Talk:Women's Liberation Front/Archive 1

DUE/OR
This seems to WP:UNDULY dwell on only the points WoLF talks about that have something to do with trans rights versus "TERF" concerns. It is not really credible that WLF has nothing to say about anything but this, nor that everything they do say about it is represented here. This appears to be a WP:OR exercise of "steering the reader" into a pre-decided viewpoint to form about this organization. E.g., their style guide is 34 pages long, and has a lot of material on writing about women and girls that doesn't have anything to do with trans issues (though some does, in an exclusionary/distinguishing way). They appear in some cases to take stances that some would consider "extreme" in support of some TG/NB/QG views, e.g. that intersex people "may experience forced genital mutilation as infants to more closely align their external genitalia with either male or female genitalia", which is certainly not how the average person (especially in medicine) would put it.

The overall gist of their material appears, at least on immediate analysis, to be a strange partial merger of first- through third-wave feminism (mostly second, I think), with certain aspects of "American conservative"-leaning naturalism and absolutism, as pushback against a lot of the most typical trans-advocacy messaging. But not all of it is, and that's being lost in translation. Some of what they say is not apt to be very controversial (e.g. distinguishing between external labeling and self-identity declarations, etc.).

I don't think we have any secondary sources here being relied upon for what material from WLF is encyclopedically noteworthy and what it means in the overall context of gender-issues. One or more editors have taken it upon themselves to make this decision, in a way that suits their own viewpoint. And it gets worse. The Hines quote is from a piece that never mentions this organization or its works at all, so the claim that the quote pertains to the WoLF quote that precedes it is blatant falsification. Nor are competing ideological organizations and publications reliable sources for analysis of this one and its output. Nor are student newspapers, which are rarely usable for things beyond local events (WP:RSSM).

I'm skeptical the Davis source is being used properly. While well-reviewed, it is something of an academic and personal-life memoir merged with an advocacy piece about "the current state of affairs for intersex people" and for "feminist reclamation of the intersex body". It's written by a sociologist, not an MD, geneticist, or other expert on the science involved. It concedes the DSD terminology and (more importantly) medical view is not only dominant in the field but "initiated the transformation of intersex advocacy from collective confrontation to contested collaboration". The fact that the book observes certain kinds of controversy about the term (and has largely picked a side in the controversy) doesn't have any clear implications for WoLF's use of it. See our own Disorders of sex development article, which remains at that WP:COMMONNAME; if it's good enough for WP, then criticizing its use in WoLF materials seems misplaced. Especially given that the controversy about the word "disorder" is seeing the concept increasingly renamed to "differences/diversity/divergence in sex development" and other replacement terms, without much effect otherwise. I.e., this appears to primarily be a terminological dispute and (in legal/rights spheres) a consent one, not a scientific one. The most cogent compact review I ran across summarizes the Davis book (minus some initial detailia) thus : "Within the intersex community ... disorder of sex development terminology is hotly disputed; some prefer not to use a term which pathologizes their bodies, while others prefer to think of intersex in scientific terms. Although terminology is currently a source of tension within the movement, Davis hopes intersex activists and their allies can come together to improve the lives of intersex people, their families, and future generations. However, for this to happen, the intersex diagnosis, as well as sex, gender, and sexuality, needs to be understood as socially constructed phenomena. A personal journey into medical and social activism, Contesting Intersex presents a unique perspective on how medical diagnoses can affect lives profoundly." So, this is clearly an opinion piece, with a viewpoint, but one it does not push as absolute. What exactly are we supposed to be getting from this as a purported reliable source on what a contrary activism piece, WoLF's style guide, means from an encyclopedic perspective? (Aside: while "socially constructed" is generally accepted for most of these categories, it is not for sex, in the sense of the biological sexes, so this source may be at odds with mainstream science on some points. I don't own it and can't find full text online, so I'm not certain.)

The Holmes source is similarly a primary-source advocacy piece, an "argument [that] applies to and is drawn out of a larger disability scholarship and activism framework that refuses to permit medicine the final voice in defining our bodies and our selves." And, like Davis's, it has nothing to do with WoLF in particular. This seems to be "citation padding" to make the article look like it has more sourcing than it really does (for anything it says about the actual subject of the article). Ironically, WoLF's position that operating on intersex children is "mutilation" is entirely in alignment with Davis and Holmes; WoLF just happens to be running with the original "D" in DSD (as of when that part of our article was written) and might be entirely amenable to "differences/diversity/divergence". That is, I think these two sources are being "pitted against" WoLF when their actual underlying message, on intersex persons, is mostly compatible, despite WoLF's views on trans people not being very compatible with lots of other groups and writers in this same issue space.

