Talk:TERF (acronym)/Archive 4

RfC: Oxford English Dictionary
Should the statement by the Oxford English Dictionary that the term is "typically considered derogatory" be in the article? And in the lead? Crossroads -talk- 17:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Source:

Survey

 * Yes to both. The Oxford English Dictionary is a historical dictionary and a high-quality authoritative reliable source on the meaning and connotations of words, and this article is about a word. Certainly it is more authoritative than any of the ones currently included. As such, the presumption is to include. Per WP:NPOV policy, we should include all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This is a significant view by a reliable source, and the term's connotations make up a big part of the article and the lead. The argument to exclude appears to be based entirely in cherry-picking particular opinions present in the article based on POV and saying that their view is the correct one and hence this one should not be included, even though this one is newer than them all, and this behavior contradicts WP:PSTS: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Additionally, whether something is as serious as a slur is a separate issue from whether it is merely derogatory. Yet, in this case, it is being argued to throw out a tertiary source based on a subset of the lesser supposedly contradictory sources, which is clearly wrong. Crossroads -talk- 17:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes to both - very clearly the case. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Question: Are there any other (well regarded) dictionaries that define the term in a significantly different way - and especially are there any that say the term is not derogatory? Blueboar (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No to both/Wrong question The RfC is asking the wrong question. Dictionaries give us a definition, but don't explain the definition. As a tertiary source they can be useful for assessing weight of secondary sources (per the policy point at WP:TERTIARY). A better, if not the correct question, would involve the use of secondary sources explaining why the term is considered derogatory, and whether that consideration is universal or only to those for whom it applies. Also if one were to do a brief survey of the other major dictionaries; Collins does not contain the definition, Merriam-Webster does not contain the definition, Chambers does not contain the definition, and I can't search Macquarie due to a paywall. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to expand on my reasoning, based on a comment I've written below in the discussion. Adding "typically considered derogatory" to the lead is problematic because right now it is unsupported in the body. Per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY we should be writing body content first, and then summarising in the lead if it is an important part of the body. As several editors, including the RfC proposer have pointed out, a word or phrase being derogatory is not the same as it being a slur. The current article body fairly well summarises why there is no consensus on whether or not TERF is a slur, it does not do this at all for derogatory. A simple search for the word itself confirms this, as the word appears only twice in the current article, both times as part of the slur debate.
 * While we can add that content in order to support the OED definition, this too is problematic as it is upending our usual method of content creation. Instead of writing content based on our sources, we are now searching for sources that fit the content that has been suggested by this RfC. This has inherent WP:NPOV issues, because we are pre-supposing that, based on the OED definition, that such sources must exist. By coming at it with that pre-conceived notion, we run the risk of cherrypicking our sources in order to fit the content decided by this RfC. This is however fallacious; argumentum-ad-dictionarium which is a form of argument from authority. It is fallacious because we are pre-supposing that the OED is correct. Without the breadth of secondary sources, we cannot know if the OED are correct in their definition, or if their definition is actually supported in daily use of the term.
 * WP:PSTS, a part of the WP:NOR policy, tell us that Wikipedia articles should be primarily based on reliable secondary sources. It also tells us that tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight. This is further supported by the Dictionaries as sources essay which details the limitations on the utility of dictionary definitions along those lines. Per policy, we should be using a dictionary definition to help assess due weight of our pre-existing secondary sources. We should not be using a dictionary definition to drive our search to find sources, to support the content from it within the article lead and body. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes to both. I don't see any problem with adding dictionary definitions or the judgments of the editors of that publication. It's a really weird one this, I don't think anybody actually disagrees with the idea that TERF is a derogatory term. People who use it generally readily admit they really don't like "TERFS". The general rule is, if a member of a group says "I really don't like that word, don't call me it" it's derogatory. Note that this is different from the "don't call me a fascist" argument, because the people who say that are not denying that fascism exists, or saying that "fascist" is a derogatory term, they are claiming that they are not fascists. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes to both. The statement is from an excellent source; moreover, it also summarizes the main body of the article, from which it's abundantly clear that TERF as typically used is derogatory. NightHeron (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes to both. Source is high-quality, agrees with the rest of our article.  PS: To do more dictionary searches, see WikiProject English Language.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes to both BTW the other deprecating term "minority" (view) is essentially unsourced for such a strong claim about the targeted persons.  The given source merely says that a different party used the term in in statement of rationale. North8000 (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Cautious yes to inclusion in the body but we should be very careful to reflect the whole of what it says in that definition, not to just pluck out the word "derogatory" and use that out of context. We should cover the shift from a specific and neutral description of the trans exclusive strand within radical feminism to a generally derogatory term for anybody transphobic. Very cautious neutral to inclusion in the introduction. I think the introduction egregiously over-covers the claims that it is a "slur" so I'd only be OK with a mention in the introduction if the "slur" stuff got cut down to size. If the words "slur" and "derogatory" were to appear once each in the introduction, contextualised properly, then I think that might be acceptable. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No to lead. The fact that TERF is typically regarded as derogatory is a true statement and an accurate summary "in the sense that all bywords for bigots are intended to be defamatory". Our existing text, that Those referred to with the word TERF typically reject the term or consider it a slur, already explains this in proper detail. We generally shouldn't overstate the value of historical dictionaries in summarizing controversy about extremely recent internet words. The OED in particular has never been an exceptionally up-to-date or balanced authority on feminist or transgender topics. It gives useful etymologies for transwoman, transgenderist, transgenderal where other dictionaries do not, but does not note that each of these terms is ostensibly deprecated. The article text seems to get along just fine without unnecessarily invoking a WP:TERTIARY source. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 20:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is where we get an WP:NPOV problem, I'm fairly sure that wikipedia shouldn't be taking a position on the question of whether TERFs are bigots or not. And I would suggest that very few people say "racist is a derogatory term" or "fascist is a derogatory term", they say "calling me a racist is derogatory". So even if we accept them to be bigots, the fact the name is derogatory, when non-derogatory names exist ("gender critical feminists" for example), is notable and should be included in the introduction. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Per Template:By whom, Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation. If you want to know who holds that view, all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. It is not necessary to inquire "By whom?" in that circumstance. And this is based on WP:WEASEL which notes that if a source says it that way, WEASEL does not mean such a wording cannot be used. Crossroads -talk- 21:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * “Typically regarded” implies an opinion held by someone besides the OED, so who? All English speakers? All users of the term? People in the UK? Secondary sources answer that question readily: TERF as typically regarded as derogatory by the anti-trans self-described radical feminists it describes, because it is frequently associated with derogatory rhetoric. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 22:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually RoxySaunders raises a valid point. As I said in my comment in the previous section, the OED source doesn't actually tell us who typically regards it as derogatory. The use of by whom would be supported here because of this. If OED had included the demographics of whom were in the typical cohort then it could be acceptable, assuming other issues like weight and balance were adressed.
 * Also this invocation of WEASEL is odd, given that you and I have been in several discussions where you've used WEASEL to exclude a source or sometimes many sources in the exact way you wish to include it here. Are you sure you've invoked the right shortcut for that? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Whom' = all English speakers. If it was only or mainly a subset of English speakers, the dictionary would say so.  Tewdar   10:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I spend a lot of times dealing with "by whom" tags, if we are talking about general English usage, there is rarely need for an agent in the sentence. By whom tags are necessary when we talk about opinions, in this case the only agent possible would be the OED. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The lead states: "" Oxford Dictionary defines TERF as "A feminist whose advocacy of women’s rights excludes (or is thought to exclude) the rights of transgender women. Also more generally: a person whose views on gender identity are (or are considered) hostile to transgender people, or who opposes social and political policies designed to be inclusive of transgender people. Originally used within the radical feminist movement. Although the author of quot. 2008  (a trans-inclusive feminist) has stated that the term was intended as a neutral description, TERF is now typically regarded as derogatory." Oxford is a diachronic dictionary and according to Harvard Library, it "is widely accepted as the most complete record of the English language ever assembled." The Oxford Dictionary is used in other articles to support the definition of words. I don't see a reason why this article should be an exception. So, yes ... Oxford's "typically considered derogatory" should be included. Pyxis Solitary  (yak). L not Q. 05:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No to both per Sideswipe9th. Also, as noted above, the phrase is vague and not clearly supported by secondary sources. Secondary sources are clear that certain groups consider this term a slur but not that they are majority or 'typical' and note major disagreement from major figures in feminism and gender theory on whether it is a slur. Rab V (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes to both The OED is one of the best sources for what words mean and how they are used. If the use of a term is derogatory, that should be pointed out ASAP. TFD (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes to both - Source is highly reliable. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes to both I understand being cautious about using normal dictionary definitions for specialist words.  However, that doesn't appear to be the case here.  For mainstream usage I can't see why we wouldn't invoke a dictionary definition and qualification for an article about a term. Springee (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No to both per Sideswipe9th and RoxySaunders. The second paragraph of the lead already covers whether TERF is considered derogatory. GreenComputer (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Mixed It's worth inclusion in the body, provided it is included neutrally. However, given the controversial nature of the term, I would suggest it not be declared X just because one, albeit notable and important, dictionary has said such. In the lead, no. The lead should just cover a general aspect of the controversy with the term, some considering it derogatory. ~Gwennie &#128008; &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 23:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes to inclusion and neutral to lead inclusion. Regardless of the source's strength I don't see how this is anything but a consensus view academically, in contrast to the slur debate? Kate Manne for instance wrote in 2019 that the term is derogatory but not a slur. Seven feminist philosophers wrote in 2018 that it was "at worst a slur and at best derogatory". Two linguists wrote in a 2020 paper that it met conditions to be considered a term "derogatory towards a particular group" but failed conditions to be considered a slur. I am not seeing how this is controversial to call it derogatory. However I would echo what DanielRigal had to say and add there is commentary by the OED team supporting that: [Fiona McPherson, a lexicographer at the dictionary] explained this decision: “We weighed it up, and because of the intentions of the coiner and the fact that there is a little bit more nuance behind its usage – it’s not always just a straight-out insult – we took the approach that we would explain that in a note. We felt it was a bit more nuanced than just slapping on derogatory or chiefly derogatory.” --Chillabit (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No to lede I don't think it serves our readers very well to overload the introduction with material that sounds authoritative (it's the OED!) whilst also being rather vague ("considered" by whom?). Indeed, the source provided just above indicates that the people who wrote that definition are aware of the thorniness. If we provide an oversimplified, sound-byte account, we're not doing their work justice. The lede is the wrong place for the kind of nuance we need to provide in order to reflect the sources accurately. Wouldn't be the first time that happened. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed; my main concern is with the soundbite-ification of ".... derogatory ...". The full thrust of the OED's entry is that (1) a cisgender radical feminist originated the term as a neutral descriptor for anti-trans feminists, but (2) it has since become diluted to broadly include all reactionary transphobes, and (3) that the label is commonly perceived as an insult. And guess what? The existing lede fully captures all of that nuance already, beat for beat, using a diverse and balanced selection of reliable secondary sources. I'm fine with referencing the OED to support the "Coinage and usage" section, especially as an attributed statement, but the result of adding it here is just to throw more logs onto the "Slur debate" fire. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 17:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Include in article, weak include for lead. It’s only weasel-y if we don’t source it; if a high quality source doesn’t list examples to substantiate its claim, that’s not to say it’s not true. I don’t have strong opinions for the lead, but it does seem relevant for a reader to fully understand the term, though I respect arguments based on WP:UNDUE. — HTGS (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes to article and Yes to lead. Let's see ...
 * No to both per Dictionaries as sources's discussion on the limitations of dictionaries; general dictionaries such as this one are not precise and are therefore inappropriate to use in an attempt to respond or rebut more in-depth analysis from high-quality scholarly sources, which have discussed this specific aspect at much greater length. --Aquillion (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes to both. It does not need in-text attribution to the OED, but both the lead and the body should explain that the term is usually considered derogatory. The OED is a high-quality source for this information. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But the OED doesn't say the term is considered derogatory; it says that the term is "typically regarded as" derogatory. According to reliable, secondary sources, this was carefully considered by OED editors so as not to claim the term as "derogatory" in their own editorial voice. My main concern about this discussion, and attempts to cite the dictionary, is the tendency to erase these carefully documented nuances. This is already true of Crossroads' proposed edit to replace "regarded as" with "considered", and would be even more so in this next stage of telephone, "usually considered". A number of Yes !voters seem inclined to draw even less careful conclusions. Newimpartial (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To my ear, there's no substantive difference between "usually considered" and "typically regarded as". But if others disagree, we can use wording closer to the OED's. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes to both, if we also remove the overcoverage of the "slur debate" in the lead. The OED is a lot better of a source on this than all the random opinion columns we currently have, and so its lack of mention of the word "slur" in favor of the word "derogatory" suggests we should prefer the word "derogatory" over the word "slur". (Otherwise: we already have basically the same information in the lead and we shouldn't put too much WP:WEIGHT on it.) Loki (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "slur" isn't a term the OED would ever use (or any other dictionary, I would have thought). Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the "slur debate" should be de-emphasized in the lead. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes to body, yes to the lead but as part of an already present sentence on the debate to avoid undue. Aircorn (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes to both especially with Aircorn's suggestion. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 04:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes to both. WP:TERTIARY sources are great at helping us assess WP:DUE weight. When what we're talking about is a word, a dictionary would be the go-to source, and the OED is as authoritative a source as you can get for dictionaries. Whether or not a term is derogatory is a highly relevant aspect for an encyclopedia entry about that term, as it defines a lot about the context of its use, so it should be placed in the lead. Note that this would be a separate topic than public debate about whether the term is a "slur", whatever it is people mean by that. Endwise (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes to both - the current lede, that there is 'no consensus' on whether this term is a slur, is flatly contradicted by the OED entry. The expert lexicographers at the OED are much better at determining 'consensus' on word usage than we poor humble Wikipedia editors with our home-brewed statistical analysis of a handful of sources. They also seem to have taken great care to arrive at their current description of "typically considered derogatory", a phrase which can certainly be included as-is in the lede with no further nuance.  Tewdar   09:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ummm, Tewdar, the main academic source supporting the view that "TERF" is not a slur concedes that it is derogatory but then defines other requirements (something akin to the "punching down" concept) that must be met by a slur, and establishes that "TERF" doesn't meet these. So there is an ongoing debate about whether it is a "slur" that isn't settled by knowing how many people regard it as derogatory. Newimpartial (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose it depends on what your definition of 'slur' is. one of the senses here, for example, defines it as A derogatory or insulting term applied to particular group of people, in which case the "derogatory, but not a slur" argument falls a bit flat. If we're going to argue about whether 'only anti-trans slurs are really slurs' or something like that, then I think I'll go back to my archaeology draft (running away, shouting over my shoulder about postmodernism, etc...)  Tewdar   13:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Now now, Tewdar. There's nothing inherently postmodernist about rhetorical theory. :p Newimpartial (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Rhetoric - Language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect, but which is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content - sounds a lot like every Jacques Derrida book ever written...  Tewdar   14:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree that typically regarded as derogatory (a phrase explicitly intended to be less harsh and more nuanced than chiefly derogatory) is a "flat contradiction" of the fact that academics generally cannot agree whether TERF should be categorized as a slur. Derogatory means "intended to belittle", whereas slur implies not just a stronger belittling, but also some dimension of social injustice or power imbalance. It is very easy to find examples of derogatory words which would not be considered slurs. Hopefully we can agree on this, without needing to invoke any kind of arcane Derridaean postmodern Anglo-Marxo-transfeminist pseudolinguistics. The two sentences can absolutely co-exist. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 02:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes to both it can quite reasonably be argued that the term has in recent years been weaponized and employed as a form of discrimination, and most certainly in the UK. The view in the US, among a particular faction, is that the UK is a backward place where second wave feminists continue to exist in a state of false consciousness and are as such dismissed as TERF's (owing to their allegedly counter-progressive tendencies). It's a form of othering, nothing more. Acousma<b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 11:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No to inclusion in the lead at this time due to LEADFOLLOWSBODY. I'm not certain where I'm at on general inclusion in the article - I'm generally not a fan of using dictionaries as sources. --Equivamp - talk 11:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The whole RFC is about including it in the body and the lead so lead follows body doesn't apply. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Lead follows body does apply here. At present there is no content in the article that supports adding "typically considered derogatroy" to the lead. There is a brief mention of it as an aside in the "Usage as a slur" section, but that mention does not go demonstrate the breadth required by "typically considered". Even with the much extended paragraph proposed in the discussion section by, a sole paragraph would not ordinarily merit an inclusion in the lead on an article of this length. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No one is saying add to the lead but not to the body. The whole RFC is whether to add it to the body and then also the lead. Hence the yes to both, no to both and yes to body boldings. It is quite possible that Equivamp simply misread the RFC question, we have all been there. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes to both, though perhaps there can also be some mention of the fact that it is sometimes used as a "reclaimed slur", with people declaring themselves "proudly team Terf" (especially after Dave Chappelle used this terminology for himself during one of his comedy specials). &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes to body, probably no to the lead, and the statement must be attributed. The OED is a fine source for English usage, even for fairly controversial statements as this one. I actually think it's probably more neutral and accurate than the average journal source, which is more likely to have individual biases. Even if you're hesitant to use a tertiary source as a source of fact (which is totally fair), with attribution it's really using the OED as a primary source, anyway. It's a major dictionary, often considered definitive, and readers can decide for themselves how much weight that really carries. Ovinus (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes to body, as the proposed body paragraphs seem to cover everything about the hows and the whys (with the interview, it feels like there's more context than we'd typically get if we used a tertiary source). Also generally supportive of the broader reorganisation proposed by, it really seems to me that we have failed to summarise the relevant secondary sources, instead merely providing a listing of X says A, Y says B. Due weight would seem to support coverage in lede roughly in the same proportion as in the body&#x200a;&mdash;&#x200a;for example, there would be relatively more weight given to the OED if the rest is cut down due to summarisation, relatively less if it is merely added as a single body paragraph out of the currently many on this&#x200a;&mdash;&#x200a;though I am, as some other participants are, inclined to highlight that additional caution required to avoid losing the context as included in the body paragraph. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes to both. A strong yes to body and a normal yes to lead. SWinxy (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral as per DanielRigal. While potentially appropriate, I'm hesitant to support outright without more concrete elaboration on intended use. BIG BURLEY 17:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes to both, good sources and relevant information on this now being seen as derogatory. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No to lead - as incorrect - it is not always derogatory - and per WP:LEAD as this is not a significant part in the body and it is only one RS saying that. There is a section on when it has been used as a slur, but that’s over highlighting sensationalism and not giving the full view of other RS.  Dictionary.com says it is used dismissively, Urban dictionary has no weighting, Cosmo has it is euphemism (too soft), usa today says only “some” people who are called it consider it an insult, and The Guardian says it is sometimes weaponised.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

