepollaro & Zeman do not, of course, discuss whether the conceptualisation of "slur" developed by the authors ... should not be considered as reliable as a dictionary for purposes of an encyclopedia; they don't discuss encyclopaedias at all as far as I can see, and I've made no representation that they did. They do, however, consider that the conceptualisation of "slur" developed by the authors is, at least in part, controversial; and, I would suggest, intimate that it is novel. This is in the quote included in my !vote. I suggest only that we should consider how a novel, controversial, possibly minority, viewpoint aligns with DUE. That may mean not including it; it may mean attributing the viewpoint; it may mean that we find alternative, possibly more mainstream, viewpoints to include alongside it. Which text from NOTDICT is apropos? - Ryk72 talk 02:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I was thinking primarily of As with any subject, articles on words must contain encyclopedic information. That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry ... and include information on the social or historical significance of the term. Restricting the use of the best available specialized analysis of the significance of a term, because the analysis might be somewhat novel and might disagree with dictionary definitions, seems to be to run against both the spirit and the letter of NOTDICT. And it is not as though this WP particle has given any UNDUE WEIGHT to the unpublished scholarly article; we already have many sources (of generally lesser quality) offering an opposing view. Newimpartial (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that there is anything that I have written, on this Talk page or elsewhere, that could be reasonably construed as suggesting that this article should be limited to what would be found in a dictionary entry or that this article should not include information on the social or historical significance of the term, TERF. I do say that if this source provides a novel, controversial, likely heterodox or minority viewpoint, then it's use should reflect that (per DUE, YESPOV, etc); and that a novel, controversial, likely heterodox or minority viewpoint may not be the best available specialized analysis of the significance of term. Note that doesn't mean that I suggest the the source shouldn't be used at all; once published. - Ryk72 talk 06:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Newimpartial's claims that Crossroads constantly defends the inclusion of non-expert commentary in various articles...while advocating the exclusion of actual academic work and in this article...Pyxis Solitary and Crossroads have constantly defended the shoehorning in of op-ed content that suits their POV while advocating the exclusion of actual RS expertise with which they disagree are unsourced, utterly false, and are nothing more than psychological projection. I only ever fought for Andrew Sullivan commentary one time to provide balance to material about how gay men need to be attracted to trans men, and this was after Newimpartial was fighting tooth and nail to keep multiple opinion pieces pushing that, and ridiculously claimed that these pieces were actually "ethnomethodology". -Crossroads- (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Where did I ever refer to "multiple opinion pieces" as incorporating "ethnomethodology"? That does not sound like me.
 * As far as your inclusion of non-expert commentary and op-eds, this and this should be enough for you to retract your "unsourced" and "utterly false" violations of WP:NPA. As far as Pyxis Solitary is concerned, I haven't seen anyone dispute my characterization, but I can provide diffs if actually required. Newimpartial (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You retract first. Those statements of yours about me that I quoted in green are still false and not supported by the diffs you now gave. One of them is me restoring after removal the bit about The Economist, and the other is just about the Andrew Sullivan bit already mentioned (which was by the way suggested by and argued for by someone else too, not just me). Again, it's hypocritical to be outraged about the inclusion of WP:DUE social commentary pieces that you don't like, while fighting tenaciously to keep ones you do like. We are not going to be a POV commentary outlet. And this was well on display at the discussion about the Andrew Sullivan piece that you keep bringing up. It was there that you said, The editor removing the material appears to believe that ethnomethodology is not a "real" methodology, and after I stated that these were opinion pieces, you said, In particular, autobiographical or ethnomethodological primary sources have exactly the same status as original scientific studies. Diffs: And here is the ridiculous POV content that I had rightly removed and which you were clearly calling "ethnomethodology". -Crossroads- (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You are still misconstruing my comments, Crossroads; the only source I was referring to as autobiographical (and not as ethnomethodological) was the Jamison Green source that you deleted, which is a published scholarly source, not an "opinion piece" nor is it "ridiculous POV content". Not coincidentally, this was the only source that I reintroduced after your removal. Your allegations that I regarded all of these sources as "ethnomethodology" and that I defended the inclusion of all of them are, shall we say, ungrounded? Meanwhile, I keep bringing up your introduction of the Andrew Sullivan piece because it is an inferior source, from a WP policy perspective, compared to the draft scholarly article under discussion here, and the only reason you defend one and oppose the other is a simple YOULIKEIT. I am not expressing "outrage" at all, just my tenacious adherence to policy. Meanwhile, your re-introduction of op-ed content (in this case, the non-expert views of an Economist editor) is strictly identical from a policy perspective to adding it in the first place; it is still in my terms "inclusion of non-expert commentary" and inferior sourcing, per policy, compared to unpublished work by published academics. I will not "retract" statements which are sourced, non-inflammatory and also have the small merit of being true, unlike the ASPERSIONS you have cast. Newimpartial (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Which source(s) did you have in mind when you brought up ethnomethodology then? Why bring it up at all? -Crossroads- (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this fight can continue on a user talk page since it doesn't have anything to do with improving this article (WP:TALK). WanderingWanda (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Given the actual state of sourcing on this topic and in this article, in which Pyxis Solitary ... have constantly defended the shoehorning in of op-ed content that suits their POV while advocating the exclusion of actual RS expertise with which they disagree...." What a foolish, last-resort statement.  