Anyway, this article looks like a one-sided hatchet job, and I wonder whether WP:TNT might not be in order. It's not clear this WoLF group is even notable, as their "fifteen minutes" appears to have been a single Heritage Foundation panel. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to drag you unduly back into this months later, but I think I agree with a lot of your general assessment of the article being bloated and at best borderline notability. Probably gonna nominate for deletion, so figure it's worth pinging you here in case you'd like to offer thoughts there. I take a somewhat different stance on the whole question of focus (even if there is anything to WoLF besides advocacy on trans topics, we really can't find it covered in secondary sources beyond PR newsires), but it's definitely true that these articles tend to devolve into point-scoring. I just pruned a significant amount of the article dedicated to press releases with no RS backing, which at least might have the side effect of cutting down on some of the worst divergence from encyclopedic style. —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 06:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of the above pruning might indeed be necessary, but several court briefs were deleted that seem quite important/pertinent, for instance all reference to the amicus brief WoLF filed on R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was deleted, and that's a landmark case on transgender rights. If nothing else, this provides a useful record highlighting certain court battles on the issue. For instance, the side WoLF supported lost in the above case, but in the case directly below, relating to free speech, the plaintiff they supported won. That case was also deleted from the article.
 * I do buy the argument that the style guide is given too much coverage, perhaps bordering on WP:NOT propaganda/advocacy, though I don't know that it should've been entirely deleted. The inclusion of polling on the other hand seems less objectionable - it's a descriptive record of polls they've commissioned, does that really violate WP:NPOV or the guidelines for WP:SPS? And actually, looking into it, a Sun Sentinel opinion piece just referenced one of those polls.
 * Also, I'm not sure why elements like their 501(c)(3) status and their categorization as a radical feminist organization were deleted? SanDWesting (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So the trouble I see with your analysis is that justifying the inclusion of various court briefs on the basis that they "seem quite important/pertinent" is that this doesn't really fit how we generally decide what content to include in articles: coverage in reliable secondary sources, with a focus to giving due weight to the most prominent aspects in RS. One of the major policies that's relevant here is we're not a directory -- we have to provide the context not just for the basic existence of a court brief but its actual importance and surrounding context, and we can't do that in the absence of secondary RS without committing original research. You can imagine why we have these policies and guidelines: almost every advocacy organization on the planet has a list of cases they've gone through and a listing of their positions on several issues. But if we based our coverage in articles on these, it would present a distorted and essentially subjective view of importance; we are essentially accepting at face value the organization's own characterization of events and their importance rather than performing our responsibility as Wikipedia editors to scour the secondary sourcing for knowledge on an issue and present what we find. While there's no blanket ban on minor use of primary sources like court briefs to provide context here and there and cite basic facts, they absolutely shouldn't be the major basis for an article. Restoring content as you have produces an article that consists almost entirely of a directory-like listing of stuff the organization has filed and WoLF's own self-published style guide info and polling without backing in reliable sources. It's completely understandable to want the article to cover aspects of WoLF you feel are important somehow, but without coverage in reliable sources it's not really our job to do that.