 * , do you think you could also notify some of the WikiProjects (LGBT Studies, Feminism, Gender Studies, etc) with a stated interest in this topic? Someone who didn't know better might think you were hoping to attract a particular crowd by only alerting the WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN, and WikiProject Linguistics. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 18:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have not already done so, I think notifying them would be a good idea. All three have a legitimate interest in this question. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, why be lazy? I've notified them myself. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I notified the other three too. I would have done all six had you not gotten the first three already per the request. I also think the Linguistics WikiProject should probably be listed with the others at the top of this page; I'm surprised it's not even though we have Politics. I certainly didn't mean anything by not getting all the projects right away since anything anyone feels is missing can be notified at any time and I'm surprised to see official noticeboards characterized as biased. Crossroads -talk- 21:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What particular crowd hangs out at WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN, and WikiProject Linguistics that you are taking exception to here? --Boynamedsue (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * By "a particular crowd", I mean "a non-representative sample of all the Wikipedians who might possibly have an opinion about this". Didn't intend to make any generalization about the fine pedantry-loving, CN-tagging, dictionary-thumping clientele of those particular noticeboards. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 20:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine pedantry-loving, CN-tagging, dictionary-thumping clientele of those particular noticeboards - as opposed to the fine detail-phobic and citation-averse clientele from the now notified WikiProjects mentioned above... and who needs dictionaries anyway, eh? One sign leads to another and so on indefinitely, right?  Tewdar   09:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I'm certainly a detail-phobic and citation-averse POV-pushing blue-haired harpy, but I'd never dream of casting such an aspersion on any of my excellent colleagues. -) RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 19:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The statement "there is no consensus on whether or not TERF constitutes a slur" is misleading. Consensus does not mean every single person agrees, but that the extent of agreement is so great, it is treated as fact in tertiary sources, such as the OED. You can't just find one paper, in this case a paper that has yet to be presented and say there is disagreement. That is called a manufactured controversy. TFD (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Who are you quoting? I can't find that statement anywhere on this talk page. Rab V (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's from the last sentence of the current lead. TFD (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are interested in rewording that sentence, may be better to discuss outside this RFC. Rab V (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The wording of that sentence is the topic of the RfC. What did you think we are discussing? And why wouldn't you read the lead before joining a discussion on how it should be worded? TFD (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please be a bit more civil. Just because I've read this article doesn't mean I've memorized it. The RFC does not explicitly mention that sentence so I thought this was a separate issue you are bringing up. If you want to try to add something about changing that sentence to this RFC, feel free. Rab V (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * At least before discussing the description of the term TERF as derogatory in an RfC, you might have determined what the article currently says about it. The statement in the OED and the current wording cannot both be true. Therefore, if we agree the OED is right, we will have to change the current wording. The purpose of talk page discussions is to determine article content after all. TFD (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Once again, please be civil and stop your personal attacks and assumptions per WP:CIVIL. I've been editing this article for quite a while longer than you so I don't know why you keep assuming I haven't read it. If the RFC is going to change this sentence, it should be mentioned in the RFC statement is all I'm saying. Rab V (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources provided in 's !vote are the most helpful here at the outset, particularly the commentary from Fiona McPherson; We weighed it up, and because of the intentions of the coiner and the fact that there is a little bit more nuance behind its usage – it’s not always just a straight-out insult – we took the approach that we would explain that in a note.
 * The current version of the lead I think reflects that nuance reasonably well, and is also quite specific about the lack of consensus surrounding its use in academic discourse. That could be stronger of course, as the current lead focuses on slur whereas the OED uses derogatory. The issue though is that while the intent of the team at OED may have been to reflect nuance in the terms use, for our use on wiki it is decidedly non-nuanced. As I've said above twice now, it doesn't give any detail on those who consider it derogatory versus those who do not. The way that the OED source is being proposed for inclusion likewise ignores any nuance, and as has demonstrated is ripe for a swift by whom tagging because it lacks that detail.
 * While this source is useful in determining weight, it is not helpful for verifying the nuance. We need to use secondary sources to support this claim that it is typically derogatory, because while the OED have clearly done such an analysis to determine whether or not they should include that recent addition (it was only added 21 days ago at time of writing this reply) they did not include that analysis in their dictionary. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec)Nuance is exactly what is missing in most uses of the term, at least outside academic writing, but perhaps in that too. Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, a "by whom" tag would be clearly wrong here as the whom the OED refers to is "most English speakers", meaning the agent is evident from the context. If necessary the claim could be attributed to the OED, that would resolve a potential "by whom" tag. I'm not aware of any serious source which doesn't consider TERF derogatory, tbh. The question of whether it is a "slur" is much more open, but nobody who uses TERF likes the people they direct it at and everybody who uses TERF knows that "TERFS" don't like being called that. Therefore, it is clearly derogatory. --Boynamedsue (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think your "universal agreement" (para) goggles might be on a little tight. The relevant section on the article cites eight (!) examples of prominent feminist academics debating or qualifying the characterization of TERF as a slur. In academic discourse, there is no consensus is a correctly weighed (actually somewhat generous) summary of that section as it stands. The OED doesn't say "is a slur", the OED says typically regarded as derogatory. It is a long step from there to is derogatory, and a titanic leap from to . I recommend reading the quote from the OED editors which Chillabit posted, which clarifies their intent somewhat. They're not attempting to debunk or take a hard-line stance on this discourse. And even if they were, the OED is an academic publication like any other. That means WP:DUEWEIGHT, not WP:DROPSECONDARYSOURCESANDFOLLOWDICTIONARY . RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 02:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Since I did not use the term "universal agreement," why are you attributing it to me? Per manufactured controversy, the fact that you can find sources for both sides says nothing about the degree of acceptance of either. One way to determine relative acceptance is by consulting a tertiary source, such as the OED. Another is to use a source that explains relative weight. The only source presented in this discussion is the OED. I started to read the first few sources in the article and none of them say there is a serious dispute about whether the term is generally considered to be a slur. This is the same argument that leads to pages of discussion on climate change. TFD (talk) 02:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Forgive my sloppy use of scare quotes—I was referring to your saying the extent of agreement is so great, it is treated as fact in tertiary sources. No, sources do not overwhelmingly agree on TERF being a slur. Nearly a third of this article is dedicated to the extant controversy: Sophie et al. wrote a letter calling TERF a slur. We then cite Ivy, McKinnon, Sosa, Davis & McCready, Saul, and the venerable Butler, who acknowledge that the term can be derogatory, but do not consider it a slur. The OED also does not categorize TERF as a slur, so its opinion is moot on the issue. If you perceive "extensive agreement" (para) on the matter, I'm not sure where. Likewise, your perception that the disagreement is exaggerated does not override WP:NPOV or WP:SUMMARY. If you don't like the there is no consensus... sentence, you should discuss it in a new section, and preferably bring along some other sources. This RfC is about whether it would be appropriate to add Oxford says TERF is typically regarded as derogatory, or a similar sentence. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 03:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The OED says, "TERF is now typically regarded as derogatory." I suppose that does not go as far as saying it is a slur, but we should at least say that. Do you have sources that make a different claim? From my understanding, the term is usually seen as derogatory, but some writers say it isn't. I wonder how many TERFs are actual radical feminists, rather than conservatives who call themselves feminists, IOW "conservative feminists." TFD (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Dang, how many acronyms have been created in the last 15-20 years, concerning this general topic? GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well seeing as how on social media there is a not insignificant swing towards "gender-critical is a slur" in the last five or six months, I suspect we'll be seeing another term arise in the next year or so. No reliable sources on this as of yet, so obviously we can't cite it in article space, but it's still an interesting thing to note here regardless. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * See euphemism treadmill... AnonMoos (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