I have made a total of 10 edits to this article.  Find them.  Post the diffs.  And then let's see precisely what POV you've claimed I have "shoehorned" into it.  Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 04:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * No. Reliability rests in the review process. Treat this draft as if the authors posted the same text on their blog—we would not cite such a blog for something of this nature unless the authors were expert enough for their take to have extra importance, the same way we wouldn't cite any random academic who espouses a reasoned argument on the subject in a private forum. Revisions are "currently in progress"? Close the oven and let it cook. Also, if the basic content/structure doesn't change upon publication, I think there's room to make the diff's language much simpler. (not watching, please )  czar  09:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Per SPS, this is entirely wrong. Compared to the typical sourcing of this article, we absolutely would cite the opinions of a specialist in this field as expressed in a blog as an RS, and a typical unpublished article is More reliable than a typical blog post by the same expert. Outside of MEDRS - which this article doesn't concern - what we have here is simply an RS. Period. Newimpartial (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I also find it amusing that what User:czar says we apparently wouldn't do is something that we've done multiple times within this very article. Loki (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes while noting it's a draft: as DavidRigal notes, it's extremely relevant to this page, and as several other editors including John B and Newimpartial note, WP:SPS does endorse using self-published sources by experts in their field of expertise, which this clearly is. If the draft nature of the paper is a sticking point, I propose we just be clear about that in the article (like we would for other similar flawed sources) rather than waiting on such an extremely relevant source. Loki (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree with Aquillion. It's useful to this Wikipedia article to include the best sources available to us. This draft paper is not the best source we can imagine, but it is one of the best sources that actually exists. It's a very informative article composed by established experts. The opposition is mostly WP: Wikilawyering rather than thinking about what is best for improving and expanding the article. Kate Riley2019 (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. The source is reliable, being by experts in the relevant field, as John B123 notes, making this source indeed higher quality than some of this article's and this section's other sources. The small amount of weight we're giving their view is reasonable / due: two sentences, in a five-paragraph / eleven-sentence section covering mostly miscellaneous people's specific views. It's also being used with appropriate qualifiers: it's not being used to state something as fact in wiki-voice, it's being name-checked inline as a (currently-)draft paper by the particular experts who wrote it. (And while we shouldn't make decisions about what to include in NS:0 based on crystal balls, it appears that if we simply refrained from closing this NS:1 discussion for a while, we could avoid having to rehash it when the Grazer Philos. Stud. moots the main argument being put forward above against the paper, by publishing it...) -sche (talk) 07:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait... If the paper is going through review just wait for the review process to complete. Looking over the paper I'm not sure I personally agree with their formulaic model.  When it comes to WEIGHT applied to this paper it would be good to see how often it's cited by others and in what capacity.  While it's conveinent for this topic that TERF is one of the example phrases, does the overall formula align with the views of other experts?  Is there a different research paper that has a different method for defining a slur.  Would it's method agree or disagree with this paper?  Remember that this paper is not about the term "TERF" rather about how to decide if something is or is not a slur.  Since I'm pretty sure slurs are not a recent invention one might ask why it has taken this long to come up with a method to identify one.  Springee (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not until actually published, per WP:SPS; journal article reliability it tied to peer review. Even then it may be a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE in some respects, depending on what it is cited for and exactly what it ends up saying in peer-reviewed form.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This paper's reasons for their opinion seems like nonsense; descriptors of optional identities can be slurs. Many political affiliations, religious affiliations, and nationalities have a formal and a slur form ("pinko" and "papist", for example). However, WP:SELFPUB; if these authors are recognized experts on slurs, we can cite their self-publications, though we should balance it with other views on the nature of slurs. The whole topic also seems like a foolish logomachy; both this article and Feminist views on transgender topics spend a lot of time on affiliation terminology, some on tactics, and no time discussing the grounds of disagreement. Fixing that would be good. Oh, and "gender-critical feminists" probably needs a hyphen (it suggests to me more those who think gender-specific names and pronouns should be abolished, and children should not be identified by a gender; has no-one come up with a better endonym?). HLHJ (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason they call themselves "gender critical" is because (they think) they are; they believe, or at least they believe that they believe, that sex is the only real distinction between men and women and that gender is essentially made up to