 * I'm willing to discuss specific aspects you'd like to include, but I don't think the vast majority works encyclopedically -- the sourcing just isn't there. The onus to find consensus for including disputed material is generally on the party who wants to include it; we can workshop specifics but I'd suggest avoiding wholesale restoration of the content without more discussion. The reason I moved the "radical feminist" to later on in the lead is that news outlets generally refer to WoLF as a "self-described radical feminist" organization, likely reflecting the divergence of its views from contemporary feminism. We have to stick to the sources; if secondary sources qualify the "radical feminist" descriptor we can't uncritically repeat it in wikivoice. With the 501(c)(3) status I don't have strong feelings but it's not a particularly important aspect of the organization and there's no real coverage of it in secondary sourcing. I think the proximate problem here is that it's not totally clear the article is even notable due to the serious paucity of secondary coverage. —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC) (edited 16:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC))
 * Thanks for discussing these issues, by the way. I obviously don't agree with the inclusion of some of this material but you've been quite kind and sensible in explaining your thoughts on the matter and I'm glad to discuss further to see if we can come to some consensus on the matter. Always glad to see new editors around. Have a good one! —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So my suspicion that some of the included cases, and WoLF's filing on them, as being quite important has proven true - as it turns out, the Washington Post released an article on it last year. And The Economist, Jezebel, and The Christian Post have all reported on their polls, Jezebel actually reported on one not included in this article. SanDWesting (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's engage in the specifics then, then, rather than simply reverting to the status quo. Again, if you want to include content, please discuss it -- simply saying "sources exist" without linking the specific ones doesn't really help us reach consensus, it's just rank edit warring. Christian Post and Jezebel are not generally reliable sources; they don't support the idea we should include anything. But even supposing they were, I am unable to find any reference to WoLF's polling in the Economist, Jezebel or the Christian Post. I think this Washington Post article, to which I presume you're referring to, is a good start! But it justifies precisely one statement -- the organization's filing of a brief in R.G. & G.R. Harris (and note that it doesn't even name the case, preferring to link to it)! The rest of the article is general background info which could productively be used to discuss WoLF, which I'll add on. But we're still left with a style guide, multiple other minor court cases & rulemaking petitions, and their polling and style guide. Thus far, you have offered no real justification for the inclusion of any of those. If you can actually provide the articles you say cover the style guide, let's discuss that. But don't revert to a clearly flawed status quo on the basis that one or two parts may be justified -- instead, let's work together piece by piece to include what pieces of info have RS backing and which don't.There are additional flaws with this version you don't seem to have addressed, including how articles generally caveat the description "radical feminist" as a self-description. Please discuss before reinstating disputed content.—0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I literally added the words "self-described" to the introduction. I do not remotely understand the justification that not removing half the article should be brought to talk, but removing half the article can be done with no conversation. You removed TWENTY-FIVE CITATIONS, including books, Politico, and there's no consensus on Jezebel or Media Matters as being not-reliable, and you removed citations from both. Here's the aforementioned Jezebel https://jezebel.com/these-girls-just-wanted-to-run-the-right-wanted-a-war-1846280528 and the Christian Post https://www.christianpost.com/news/biden-nominee-girls-sports-must-include-trans-identified-males.html pieces on polling, both citations I included. I spent several hours researching and adding sources, and you didn't even bother to read one sentence of the edits I made before reverting all my work. Either a simple 'find word' search on the article page, or a simple Google search would have revealed these results, so I'm beginning to think you aren't editing this page in good faith at all. WaPo referred to R.G. & G.R. Harris  as "one of the most consequential Supreme Court cases of the year," and you minimize it by writing that they didn't refer to it by name?!? I hadn't even finished adding sources to the article, but I thought the many, many, many sources I had added would be enough to move on from this discussion and on to improving the article. The Seattle Times citation, along with The Stranger and The Albuquerque Journal all included/published pieces on the Drag Queen Story Hour section you deleted. I just found an article in the Post Register on WoLF's polling in Idaho. I am incredibly disappointed that you didn't even glance at the numerous citations I added, and that you felt comfortable deleting huge swathes of a Wikipedia article without checking for, or even asking for independent citations, as recommended in WP:CITENEED. SanDWesting (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Look, I understand it can be frustrating to contribute your effort to an article only to find someone else wants to discuss your contributions further before including them. But it's important to understand I'm not your enemy; I'm really disappointed we haven't be able to discuss the specific issues with the content I've previously mentioned so that we might move forward and build a better article. I'm sorry if