BTW - I'm pleased to see that editors aren't bludgeoning those editors, who've taken a position in the 'survey'. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Still plenty of time for that...  Tewdar  09:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , I see what you mean. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Loki (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * When we (hopefully) add back the OED citation, I suggest including the publication date, which is not necessarily required, but it might aid the reader to know that this is a recently published definition; thus, Chicago citation style: OED Online, s.v. "TERF(n.)", Oxford University Press, June 2022, https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/98002894 (accessed July 13, 2022). Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 04:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Good idea. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Proposed body paragraph, to be inserted at the end of the "Coinage and usage" section: TERF was added to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) in June 2022. The entry notes that although Smythe intended the term as a neutral descriptor, it is "now typically regarded as derogatory." Fiona McPherson, a senior editor for the OED, explained, “We weighed it up, and because of the intentions of the coiner and the fact that there is a little bit more nuance behind its usage—it’s not always just a straight-out insult—we took the approach that we would explain that in a note. We felt it was a bit more nuanced than just slapping on derogatory or chiefly derogatory." RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 03:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is not about the OED. Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 10:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is about a word, its usage, and notable opinions thereof. Based on the current survey results, we clearly find the OED’s opinion about words to be fairly important and worthy of note, so it seems worthwhile to exposit in some amount of detail. The amount can be pared down, if that’s the issue. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 11:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not, but if the OED definition is going to feature prominently in the lead, per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY it has to be supported by text in the body. At present, there is no supporting text in the body with respect to the OED definition. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I like this. Loki (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems reasonable to me, an appropriate level of detail for the body. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That somewhat works for me. It addresses some of the WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY concerns for simply inserting it into the lead. I still think however that in order for this to have the weight to be in the lead, we need to explain further in the body who typically regard the term as derogatory and why. We know from the OED's perspective and the words of McPherson that such sources exist, so it should in theory be a simple matter of finding them. At present I don't think we have enough, if any, supporting sources and text explaining the who and why for derogatory. We do have a substantial section on the slur debate, but a word or phrase being a slur is not the same as it being derogatory.
 * However adding this content in this way is also an issue. We're reversing the normal way of writing an article, where instead of using sources to inform article content (ie, here's a selection of sources that support TERF being derogatory), we would be using article content decided by RfC to filter the sources we want to use (ie, we've decided to add content that says TERF is derogatory, what sources support this?). That is an incredibly risky thing to do per WP:NPOV as we would be actively skirting the edges where it comes to cherrypicking. No matter how respectable the OED, or any dictionary is, I am very concerned that we are going about this entirely the wrong way. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm confident that I recall correctly that at least one of McKinnon's papers "concedes" that the term is derogatory but that it doesn't meet two other criteria necessary to be a "slur". I believe the paper in question to be peer-reviewed, but in any case it provides some potentially useful context about this issue. Newimpartial (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe you're thinking of Davis & McCready, cited in the middle of "Slur Debate", and yes, peer-reviewed. D&C declare:
 * Under this framework, they deny that TERF meets (iii) as TERFdom is in no way an "inherent property". They concede that (ii) is debatable and likely intractible, as reactionary transphobes and trans-rights activists both perceive themselves to be "punching up" against ideologically oppressive power structures. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 01:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC) RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 01:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The one paper by McKinnon that is currently in the article does not support the term being derogatory. In fact that paper only uses the word derogatory once, in its own list of citations. According to the seven philosopher response to that paper, McKinnon even tweeted several months later (August 2018) that she did not believe it to be derogatory. I would be interested to read this other paper by McKinnon, as I cannot find it via a quick Google Scholar search.
 * Based on the sources that are currently in the article, only two actually support it being derogatory. The aforementioned seven philosopher response which was not peer-reviewed or published in a journal, and the Davis & McCready paper. Right now at best we could say that Davis and McCready define TERF as derogatory, but we simply do not have the breadth of secondary sources to support "typically regarded as derogatory" as per the OED definition. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Clearly I was confusing the D&C paper with one of McKinnon's; my memory is not what I remember it as being. :p
 * My other point would be that my recent searches found many, many RS stating that the term TERF is regarded as derogatory by a significant fraction of people, either in general or specifically by those to whom the term is applied. On the other hand, very few RS that I saw state that the term is derogatory; in fact D&C is quite possibly the best among them. Newimpartial (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Those sources are what we need here. We have a substantial section on whether or not TERF is a slur, but that is a separate academic debate to whether or not the term is derogatory. We have no substantial content on whether or not TERF is derogatory, only a single peer reviewed source, and yet this RfC is proposing that we add it to the lead and body based on a single source; the OED.
 * The sources that state whether or not is is derogatory, and who consider it to be derogatory can then be assessed for weight by the OED source while writing a new section on the debate for whether or not the term is derogatory. That way we can properly figure out whether or not the OED definition is due for the lead, as well as who are the people who "typically consider [it] derogatory". Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me lower the curtain for a moment: I looked for RS in the hope of finding meaningful debate about whether or not the term is derogatory, or regarded as derogatory, or contested. I found almost exclusively sources stating that the term is considered derogatory, with varying qualifiers about who considers it so. I entirely lack the attention/motivation to repeat my search, because my intention was not to develop this section of the article, which I don't find especially interesting (which isn't a !vote for or against inclusion; it is a "yawn" vote). But I have most certainly seen a number of sources, and they disconfirmed my prior assumption (which was that the valence of the term would be contested). Only a few RSOPINION sources maintained the view that the term is not considered derogatory by anyone that matters. Newimpartial (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on the quotes in the article, plus the few sources I was able to skim, Newimpartial's assessment of "derogatory" in secondary sources seems basically accurate. Honestly, I've softened a bit on including "regarded as derogatory" in the lede (preferably succeeded by, if not following, a balanced summary of the "is a slur" discourse), although I think Sideswipe is right that this RfC was (i) highly premature, and (ii) intent on cherrypicking the OED entry and parading it as unambiguous confirmation of a controversial and disputed viewpoint. The latter remains my primary concern.
 * The more often I do it, the more convinced I become that the single most effective way of resolving disputes about DUEWEIGHT is to compile enormous lists of RS's and their opinions (ala Talk:Trans woman/Definitions). At the very least, that makes it much easier to pick out the handful of favorable sources, and make sweeping statements about the illusory "consensus of reliable sources". RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 03:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If those sources were to be provided, and supporting content derived from them to be added to the article body, I would be more than happy to change my !vote in the survey. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Too much overquoting. You don't need to quote the OED for example and can paraphrase the rest better. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 05:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the quote could probably be paraphrased. You're welcome to take a stab at doing so. – RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 04:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How about:
 * "TERF was added to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) in June 2022. The entry notes that although Smythe intended the term as a neutral descriptor, it is "now typically regarded as derogatory." The editors of the OED noted that there was more nuance to that description than the more commonly used descriptions of "derogatory" or "chiefly derogatory", because "TERF" was not originally intended to be derogatory and is not always used as an insult today."
 * Tried splitting the difference between too much and too little quote:
 * The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) added an entry for TERF in June 2022. The definition notes that although the term was first intended as a neutral descriptor, it is "now typically regarded as derogatory". OED editor Fiona McPherson explained that because “there is a little bit more nuance behind its usage—it’s not always just a straight-out insult", the dictionary's editors opted to explain this rather than simply label the term "derogatory" or "chiefly derogatory".
 * All happy? – RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 03:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there's such a thing as "too little quote". I think your version has an acceptable amount of quote though. Loki (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ' = derogatory. Whatever was going on behind the scenes to make McPherson bend over backwards to provide an explanation for those five words is probably bollocks. But if the confusionary explicandum is going to be included in the article, it should be as a footnote. Pyxis Solitary'   (yak) . L not Q''. 09:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory. Do you have any reason the believe that there was anything untoward "going on behind the scenes" or is that just a personal suspicion? I don't think we can give this line of argument any weight unless there is some demonstrable basis in fact for it. Of course, there might be other reasons to argue for using a footnote which you could make but assuming a conspiracy without evidence that one has even been alleged off-wiki is inviting us to participate in WP:OR. I also disagree that the clarification is confusing so there is no reason to suspect that it is intentionally "confusionary". The thought that a reputable and well respected dictionary would intentionally seek to hide or obscure the meaning of a term it lists is an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence before we can entertain it. DanielRigal (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The survey does not show consensus for treating those two phrases as equivalent, especially in light of an RS which explicitly states they weren’t intended to be. You’re free to interpret that RS’s statement as probably bollocks, but as encyclopedia editors we have little justification for ignoring it based on your personal interpretation.
 * This isn’t a paper encyclopedia, so we aren’t at risk of running out of space. There’s no good reason to put the latter sentence in a, except to minimize a perspective you disagree with. We both know hardly anyone reads footnotes.
 * In a contentious article about a contentious term, our goal is to wholly and accurately exposit the opinion of the sources involved. That is DUEWEIGHT. Cherry-picking single words context-free out of a dictionary (itself already a hyper-simplified account of nuanced discourse) in order to unequivocally declare is derogatory in WikiVoice, would be a blatant misuse of a WP:TERTIARY source. – RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 15:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd be opposed to putting it in a footnote. No sources have been provided to support the claim that McPherson's comments on the nuance of usage is untoward or the result of external pressures. has surmised the rest of my thoughts on this pretty succinctly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's an improvement over the proposed straight addition by in the RfC question. I still have concerns over who typically regard the term as derogatory, as that is not reflected in any way in the article text, though those concerns are lessened by making it clear that it is the OED who is saying this and not ourselves in Wikivoice.
 * And as I said previously, if those sources which presumably formed a part of the OED's research were provided, and content was to be written around them I would be happy to revisit putting "typically regarded as derogatory" into Wikivoice if it does represent the balance of the sources on this issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Moving toward closure
Discussion has slowed, so I think it's time to WP:RFCEND and continue to work on local consensus-building through BRD. Unless I've gravely misjudged things, my understanding of the consensus here is that yes, we should reference the OED somewhere in the article, and that it would be acceptable to summarize that reference in the lead. That's the survey question itself asked and answered, so I think we can close the RfC and work towards solving the actual implementation of that result through local discussion or subsequent RfC as needed. Three editors (myself included) stipulated in their !votes that it would be preferable to attribute the OED in-text, rather than declare its opinion in Wikivoice. In discussion, I proposed a body paragraph which explains the OED quote as an attributed statement, which seems generally accepted by those who commented on it. Only one editor specifically opposed attribution in their !vote, so I think the following can be added to the article and then improved through BRD:
 * The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) added an entry for TERF in June 2022. The definition notes that although the term was first intended as a neutral descriptor, it is "now typically regarded as derogatory". OED editor Fiona McPherson explained that because “there is a little bit more nuance behind its usage—it’s not always just a straight-out insult", the dictionary's editors opted to explain this rather than simply label the term "derogatory" or "chiefly derogatory".