oppress women. (Now, you'd be right if you said that a lot of the things they say and do implicitly contradict this, but if you were to ask them why they call themselves gender critical point blank that's more-or-less the explanation they would give. See, for example, the sidebar of /r/gendercritical to see it laid out quite clearly.) As for the rest of what you're saying, it's somewhat hard to find reliable sources about the precise details about what each side believes and why they disagree with each other. Self-published sources describing this are plentiful but not neutral sources that fact-check claims. That being said, I agree the article could use more of that (but that's a separate discussion). Loki (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Loki, thank you; that's given me a much better understanding of the conflict than anything in the articles. Some attributed statements like that would be a great improvement; non-neutral sources obviously are fine, but I can well imagine that sources in a heated dispute like this can be problematic, especially if most are self-published. Partisans' statements about their own views, and a note where others disagree with the self-characterizations, would be useful. Opposing gender-specific language seems compatible with a belief that gender is an oppressive construct, though one could categorize such language as sex-specific and consider it non-oppressive; detail on views of what is considered gender- vs. sex-based seems like it would be necessary to figure out what actions this philosophical debate is actually about. Is there any within-group coherence on any public policy position other than trans rights? HLHJ (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not Loki, and speaking only as myself (and not in WikiVoice) I would go further: I would say that "Gender critical" folks "claim to believe" (rather than "believe that they believe") that sex exists but gender doesn't. Some may actually believe it, and some undoubtedly take the position more tactically. And as this position has only emerged in reaction to the Trans rights movement and Gender identity protections, I think it is safe to say that "Transgender issues" is the only locus in which "Gender critical" perspectives cohere. In other words, I don't think very many among the "Gender critical" would actually do the work required either to provide ontological objections to "gender" or to show that gender as such - as opposed to gender roles - is oppressive to women as a "sex". But perhaps I digress. :) Newimpartial (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes - Our in-house rules certainly include no general prohibition against using some unpublished papers. John B123 is right here. This paper is still better than most of the sources currently in the article. We could also mention in the article text that it is a draft paper, if that would help towards gaining consensus for inclusion. Hko2333 (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for someone with institutional access
The draft paper that is the subject of the above RFC has been published. Could someone with the appropriate institutional access please get the quotes to cite it properly? (I'd go ahead and do it anyway if a major issue raised in the RfC wasn't possible changes during peer review.) Loki (talk) 06:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, I've got access. I'm not clear on whether there were any changes, but all of the material previously used in the article, for which the RfC determined consensus, is still verifiable from the extracts I've quoted below:

(1) An expression e is a slur if (i) e semantically invokes a complex which can be used to derogate a particular group; (ii) the derogation of that group functions to subordinate them within some structure of power relations supported by an actualized flawed ideology; (iii) the group is one defined by an intrinsic property (e.g race / gender / sexuality / abled-ness).

But is [TERF] technically a slur in our sense? It certainly satisfies condition (i) [...] It clearly does not satisfy condition (iii) [...] What about condition (ii)? Is the group described by ‘terf’ subordinated by a flawed ideology? Likely, those trans people who are targeted by transexclusionary people [...] would answer with an emphatic no [...] However, some with the relevant ideology find the opposite to hold

— Bilorv ( talk ) 17:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Using opinion pieces for statement-of-fact claims
The introduction says: "It was originally applied to a minority of feminists espousing sentiments that other feminists consider transphobic" but the sources cited at the end of the paragraph are both highly biased opinion pieces. Second wave feminism was rife with criticism of the transgender movement and I'm not aware of any reliable source confirming the belief that criticism of the transgender movement was considered transphobic by a majority of feminists at any point in time. It could even be argued that the trend of calling some feminists "TERF" was started by a vocal minority and only recently became mainstream. Here's an opinion piece claiming exactly that, i.e. that "TERF" was originally a buzzword used in some corners of the internet: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2017/09/what-terf-how-internet-buzzword-became-mainstream-slur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:C70:52C0:6551:71DC:1462:55B7 (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Further bias
"Phrases like "Kill a TERF!" or "Punch a TERF!" are also posted by trolls online and there have been other depictions of violence aimed at TERFs." Two comments on this: firstly it's not just posted by trolls online, it was actually painted on the windows of Vancouver Rape Relief by real-life vandals, it was worn on a t-shirt by a transgender activist during a Pride March, it was posted online by a thug who later physically assaulted a woman and was charged with a crime. All three of those cases of the word "TERF" entering the meatspace can be verified. Secondly, the sentence uses "TERFs" to objectively refer to people in Wikipedia's tone even though the whole article should make it clear that calling someone a "TERF" in Wikipedia's tone is not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:C70:52C0:6551:71DC:1462:55B7 (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree about the Wikivoice issue, so I've gone ahead and fixed it. Newimpartial (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)