you feel I've glossed over the sources in your article -- I did see you'd included Jezebel and other sources, but they rarely seemed to justify the cited additions: they were often one word trivial mentions that didn't mention what we were claiming in the article. For instance, you cited both the Jezebel and Christian Post article to make the following claim: In November 2020, WoLF filed an amicus curiae brief in support of appellants and reversal of the Ninth Circuit case Hecox, et al. v. Little, et al. and Kenyon, et al. "from its interest in empowering and protecting the safety and privacy of women and girls and preserving women's sex-based civil rights." There's a clear problem with this -- neither the CPost or Jezebel article mention WoLF's brief in their articles; instead, they're mentioned very briefly in the context of a confirmation hearing and Minnesota bill unrelated to Hecox v. Little. So even I were to concede the reliability of Christian Post and Jezebel, we're left with two articles which are used to justify the inclusion of a point mentioned in neither. I was puzzled by this fact, and was unsure whether instead meant to refer to different articles from Jezebel or Christian Post which justified the presented statements -- my asking for you to specify these sources was not an ignorant attempt to ignore your contributions but rather a means of ensuring we held a mutual understanding of what sources were under consideration. I hope I've made it clear that casting aspersions is unproductive -- instead of jumping to assumptions of bad faith and accusing me of not reading your contribution, would it not be more helpful to just make clear the specific sources you're talking about and discuss them? With regards to the rest of your points -- good job finding this Post Register article, if I have you correct! I was pleased on reading that and thought about incorporating that into the article. Unfortunately, there is an issue: you'll notice the article is published under the newspaper's Capitol Letters "blogs" division rather than their news reporting as indicated in the URL and Mr. Brown's sidebar on the page. They could probably stand to indicate that more clearly, and I don't blame you for not noticing. But generally speaking blog/editorial divisions are not subject to the normal fact-checking procedures that newspapers have (WP:NEWSORG, WP:NEWSBLOG), and indeed that seems to be the case here; Brown makes a calculation error in asserting that the poll shows "Majorities of more than 60% said transgender women shouldn't be incarcerated in women's prisons". If you look at the underlying statistics released by Spry Stragies, they show the actual stats for Idaho are 51.3% + 8.3% = 59.6% disapprove on Q10, which is below and not above 60%. Unfortunately, if we can't trust the Post Register's blog division to exercise basic numerical fact-checking such as this, it seems dubious we can use it to justify including content in the article.  I'm trying to find material that would justify the inclusion of material on Drag Queen Story Hour but the stuff you mention seems to be unsatisfactory -- the only reference to WoLF in relation to Alberquerque Journ. is an op-ed by Natasha Chart, and as I've already mentioned wrt Post Register op-eds are not considered reliable. And while there's some coverage of WoLF and Drag Queen Story Hour in the Stranger and Seattle Times seperately, I've scoured high and low for a mention of the two in relation to each other in those two sources in your revision and Google and have turned up blank. If you can find them and they're reliable, great! I'll consider adding them. But perhaps it's like Jezebel and I have seen them but they seem to me obviously to not support the cited text. Either way, it helps to link the sources you're discussing even if you feel it's obvious.  Anyways, I'm sorry we've gotten off on the wrong foot. I'd like just as much as you to work together on this article; I just feel, in the broadest sense, that the sources you've used to support article content either 1) don't say what they're cited to support or 2) aren't reliable or 3) are just large collections of WoLF's own briefs, statements and polling without real RS backing, which falls afoul of WP:NOTDIR and WP:SELFPUB. That doesn't mean none of your contributions can ever be used (e.g. I worked some of the WaPo material on R.G back in, which seemed perfectly fine) just that we need to discuss them individually before including and work to ensure they're backed by reliable sources. If you've ever seen Rocky, think of me as a kinder Mickey Goldmill; I'm certainly giving you a tough challenge to ensure everything's up to encyclopedic snuff, but we're basically on the same team. I just want to see your revisions as best they can be, pairing RS's actual text with the statements they're meant to back. If you and I can discuss this rather than frustrating each other by assuming bad faith, I think we'll really be able to make some progress. Have a good day!  —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you undo all of the deletes so can we can look at what existed point by point and decide what to remove? Because you removed a bunch of content there are sources for. I didn't write any of these contributions; I researched them, found sources I added and I began adjusting the content based on those sources. Since we've talked I've found even more in sources like NYMag and PinkNews, which are both labeled WP:RSP. I'm not okay with this "tough challenge," stuff, particularly as yours was such a wide sweep of edits to go through, and one unfortunately with some serious errors. The R.G. & G.R. Harris was a great example of content that should absolutely not have been removed.  What you describe doesn't sound like what Wiki editing is remotely supposed to be like. You may have more experience, but I've done enough editing to have noticed that I've never ever seen an article decimation like the one done here, nor ever seen someone putting such demands on another editor trying to remediate changes they themselves had made.