The remaining issue is whether the addition to the lede should replace or occlude our existing summary of the "TERF is a slur" content. Opinions are divided over this, with editors citing WP:TERTIARY both for and against it. I have strong feelings on this matter ("derogatory" and "considered a slur in academic discourse" strike me as quite distinct concepts), but I don't see a strong consensus here, which makes me think we should leave that sentence alone for now. The most widely acceptable solution, in my view, is just to add the OED's statement into that paragraph somewhere, probably at either the start or the end:
 * The Oxford English Dictionary notes that TERF is typically considered derogatory.

I believe I'm allowed to close this myself and BOLDly make the proposed changes (barring further discussion), but given my level of involvement and the strong feelings all around, I'd like to leave that specific task to someone else. I'm relatively inexperienced with the more bureaucratic Wikipedia procedures, so I tend to approach these things with some trepidation and fear of misstep. Your thoughts? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 07:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It is a controversial subject so I would suggest just waiting six more days for it to reach 30 days and let someone uninvolved close it. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would prefer a solid, official closure to forestall future disputes. From there, we can decide how exactly to put it in the body, though I doubt that will be too controversial. For the lead, though, I don't think we need in-text attribution, as no equivalent RS disagree that it is typically derogatory (which is distinct from the "slur" debate). Crossroads -talk- 05:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree about the lead. The referencing is strong enough to use wikivoice for this. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree that we don't need in-text attribution in the lead. Strong referencing notwithstanding, the information is clearly controversial enough to warrant attribution. Better have it, than to not and cause a bunch more debate. I would also prefer states instead of notes. Ovinus (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t know. We don’t decide on attribution due to contents controversial nature (I.e we don’t attribute homeopathy as pseudoscience). All that really matters is the strength of the sources. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 07:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

"A minority of radical feminists"
From the lead:


 * The term was originally coined in 2008 to describe a minority of radical feminists ...

There is no support for "minority" in the source cited, which refers to a "cohort" and "some". Suggest either:


 * 1) using "cohort" in line with the source; or
 * 2) providing quantitative evidence to substantiate "minority".

Utilisateur19911 (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Davis and McCready quote
The current text now reads:


 * Linguists Christopher Davis and Elin McCready view gender critical feminist's support of transgender men as a denial of trans men's agency and self-determination, and suggest it is trans-exclusionary "because it excludes the very category of 'trans man'.

The original quote from Davis and McCready comes from an unsourced footnote that reads:


 * Note that some subscribing to this ideology would say they are not trans-exclusionary, because (for example) they, as feminists, support trans men because of their assigned gender. We take it that this purported support is in fact a denial of the agency and self-determined identity of trans men, and that it therefore doesn’t count as genuine support, perhaps because it excludes the very category of ‘trans man’.

First, one may note that Davis and McCready did not discuss "gender critical feminists," only those referred to as TERFs (not all people labeled TERFs critique gender categories per se and some may even essentialize gender with "women" perceived as better than "men"; a whole spectrum exists).

Second, Davis and McCready wrote "assignd gender" where I think they meant "assigned sex at birth". Some gender critical feminists clearly believe in sex differences while working against patriarchy and gender oppression. This can, however, lead them to seemingly conflate sex and gender stating that they "think men are men and women are women!" see: https://gcritical.org/gender-critical-or-terf/ ).

Third, the actual implication of the original quote (supporting a person based on their assigned sex) would contradict a basic principle of any radical gender critique that seeks to abolish gender roles altogether.

Fourth, Davis and McCready did not quote or cite any supposed TERF in order to clarify whom they discussed, so sourcing them here seems weak.

Fifth, the original Davis and MCready quote (and susbequently the current Wikipedia summary) does not seem super clear: they seem to mean that some feminists define "trans men" as "women" and therefore claim to "support" them (because they support all people ever defined as "women") but that this supposed support clashes with trans men's self-description. One could say this more clearly than they (or I) did.

Finally, it seems that, even if one keeps this sentence, one would at least need to qualify the current version by writing "some" rather putting words in their mouths. Davis and McCready did not write or imply "all"; they wrote "some".

AnthonyTF (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely grokking your line of reasoning. What exactly would you like changed?
 * I've made this edit, which hopefully at least clears up that Cava, Dennis & McCready are talking specifically about the cohort of self-proclaimed radical feminists described as trans-exclusionary, and particularly those who claim not to be trans-exclusionary because they supposedly support trans men, who they misgender and slur as trans-identifying females. If only there were a short acronym for referring to them...
 * (Pinging, who had a hand in editing this sentence.) –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 00:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed edit request on 2 September 2022
In Viv Smythe's interview with TransAdvocate, link the term trans* to its Wiktionary page for clarification: LightNightLights (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ in this edit with notes: Typically the WP MOS prefers links outside of quotes whenever possible. In this case, the quoted term isn't used nearby in an unquoted format and it seems to be clear that the link is accurately reflecting the meaning of the author quoted. If an opportunity for a nearby link outside the quote becomes available in the future it would probably be preferable.
 * Extra special thanks to for using incredibly helpful td in request! --N8wilson 🔔 15:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Undone. This was a good-faith request by requester, and a good faith implementation, so no problems with the bold attempt. And I have nothing against the use of wiktionary interwikis; much to the contrary: I happen to be in favor of interwiki links to wiktionary in general, much more so I'd say, than the average editor, so no problem with it in theory. However, in this case, it is a quotation, and we don't know what they meant. N8wilson quoted the appropriate MOS entry and gave a reasonable account of agreeing to insert the link anyway, which I respect. If it were a less controversial article, maybe I would even go along with it. However, this is surely right up there among the most controversial articles at Wikipedia, and not the place to push the envelope. If we don't have a definition of "trans*" given by the author of this quotation that substantially agrees with wiktionary's definition, then I'm not comfortable including it as an interwiki link. (Then again, if we had such a definition by the author, we could just add it as an explanatory footnote, and we wouldn't need Wiktionary.) If either of you feel strongly enough about this, please start a discussion about it, either here, or in a new section. As a compromise solution, if the term comes up in a non-quotation context, that *might* work (case-by-case analysis would be required, and no pointy edits, please). Maybe other editors will agree with your take on this. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Putting it another way: do not mind-read the author of the "trans*" quotation by providing a wiktionary definition (created by an editor there, and considered not a reliable source), and assuming that is an accurate representation of what the author of the quotation had in mind. That is original research on the part of editors here; we do not know for sure what they meant by it, and it's not up to editors here to imagine what they meant, and put it in the article. Mathglot (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I notice that the link has been reinserted again, and I believe this is not valid here, and should be discussed to see if there is consensus for it. Mathglot (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The definition on Wikitionary corresponds with the definition of trans* provided by the OED, and when taken with the context of the original interview seems to match up with the author's use of the word, at least by a plain reading. Do you believe trans* has another definition, different from that at Wikitionary and the OED? As it stands right now, I'm not seeing any compelling reason to not use the interwiki link to Wikitionary for this case, and it seems somewhat of a contrivance to try and shoehorn a use of trans* elsewhere in the article so that we don't need to link in the quotation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sideswipe9th. When it comes to formatting, while we could omit the asterisk by paraphrasing the quotation and using square brackets, that might similarly delve in mind-reading.
 * I wanted to link trans* in that I thought its meaning is obvious enough that it has an consistent definition but not obvious enough that (1) it doesn't need to be defined in order to be understood by a usual reader and (2) readers won't think it's a typo, which could be the case here because of the asterisk. I think this might be similar to linking the term RadFem to Radical feminism (assuming MOS:LINKQUOTE would be fulfilled). All that said, I don't necessarily have a strong opinion on this matter. LightNightLights (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Mathglot, I think that your objection is extremely nitpicky to the point of obstructionism. The Wikitionary definition is a pretty standard definition of the word "trans": Non-cisgender; an umbrella term encompassing transgender, transsexual, and often also genderqueer/nonbinary, genderfluid, third-gender, etc — all gender identities other than cisgender. It's absolutely clear from context that the usage of "trans" in that interview is the same as the sense meant in the Wikitionary entry. I don't think that we need any additional confirmation from Viv Smythe confirming she meant the obvious plain meaning of what she said, and I'm frankly confused why we're even having this conversation about it. Loki (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Nitpicky"? "Obstructionism"? Loki, you're aware that including the link in a quotation is contrary to the the MOS guideline, right? That is why I removed it, because that's what the guideline recommends. The link is back now only because it was inserted again claiming WP:IAR, which is a pretty weak reason when a guideline appears to be against you. "Being conservative", as the guideline recommends, at one of the most controversial articles argues for not including it, which is what I did. Your quibble is not with me, perhaps, but with MOS; the proper place to dispute it is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, and language like you used is inappropriate. It doesn't surprise me that even something as seemingly anodyne as removing a link per MOS causes tempers to flare at this article; there seems to be no item too small to argue about here. All the more reason to be conservative. Mathglot (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The relevant part of MOS:LINKQUOTE states Where possible, link from text outside of the quotation instead – either before it or soon after. Unfortunately this is a situation where this is not possible. There are no other instances of the word trans* elsewhere in the text of the article.
 * As for IAR, again the text is pretty self explanatory; If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. In this circumstance, I believe an overly strict application of LINKQUOTE is a detriment to this article. The original intent of the person quoted is crystal clear from the original context, and the word itself is defined by a major dictionary (OED) whose definition matches Wikitionary's, so the conservative argument falls flat. If there was another instance of trans* elsewhere in the article text (not a quotation), I'd have no issue at all using a Wikitionary link for that usage. However we do not have that, and as I said above, it seems like a contrivance to try and shoehorn a usage of trans* elsewhere in the article to achieve the same goal. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Technical note: With access to the original interview provided (thanks ), it appears this may actually be quoted hypertext rather than a vocal/audio interview that was conducted. I could be wrong but I’ll note that the interview exclusively attributes the blogger handle “TigTog” rather than Viv directly. I’d also imagine the use of trans* itself is more suggestive of text than speech given that a valid pronunciation of trans* is simply to mimic that of trans. If this is quoted hypertext, MOS:LINKQUOTE indicates that [link added] should also be included to indicate the absence of the link in the original interview. --N8wilson 🔔 19:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a very interesting point (added simultaneously to my comment below, so hadn't seen it in time to respond). If the consensus here turns out to be to retain the link, then I would agree with N8wilson that the bracketed "link" comment should be included as well. Mathglot (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * TigTog appears to be one of the handles Viv uses on online. I wouldn't read too much into it, it's usage is akin to my usage of Sideswipe, and I think the usage I think stems from Viv at the time having pseudo-anonymity, as if you check the rest of the text of the interview, her name does not appear.
 * Going off memory and this source, sadly I can't find a better source for this and Google ngram won't plot trans* even in square brackets, I recall trans* being the in vogue term to use circa 2014 when the original interview was published, with it being pronounced as "trans-star" in speech. With regards to LINKQUOTE, we aren't quoting hypertext here, and I suspect this interview may have taken place over instant messaging or email, so I don't think including [link added] is strictly necessary. However I wouldn't have too much of an issue adding it, if it is ultimately felt as if it's necessary by others. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's right, in this case it isn't possible to link another example outside the quotation because there isn't one. The alternative isn't to shoehorn another usage of trans*&mdash;nobody thinks that would be a good solution, here&mdash;the alternative is to simply leave it undefined in the article, as it previously was. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It is not up to us, as Wikipedia editors, to tell readers what the words in somebody's quotation mean; that is a type of original research. For general content, our role is to summarize the sense of reliable sources without including our own biases and opinions. In the case of a direct quotation within double quotes, we don't summarize, we include it word-for-word with attribution, but we still don't, or at least shouldn't, include our own thoughts about what it means. Choosing a definition, in my opinion, regardless how esteemed the source of that definition might be, is a way of saying, "This is what I, Wikipedia editor, say that this means; you can't be trusted to look it up or form your own opinion about it." If the quotation is in English, we should allow our readers to draw their own conclusions about what the writer means by their words, and not pick a definition for them. Mathglot (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

"Gender critical" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Gender critical and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 14 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * For observers, this RfD (now closed) was in response to this edit which redirected [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gender_critical&redirect=no Gender critical] from its current target (Feminist views... § TERF) to TERF. The change was reverted, and the discussion was speedy-closed roughly an hour later. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 00:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2022
I want add ＵＳＡ IPA from /tərf/ to /tɛrf/ I am a Leaf (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Loki (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * TERF is pronounced like "turf", so the previous IPA ("ər" as in "lett er ") seems correct (compared to "ɛr" as in "m er ry"). I've undone this change for now. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 01:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, you're right. Sorry! Loki (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Leaf, did you mean /ɜr/, not /ɛr/? /ɜr/ is the NURSE vowel (also used, as that article notes, in term—and nerf). Conventionally, it is the vowel this word would be considered to use (and was the vowel given [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TERF&type=revision&diff=1108035465&oldid=1107374607 before September 2nd]), as it is the vowel the NURSE lexical set uses in British English, and the vowel is not conventionally considered to be different between the US and UK AFAIK (only the rhoticity/r-colouring is different, and vowel length is not contrastive in the US). I have recently seen users change US transcriptions from /ɜr/ to /ər/, as the distinction between the NURSE vowel +r and schwa +r is academic in US English, but my initial thought would be that we should either list /tɜrf/ (as the diaphonemic representation), or if we're going to have /tərf/, label it as American and add the British pronunciation, /tɜːf/. But if the OED has decided not to distinguish /ɜ/ from /ə/ even in British English, that's interesting. Are they only using a schwa in this word, or also for other words in the NURSE set? It seems like an odd choice, because it means there'd be a stressed schwa in e.g. TERFism, something English has conventionally been considered not to have. -sche (talk) 06:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with -sche. Mathglot (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with -sche's first suggestion; we should go with just, with the implication that ("as in fur") is pronounced  in RP, and  in GenAm. If we do give regional pronunciations, then agree with using those suggested:  and.
 * For the interested, Oxford does indeed notate the vowel in nurse et al. as and, though this is technically non-standard (as explained at Help:IPA/English). Template:IPAc-en will alias ⟨əː⟩ to ⟨ɜ:⟩. Collins gives turf as  and  (Brit. and American respectively), while Merriam-Webster gives  –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 20:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2022
Change "British clinical psychologist and medical sociologist David Pilgrim argued that" to "British clinical psychologist and medical sociologist David Pilgrim says that", as Pilgrim is making a factual, not an argumentative claim LarstonMarston (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ <b style="background:#f5b836;color:#d12b1f;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Pizzaplayer219</b>Talk<sub title="C" style="margin-left:-22q;">Contribs 19:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal for content going into this page at Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics
Please view Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics for further discussion. XTheBedrockX (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Survey