 * The Jezebel and Christian Post sources were being discussed here in the context of mentioning WoLF's polling, which they both did. I inserted them earlier because they both mentioned the importance of the Hecox case. A basic Google search right now shows that the ACLU feature's WoLF's brief on its own website. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/09/05/the-battle-over-trans-athletes-in-american-schools-heats-up also discusses the Hecox case specifically in the context of fights between those claiming to be focused on women's rights and those claiming to be focused on trans rights, and discusses WoLF in that same context. I think the appropriate way to handle this article would be to return the content and add the citation needed template wherever appropriate, if the editor doesn't want to search themself. Moreover, the page on WP:SELFPUB is very clear, "Self-published works are sometimes acceptable as sources, so self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable." This article was a factual recounting of WoLF's actions, none of which are inaccurate in a way to warrant automatic deletion. If more sources are needed, "Please try to improve the article, e.g. by looking for better sources to cite, before adding this template, and discuss the matter on the talk page. If the problem is not widespread, consider instead using inline templates, ." If the article as a whole is a problem, then the tag  could've been added to the top. That's the approach it seems to me should've been taken from the start.
 * Your treatment of The Post Register also seems abnormal. If any newspaper piece could be excluded on the basis of having made an errors like "more than 60%" when the percentage was 59.6%, I don't think a single news source would be considered reputable and all of Wikipedia need a massive deconstruction. Can you point to anywhere in WP:V that demands such source analysis? SanDWesting (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Lot to reply to, but I think in general I'm just confused by your assertion it's abnormal or even uncommon to remove large portions of an article that are problematic -- it's a core part of exercising reasonable judgment and being bold! Just to name one example, the contributions of Drmies, a well-loved admin, are usually just that. People often misunderstand our cleanup templates for sourcing problems to mean we should always just leave significant content be and just make gradual alterations regardless of the type of issue, but that's simply not the case -- as Category:Cleanup templates aptly states, they're not for disputes over whether content contravenes our core content policies. We seem to be running into a problem where I point out that sources don't say what they're cited to say, and you avoid discussing that, shifting to discussing a different topic. Jezebel and Christian Post were not used in the previous revision to support polling, but  if you want to discuss a new inclusion on that basis that's OK. Jezebel makes a brief mention that WoLF paid for a poll to support HB 500. It's not really significant enough to say what the polling found (that would be WP:SYTH) and I'm more than a little uncomfortable with using Jezebel as a source, but I'd be happy to compromise by including something brief along the lines of WoLF paid for a poll to support HB 500. if it makes you happy. Christian Post, on the other hand, is very obviously too unreliable to use for factual claims. Christian Post regularly promotes false and exceptionally outrageous claims, including the nonexistent slaughter of thousands of Nigerian Christians, Louis Farrakhan's conversion to Christianity, Obama wears a secret Muslim ring, his administration hired an adviser to court-martial soldiers for sharing their faith, puberty blockers cause thousands of deaths, etc.  You're misunderstanding me on The Post Register, I think. The error on the polling is just symptomatic of the problem I'm pointing out, which is that it's not published as part of their regular news reporting, but rather a blog division covering lawmakers not subject to its regular fact-checking (WP:NEWSORG), as pointed out in its URL and sidebar. We obviously consider whether a specific source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy -- it's not even especially deep in WP:V, just Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.. Even in otherwise impeccable sources, we would avoid citing obviously error-prone or false stories such as those of Hari or Blair, or the less fact-checked op-eds of Brooks or Bruni (WP:RSCONTEXT/WP:NEWSORG). I'm really not doing anything abnormal here -- I'm just judging whether TPR's blog section piece is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. (WP:RSCONTEXT). It seems to me that on the basis of both the source type and the glaring error, it's just not.  That's also not how SELFPUB works -- WP:ABOUTSELF is explicit that the article should not primarily be based on such content (#5) nor involve claims about third parties like courts (#3). The ACLU stuff strikes me as totally irrelevant -- they host PDFs of amicus briefs including numerous other tiny orgs and individuals, they don't "feature" it in any meaningful way by adding commentary or saying anything to support the claims in the article. And the ACLU isn't a reliable source, either -- they're specifically The Economist article literally doesn't talk about WoLF except for one single quote from Natasha Chart -- it cannot be used to support any of the material in the previous revision. Are you sensing the consistent gap between "oh well this source mentions WoLF once" and "this source supports what it was being used in the previous revision for"?  