 * I suggest a split of the material from both this article and the Feminist views on transgender topics article into a new article, Gender critical movement, as a distinct movement has now coalesced under the "gender critical" concept that far removed from its original radical feminist origins, including support from very distictly non-feminist elements such as the far-right and Christian evangelical movements. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as to what you want. You listed this as a merger proposal in the title, but as a split in the explanation. Also, I can't parse your section header, and maybe that's what's causing my confusion. Mathglot (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you may be mistaken? I was the one who suggested the merger, not The Anome. XTheBedrockX (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right; I was confused by the lack of an initial proposal statement. Normally, the OP gives some reasoning to support the merge proposal (whether in the template, or as an initial comment) and I read the first comment as your proposal, whereas in reality it was Anome's, as you pointed out. At this point, it would be good if you could add the reasoning behind your proposal, either at the top under your 16:46 OP (but in that case, please observe WP:REDACT style), or in a new message below (which doesn't have to be a "reply" to me, so you can start over flush left). Thanks for pointing this out. Mathglot (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem XTheBedrockX (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose now that I see what it is you want (at least, I think so), I am strongly opposed. I read all seven paragraphs of Feminist views on transgender topics, which is about the concept, history, events, and people concerned with the issue of trans-exclusionary radical feminism, and there is not a single paragraph there which is about the history of the word itself, and thus nothing appropriate for moving to this article, which is about a word. Merging that content here, would immediately lead to a loss of focus on this article, which would be about two topics, nor is it clear what the title would be. See the use–mention distinction for more about this. They should remain separate articles. Mathglot (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
There may be a procedural problem with this merger. You appear to have listed this discussion in two places: here, in this discussion, and at Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics, where discucssion is also going on, but without the Merger template header as you have here. This tends to fragment the discussion, and may make it more difficult to reach consensus. Mathglot (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I'm starting to see what happened; you meant to list this article, and point it to a discussion on the Talk page of the other article, and have the discussion there. On the article page, you actually did do that, which would've been sufficient, but by duplicating the template here as well, it left the discussion open on both Talk pages. Probably this discussion should be closed, and any unaware participators informed, so that they can port their messages over, if they wish to, to the other discussion. Mathglot (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Fascism, SWERFism etc.
I feel like this page doesn't contain a lot of information about how some other aspects, such as fascism or swerfism (sex worker exclusive radical feminist), are connected to terfism. Not all terfs are fascists or swerfs, but there is an undeniable link. I would write this myself however I do not know all the history nor possess the writing prowess to do so to wikipedia's standards. Examples included can be helen staniland advocating for genocide ([Https://twitter.com/joss+prior/status/1532511819583062025 https://twitter.com/joss_prior/status/1532511819583062025]), a speaker at a terf rally quoting adolf hitler ([Https://twitter.com/NorthumbriaIWW/status/1614690987145576453 https://twitter.com/NorthumbriaIWW/status/1614690987145576453]), the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention's statement on terfs (https://www.lemkininstitute.com/statements-new-page/statement-on-the-genocidal-nature-of-the-gender-critical-movement%E2%80%99s-ideology-and-practice), this thread (https://twitter.com/NorthumbriaIWW/status/1618267770835333120), etc. etc.

There are lots of proof of the connection between terfs and fascism, as well as swerfism, anti-semitism etc. that I feel should be included in the wikipedia page on terfs. For a neutral point of view, it should be pointed out that of course, not all terfs are fascists, swerfs, anti-semitic etc., but the basis of their beliefs is intrinsic with fascism, and there's a big overlap between the two. 86.133.82.31 (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It's difficult because this is a woefully under-researched topic in formal academia and tweets are not WP:RS for use in Wikipedia even if we might, as individuals, find the arguments they make compelling. The Lemkin Institute is not a high profile source (It doesn't have its own article) but I can see it being used to reference some other articles so there might be some limited utility in that. Anyway, I don't think this is the best article to suggest such coverage on as this article is mostly about TERF as a term, not as an ideology or movement. DanielRigal (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * While I recognize there are undeniable links in my experience, I heavily agree with Daniel regarding the lack of RS in this matter. <span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting,Verdana;color:darkorchid">~Gwennie &#128008; &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 03:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

freud
"Some people who have been called trans-exclusionary radical feminists say that trans-exclusionary is an inaccurate label, as they are inclusive of transgender men, who have a female sex assignment. Peter Cava notes that when these feminists are inclusive of trans men, they often gender them as women. Linguists Christopher Davis and Elin McCready view this "purported support" of trans men as a denial of their agency and self-determination, and suggest it is trans-exclusionary "because it excludes the very category of 'trans man'"."

i think that this section is getting at something, in that terfs are generally only critical of transwomen and are overwhelmingly supportive of transmen as having liberated themselves from the oppression of patriarchy. what that actually demonstrates is a deep level of misogyny in the terf community that is rooted in level of self-loathing. freud had a famous theory that homophobia is rooted in feelings of repressed same-sex attraction; that is probably not extendable to transphobia and trans hate in general, but the outcome of every discussion i've had with a terf is the conclusion that a very high percentage of them wish they were men and that their hatred of transwomen is in truth a hatred of themselves, and deep-rooted sense of misogyny in general. somebody should look into that. 107.179.229.68 (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Changes to the lead
The part of the lead that ends with the sentence "In academic discourse, there is no consensus on whether TERF constitutes a slur" (a fair summary) has been stable for around three years, since 2019. In recent days some editors have attempted to add a new biased sentence that claims that TERF is a "bullying tool" (a fringe POV only held by TERFs themselves), without any kind of discussion or consensus. Particularly given the controversial nature of the article and the fact that this part of the lead has been stable for around three years, highly controversial changes to the lead should be discussed, rather than simply edit-warred into the article without meaningful dialogue, per WP:BRD. After the initial bold edit was reverted, those seeking to include this new sentence should have explained their reasons here on the talk page. The onus for obtaining consensus for inclusion of contested content, and particularly contested content that is also, in the context of this article, new, is on those who seek to include it. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It looks like that particular quote is pulled from only the first Guardian ref. I don't see anyone else than that one writer calling it a "bullying tool" in particular and the sentence already mentions more broadly abusive rhetoric so I don't see why it couldn't be trimmed.
 * Otherwise in that sentence, "Critics of the word have pointed to its usage alongside insulting or abusive rhetoric" - there is no issue, this is well-cited and written as a critics' view, not wikivoice. Chillabit (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I only object to the "bullying tool" part of the sentence. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Does the specific phrase "bullying tool" have wide traction or is it just one person's preferred description? If it is just Bennett then we should not be attributing it to "critics" (plural). If it does not have wide traction among those who dislike the description TERF then it does not belong in the lead. Taking it out does not detract from the sentence. It still explains their objections perfectly clearly without it. DanielRigal (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW I don't think quotes belong in the lead unless there are exceptional circumstances. The lead is supposed to summerise. Quotes by definition do not. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well then lets go back to the "Critics of the word TERF say that it has been used in an overly-broad fashion and in an insulting manner, alongside violent rhetoric." which is how it was presented for years (as long as the no consensus sentence cited above). Deleting the whole sentence outright and claiming ONUS was highly inappropriate. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For reference, the "bullying tool" wording appears to be fairly new, dating to this diff just about a month ago: . The older version is, IMO, better as a single sentence, but this version includes a more comprehensive surrounding paragraph. Loki (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is an issue; WP:SAY. Pointed to (in the essentially identical form of "pointed out") is specifically spelled out in that part of the MOS as a wording to avoid when discussing controversial topics. --Aquillion (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * One original thought can be added to this discussion. Radical shortened as R in TERF has obviously a negative conotation. Is there any prove that all Trans-Exclusive Feminists (TEFs) are TERFs? I could find 17 papers using TEF instread of TERF. There are surely self-labelling radical people like there are self-labeling utopists, even self-labeling fascists. However, such epithet would be of pejorative nature for people not identifying as radical. Geysirhead (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The radical is certainly not a negative term per se. It was a self descriptor and still used today in feminist circles.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the particial rewording of the thought. As already writen, self-insult does not deprive a pejorative term of its pejorative nature. Geysirhead (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is an experpt from professor emeritus Sheila Jeffreys, who is neither a foreign-labeled nor a self-insulted radical: "The fact that men can be more ardent exponents of the practice of femininity than women has become clearer in recent decades as the medical profession, pornography and the Internet have spawned a massive cult of femininity among men in the form of transsexualism, transgenderism, transvestism. Femininity is sexually exciting to the men who seek it because it represents subordinate status and thus satisfies masochistic sexual interests. Men's femininity is very different from the femininity that is a requirement of women's subordinate status, because women do not choose femininity but have it thrust upon them. Femininity is not a form of sexual fantasy for women but the hard and often resented work required of those who occupy subordinate social status. However the forms that the outward appearance of femininity takes are quite similar in both cases, and the beauty practices are identical. Looking at what men make of it will show that femininity, rather than having any connection with biology, is socially constructed as the behaviour of subordination." source
 * Prof. Jeffreys basically shifts transexuality into the domain of cultural appropriation. Geysirhead (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand Jeffreys' views, but I don't see how that's related to this. "Radical", as used here, is not a self-insult nor an exonym. Radical (as in root) reflects the ontological stance that patriarchy are the root cause of gendered oppression. This is in contrast to "liberal" feminist who view gendered oppression as largely an issue of restricted opportunity and differential treatment. It does not mean "extreme" or anything negative.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Radical feminism essentially disregards issues of class or capitalism, focusing instead on male power and male-dominated culture as a source of women's oppression. Radical feminists attack patriarchy, especially the patriarchal family, as the sole system of domination. Unlike liberal feminism, radical feminism rejects the male-centered family as oppressive in its own terms. Radical feminists view men and women as classes, or sex classes (Firestone 1970), fundamentally opposed in common interests."
 * "Whereas liberal feminists want a piece of the pie,... radical feminists... want a whole new pie. Radical feminists recognize the oppression of women as a fundamental political oppression wherein women are categorized as inferior based upon their gender. It is not enough to remove barriers to equality; rather, deeper, more transformational changes need to be made in societal institutions (like the government or media) as well as in people's heads. ... Radical feminists assert that reformist solutions like those liberal feminism would enact are problematic because they work to maintain rather than undermine the system."  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have 4 Yes/No-questions:
 * * Are all trans-inclusive feminisms not radical?
 * * Are all trans-exclusive feminisms radical?
 * * Are all radical feminisms trans-exclusive?
 * * Are all non-radical feminisms trans-inclusive? Geysirhead (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Part of the misunderstanding is that you're seeing R as separate from F in the acronym. Instead R and F should be read together, as part of one name; radical feminist. Radical is not a descriptor for the word feminist. TERFs are not "trans exclusionary feminists who are radicals". TERFs are instead "trans exclusionary radical feminists".
 * Your questions are unfortunately more nuanced than straight yes/no answers allow.
 * Most trans-inclusive feminists are not radical feminists. Most trans-inclusive feminists tend to be third wave or fourth wave. That said, there is a small subset of trans inclusive radical feminists.
 * Most trans-exclusive feminists are RadFems. That said, there is a small subset of third and fourth wave feminists that are trans-exclusive.
 * No, as I said in my answer to point 1, not all RadFems are trans-exclusive. There are also SWERFs (Sex Worker-Exclusionary Radical Feminist) who may or may not also be trans-exclusive.
 * No, as I said in my answer to question 2, not all non-RadFems are trans-inclusive.
 * Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The idea that radical in the expression is in any way negative is incorrect and represents a lack of knowledge of the history of feminism, and in particular radical feminism. The term was created by radical feminists in the 1960s as a self-appellation as standard English usage, neither ironic, nor a reappropriation; it's merely descriptive, without a whiff of anything pejorative about it. Mathglot (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody needs deep knowledge of slaughter houses to understand that calling a surgeon a butcher is an insult. Geysirhead (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ...but not calling a butcher a butcher. Radical feminists call themselves that. It's a completely neutral descriptor in this context. Loki (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What an odd analogy and way off the mark.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is evident to me that "TERF" is a pejorative, the article has a whole segment where it delves into how perceived "TERFs" object to the term, and instead prefer the term "gender critical feminist." Since the term itself was coined by a woman who is a self-described "trans-ally", it would make sense that perceived "TERFs" wouldn't use this term to describe themselves. The key factors in what makes a word a "slur" or pejorative are, to quote Deborah Cameron, a feminist linguist and professor in language and communication at Oxford, the following:
 * Has the term been imposed or has it been adopted voluntarily by the group the term has been applied to?
 * Is the word commonly understood to convey hatred or contempt?
 * Does the word have a neutral counterpart which denotes the same group without conveying hatred/contempt?
 * Do the people the word is applied to regard it as a slur?
 * To answer the text above: It has been imposed as perceived "TERFs" do not label themselves that, it is commonly understood to convey contempt, the neutral counterpart would be "gender critical feminist", and the people who the word is applied to do seem to regard it as a slur, and from what I have seen, quite intensely I may add. Additionally, I must say that I agree with Geysirhead to some extent, even a self-insult does not deprive a pejorative term of its pejorative nature, as with the word "nigger" and its derivative "nigga".
 * Sprucecopse (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To ensure this comment goes addressed please see WP:Notaforum. RS does not indicate this is a slur. FRINGE should be applied to trans exclusionary radical feminism, including Cameron's views on transgender people. Filiforme1312 (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Getting back to the OP placed by : it does seem questionable whether "bullying tool" should remain in the lead. Actually, I think that understates the case, and it's questionable whether it should remain in the article at all, and afaict per policy, it should not.

For starters, the body of the article mentions it in only one place, based on comments by Catherine Bennett (journalist), not exactly a major spokeswoman of feminism (of any type). But even so, if the term were exemplary of majority or minority opinion, then it could be included, but is it? I would say that per WP:DUE WEIGHT, it should not. Compare the results in Scholar for "bullying tool" with the results for "violent rhetoric", "pejorative", or "slur". This makes it clear that "bullying tool" represents "only a tiny minority" of reliable sources on the topic, and therefore is highly UNDUE and the Bennett quote should be removed from the article body. Given that, it would be completely unacceptable to keep it in the lead of the article. Mathglot (talk) 07:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with this assessment. Would it be relevant to state that the word is generally considered to be a pejorative in the first lead? Sprucecopse (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It's obviously WP:UNDUE, since it's placing excessive focus on one person's point of view. I've removed it from the lead, since there seems a clear consensus for at least that much above (which wasn't implemented until now); we can discuss what to do with the ref in the body, since due weight for an article's body is lower. --Aquillion (talk) 05:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

TERF partnering with right wing extremism and Neo Nazi White Supremacy.
Below you will find a fraction of the articles tying trans exclusionary radical feminists, far right conservative hate groups and white supremacy. Thoughts on including a section the controversy  ties of hate groups to radical feminism.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/conservative-group-hosts-anti-transgender-panel-feminists-left-n964246

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/the-recast/2022/03/08/politics-transgender-health-care-feminists-religious-conservatives-00015307

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/transphobia-white-supremacy/

https://www.losangelesblade.com/2022/12/16/the-federalist-heritage-foundation-using-anti-lgbtq-alarmism/

https://www.dukeupress.edu/trans-exclusionary-feminisms-and-the-global-new-right

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2020/02/07/radical-feminists-conservatives-transgender-rights/

https://jezebel.com/of-course-terfs-have-found-common-cause-with-white-nati-1839129243

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/9/5/20840101/terfs-radical-feminists-gender-critical

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2019/06/26/white-nationalist-threats-against-transgender-people-are-escalating

104.34.202.79 (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So, birds of a feather ally with each other. What else is new? Dimadick (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Those are good sources but unfortunately this is the wrong article for them. This is the article about the term "TERF". You want Feminist views on transgender topics. Loki (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Gender-critical feminism
Is this the same as gender-critical feminism, or should we create a separate article for that? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * This article is for the term "TERF", not the people it describes, so, no it's not. Loki (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 June 2023
Add Gender-critical feminism under "see also" section. Don&#39;taskwhyImadethis (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: already in hat and lead Hyphenation Expert (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Inclusions in the "TERF Island" section
I don't have the rights to edit this page, so I'm writing a request of sorts here.

I'm somewhat surprised to not see JK Rowling and Graham Linehan mentioned amongst the "gender criticals" listed in the TERF Island section. While Linehan is Irish (as in, RoI, not NI), I've generally seen the term used to refer to the British Isles. I personally disagree with that usage myself, as it ignores a lot of nuance, but oh well...

So for those not in the loop, I'll explain.

Graham Linehan has practically formed an entire identity around being a TERF, even having his own substack page dedicated to it, and launching various events around it. It's been enough for him to completely corrode his livelihood; these days he's constantly complaining about losing his wife, career, and so on, strictly attributing it to backlash for his TERF views. I think this makes him a prime mention at least somewhere on the page - when people think of TERFs, people think of Linehan. https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/a-transwoman-a-transman-and-a-non https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/broke-shunned-and-cancelled-father-ted-creator-graham-linehan-and-the-trans-debate-cgv8gqpjk https://thepostmillennial.com/graham-linehan-launches-gender-critical-coming-out-day-for-dec-19

As for JK Rowling, I think she's one of the biggest reasons people call the UK "TERF Island" in the first place. While a contested topic, I think it's very hard to ignore her public statements and the backlash she receives. Even a paragraph going "oh Rowling is often called this and is known for numerous public statements but some people contest her" would feel right. I don't have the greatest of sources on me - I'm sure there's better stuff out there - but it should be a start. She is absolutely the face of the gender critical movement at this point and not giving her even a passing mention feels like an oversight. https://thepostmillennial.com/london-pride-parade-takes-aim-at-terfs-and-jk-rowling https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html https://www.oxfordstudent.com/2020/06/25/j-k-rowling-and-the-terf-wars/

These two feel far more prominent than the names mentioned right now, at least from a 2023 perspective. I think these mentions would make it more complete.

Thank you for your time! Plague von Karma (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that JK Rowling definitely should be included in the "TERF island" section; as you say, she is one of the main reasons people use the term and make that connection to the UK. But I suppose we need to find a reliable source that explicitly makes the connection between Rowling and the "TERF Island" epithet, which may be difficult. If we can't find a reason to add her to this section, the sources you provide (and others) are enough to warrant a mention in this article.
 * I don't think Linehan should be included in that section, as it currently makes it clear this is a term for the UK, and I've never seen the term used to refer to the British Isles (besides the fact that many Irish people dislike the term "British Isles", if the term did refer to the whole British Isles, then wouldn't the term be "TERF Isles"?). I am surprised he isn't mentioned in the article, but I'm not sure where would be a natural fit. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 31 August 2023
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved According to the consensus below, the resulting redirect (after the move) "TERF" needs to be redirected to "Gender-critical feminism". Currently "TERF" has around 570 incoming links from mainspace, which need to be updated to "Trans-exclusionary radical feminist". I will perform the page moves after updating the links, which will need some time. I request other editors to not move page, I will do it once all the links are updated accordingly. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

TERF → TERF (acronym) – It's hard to argue that when people mention the word "TERF", they're usually thinking of the acronym itself rather than the people they're describing. I propose moving "TERF" to "TERF (acronym)" and redirecting the existing title (and the longer-form redirect "Trans-exclusionary radical feminist") to "gender-critical feminism". PBZE (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * IS there some other use of it? Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No reason to do this. Dawnbails (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason to do it is for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC reasons. We have a bunch of convoluted scenarios where, for example, one sentence in Anti-gender movement is "Anti-gender rhetoric has seen increasing circulation in trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) discourse since 2016." and the link "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" needs to be piped to refer to the article about the movement itself rather than the acronym. A simple search on Google Scholar and Google itself also shows that "TERF" usually refers to the movement, not the acronym. PBZE (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So do we have any other articles on titles TERF? Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, since this summer we do have an article on the ideology or movement itself, which is titled Gender-critical feminism and where TERF is one of several equal/alternative titles (in fact, TERF is the most widely used name of the ideology or movement, as discussed on that article's talk page, but we opted for the "Gender-critical feminism" article title because some sources appear to be moving in that direction, and because it was less contentious) --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. The primary meaning of TERF is the ideology or movement itself, which is covered by the article Gender-critical feminism where TERF is one of several equal titles. This terminology-focused article is really just a sub topic of the main article on the ideology/movement, i.e. Gender-critical feminism aka TERF. We do have a summary of the terminology issue in the main article article, and TERF (acronym) would be the in-depth article on that sub topic. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. A "terf" is a (perhaps derogatory?) term for a gender-critical feminist. When one types in TERF, that's the article you should be reading. The article on the term itself should be separated from it. Red   Slash  22:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. There was also a related discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 19. <small style="color:#667;background:white;border:2px solid;border-radius:4px;padding:0 4px">SilverLocust 💬 16:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per the explained rationale. The people and beliefs associated with the term are very clearly the primary topic here, not the acronym itself. XTheBedrockX (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * note: I have not performed the move, nor link updates yet. It is currently being discussed at User talk: Red Slash. Any input there would be appreciated a lot. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

TERF move
Hello. I closed the RM discussion a few minutes ago at Talk:TERF, but I got confused regarding updating the links. Do we need to update all the current links that lead to "TERF" to "TERF (acronym)"? Because there is also consensus to retarget "TERF" to "gender-critical feminism". That means, if we only perform the move without updating the links, the instance of "TERF" in J. K. Rowling article will lead to gender-critical feminism. So, from that example Rowling article, do we need to update "TERF" to "TERF (acronym)"? —usernamekiran (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it would be correct to update most of the existing links from  to   and from   to    with AWB, since the way it would be used in an article is in reference to people being called the term. It isn't particularly urgent though, given that in the meantime it would just be linking to another article related to the meaning of the term. <small style="color:#667;background:white;border:2px solid;border-radius:4px;padding:0 4px">SilverLocust  💬 03:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * (Well, obviously don't use AWB controversially.) <small style="color:#667;background:white;border:2px solid;border-radius:4px;padding:0 4px">SilverLocust 💬 04:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * While a few of the links may be used primarily in reference to the acronym and its history, I believe most of them are more likely to refer to the ideology, the primary meaning of the term. I can't think of a case where the article on the ideology wouldn't be a valid or suitable target. These two articles cover facets of the same topic, one main article on the ideology that also more briefly addresses terminology, and one in-depth article elaborating on the history of the acronym. So a link to the main article would never really be "incorrect". Hence, I think we should just go ahead and move it now. Editors can adjust the links in the (relatively few?) articles that refer specifically to the history of the word itself rather than the ideology, but I don't consider that very urgent. I don't think it's necessary to change all those links en masse, and I believe it's more likely that the main article on the ideology is a more suitable target in most cases anyway. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Based on the discussion here, I think it is safe to move the pages. I have already edited the templates to update "TERF" to "TERF (acronym)|TERF". Thank you everybody. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * That is a bit premature, I was not even awake. I opposed the move and still do. Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * late response-- wasn't awake. after reading through the discussion, I'm fine with the move. didn't really see the discussion until after the close. I'd say that it'd make more sense to switch redirects from TERF to TERF (acronym) instead of TERF to gender-critical feminism. Dawnbails (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure why this whole thing is taking place on my talk page <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">Face-smile.svg but I'm not complaining. The reason TERF can't redirect to TERF (acronym) is WP:MISPLACED--basically, we never ever redirect from X to X (thing). A move from X to X (thing) is implicitly (or explicitly) with the goal to redirect X elsewhere. Red   Slash  15:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A very good point, page moves can't be discussed on user talk pages. Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Updating the links is something that people will do as needed. Most of the time when TERF is linked, it's about the ideology instead of the acronym, anyway. I wouldn't worry about it <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">Face-smile.svg Red   Slash  15:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * note: I moved the above conversation from User talk:Red Slash at 13:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC). I had moved the pages after there was an agreement that it was safe to move the pages (regarding the redirect). —usernamekiran (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Page moves should not be discussed on a users talk pages. Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * In this case it was not a discussion of the page move itself, but an editor asking for advice on how to implement the outcome that had already been decided in the above consensus here. That discussion could have taken place here as well, but since they posted a note here about the discussion I don't really see a huge problem. (I agree that it was appropriate to move the discussion here.) --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Note, this move is being discussed (and criticised) at Talk:Gender-critical feminism/Archive 3. Please comment there. -- Colin°Talk 12:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

ill consensus?
It appears that the current "consensus" regarding the renaming of "TERF" to "TERF (acronym)" and redirection of "TERF" to "Gender-critical feminism" is unstable, even causing issues because it is unclear whether existing links to TERF should link to the term or the ideology. The ongoing, active, controversial and highly distributed (three pages, now down to two again) discussions suggest to me that in fact no consensus exists, and that the initial actions (move, redirect) should never have been performed in the first place.

Additionally, the fact that the ramifications of what to do with existing links to TERF are being discussed after the action has already been performed suggests to me that this is a procedural failure, that the discussion has been closed prematurely and that the only way to address the issues caused by it (and prevent this discussion going in circles forever) is to do a clean revert and bring the discussion(s) back to this page, "TERF".

Last but not least, it is my interpretation of the things I have observed so far that this in attempt to solve an intra-article (topical) discussion on an administrative level, which cannot and will not work and only kicks the can down the road. To me, it appears that what occurred here is an unintended (lite) content forking as a way to resolve a longstanding and apparently unresolvable dispute, which is understandable but nevertheless against our guidelines. It should be remedied as soon as possible. TucanHolmes (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * As I noted elsewhere, the main article on the ideology and movement covers the topic in its entirety. That includes terminology, which is briefly summarized per WP:SUMMARY style and elaborated on in an in-depth article on the history of the acronym. In this sense, the articles can be compared to Donald Trump and Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump (or any other article on an aspect/facet of Trump's life). Therefore, the main article can never be wrong as a target, but if a source/article is specifically addressing TERF as a word, then the acronym article might be a more relevant target. But in most cases sources are primarily referring to the ideology or movement itself (including adherents of the ideology, that may include groups, people or events), not to the history of the word. My guess is that most links now point to the most relevant article, but editors can change them to the acronym article on a case by case basis if that article is the more relevant target. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * TERF does not mean "Gender critical feminism". It is not exclusively used for "gender critical feminists".
 * A page for the term "TERF" that explained the dispute and gave people the option to go to a separate article about gender-critical feminism was fine. When crowds of masked men chant "shut your stupid f***ing mouth you stupid f***ing TERF" as they seem to do fairly regularly these days they are not offering a reasoned critique of a specific feminist ideology.
 * The OED Definition which you keep disregarding gives two, equally weighted definitions, one technically explaining the acronym refers specifically to radical feminists, and one generally about hostility to trans people. Neither of these support your contention because "Gender critical feminists" are not de facto radical feminists, and "hostility to trans people" is not an ideology.
 * Google returns only the general sense as a definition.
 * In common usage, TERF is a derogatory synonym for transphobe, directed mostly at women. The other dictionary definitions that come back either have narrow definitions that are not synonymous with "gender critical feminism":
 * Or have woolly definitions that don't support your contention:
 * Or this:
 * Wiktionary says:
 * Neither of these support your position.
 * You're taking a derogatory term that simply means "transphobic" and directing it at a tiny group of people (gender-critical feminists) who regard it as a slur, and in so doing you have sidelined the article which explained the contested nature of the term and the entire debate over whether it is or isn't a slur.
 * The evidence supplied to support any of this was not forthcoming before the move, the target page was never notified, and what's been offered after the fact has invariably been inadequate or wrong.
 * You keep referring to "the ideology" as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC but the primary topic is that this is a derogatory word used to call people transphobic, and that isn't an ideology.
 * If you wanted to redirect "TERF Ideology" or "TERFism" to GCF, like "trans exclusionary radical feminism" does, it would possibly make some sense. But TERF should go back to its own page.
 * A clean revert is needed. Void if removed (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding: the very first citation on this page states:
 * Which undermines the claim that the term can be directed anywhere but here, since its usage is broad these days.
 * It also says:
 * Again, the very first citation on this page draws a distinction between TERF and gender-critical, while acknowledging they are complex and interrelated.
 * Directing TERF to gender-critical as if it means the same thing is wrong. As Thurlow points out, even if gender-critical is an evolution of earlier trans-exclusionary feminisms, they are still not the same, and it is beholden on this page to explain what trans-exclusionary radical feminism is rather than force the two together like this. She is mostly saying that gender-critical sounds more reasonable but also highlights instances where the groups are critical of each other. Even to a source that is critical of both the terms are recognised as not synonymous. Void if removed (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please, as I've already stated, this is not the appropriate place to discuss this. TucanHolmes  (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, apologies for continuing.
 * I am curious though what you would suggest as a way forward. You allude to a clean revert but I don't see a procedural route there? Void if removed (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It also says:
 * Again, the very first citation on this page draws a distinction between TERF and gender-critical, while acknowledging they are complex and interrelated.
 * Directing TERF to gender-critical as if it means the same thing is wrong. As Thurlow points out, even if gender-critical is an evolution of earlier trans-exclusionary feminisms, they are still not the same, and it is beholden on this page to explain what trans-exclusionary radical feminism is rather than force the two together like this. She is mostly saying that gender-critical sounds more reasonable but also highlights instances where the groups are critical of each other. Even to a source that is critical of both the terms are recognised as not synonymous. Void if removed (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please, as I've already stated, this is not the appropriate place to discuss this. TucanHolmes  (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, apologies for continuing.
 * I am curious though what you would suggest as a way forward. You allude to a clean revert but I don't see a procedural route there? Void if removed (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am curious though what you would suggest as a way forward. You allude to a clean revert but I don't see a procedural route there? Void if removed (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)