I don't know why you're mentioning R.G & G.R either -- I explicitly agreed some material was worth including and put some in the article, because there was actually secondary RS! It's really genuinely not hard to meet this standard unless it's just not worthy of inclusion. You mention Pink News and NYMag, but don't say to specify what specifically they say and what they should be used for. I suppose NYMag is this, which mentions WoLF very briefly in the context of R.G & G.R -- which is already covered?  A deeper problem, underlying the crippling flaws of the sourcing, is that the past revision essentially disregards due weight to function as a catalogue of the idiosyncratic minor causes and pet peeves of the organization. If reliable secondary RS don't report on their style guide (and they don't) to do so is to give their guide egregious promotion. —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
My small edit was reverted. It is not accurate to state the WOLF is "known for its opposition to transgender rights." That is non-nuanced and overly-broad. The goal of WOLF is to preserve women's and girls' single-sex spaces in certain sensitive areas. The tone of the article is non-neutral. "Fringe activism" is a loaded term. In fact, if you did a poll, most people would agree with WOLF's activism to protect women and girls. Hardly "fringe." This article is not fair to the organization. Oakbranch8 (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * That all just sounds like a personal point of view, and a rather speculative one at that. Do you have any independent, reliable sources to offer, or is it basically feelz? Newimpartial (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United States
WoLF does not oppose L/esbian, G/ay, B/isexual rights. It is focused on opposition to T/ransgender rights. This "LGBT" category is, therefore, incorrect. Considering how many articles in Wikipedia involve transgender rights, a new more accurate category needs to be created:. Pyxis Solitary  (yak). L not Q. 08:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

"Radical feminist"
I don't see a problem with describing them as a "radical feminist" movement in Wikipedia's voice. They describe themselves as radical feminists, and their most bitter opponents characterise them as TERFs, which also includes the "radical feminist" description. -- The Anome (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Oct 28 edits
Most of your recent edits look fine, but just some general thoughts. It's not true that WoLF's opponents and supporters can both agree it's radical feminist--I might be inclined to agree and it's mildly nitpicky sure, but Pearce 2020 suggests collab with conservative orgs raises the question of whether it can be called a radfem org at all, WaPo suggests a common view is it's right-wing org disguised as feminist, and most sources are careful to use the caveated descriptor "self-described radical feminist". So I think it's prob best in keeping with MOS:LABEL to go with say they describe themselves as radfem but not say they are in wikivoice (even the cited source in the lead uses "self-proclaimed"). I'm also a little wary of moving the focus on their opposition to trans rights legislation/movements later on in the lead, as the body indicates the overwhelming focus is on trans issues; it should be clear to a casual reader that this isn't a feminist org that just happens to do advocacy on trans issues, but that trans stuff is their focus. It's probably a good idea to quote their self-description in the lead, but I'm not sure about "protect, advance, and restore the rights of women and girls" (which should be appropriately placed in quotes if used to avoid WP:COPYVIO issues). From what, exactly? For Phyllis Schlafly and Concerned Women for America it was protection from feminism, for Mary Anderson and the United States Women's Bureau it was workplace discrimination, for Madeline Martinez and Oregon NORML it was running cannabis businesses, for Felton it was protection from black men. We could go on, but WoLF has a much less vague statement in the same source you cited: "work is focused on protecting the rights [sic&#93; women and girls in policy and legislation from the risks posed by both “gender identity” policies and the decriminalization of pimping and sex buying." I'd summarize: WoLF describes itself as a radical feminist organization of gender abolitionists that works to protect women and girls from what they view as the "risks posed by both 'gender identity' policies and the decriminalization of pimping and sex buying.", but open to other phrasing. —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to go with "self-described radical feminist". I agree with you that the trans stuff is indeed their focus, judging by their public actions. -- The Anome (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

If neutrality is being questioned? Then template is required.
If there's a dispute over whether this article is neutral? Then place a NPoV template on it. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Serious problems with citations and wording
The lede of the article says, "it has been described as an all-female grassroots international organization composed of volunteers who work to empower women and 'resist all systems of oppression'" with four different sources cited. At a glance, all four sources appear to be critical of WoLF, so it's unlikely any would support such a laudatory (and vague!) statement. This statement needs to be removed if no secondary source supporting it is cited. Further in the article, there is a section that says, "WoLF stated that the directive would allow biological males to self-identify into female-exclusive spaces on the grounds of gender identity." The citation for this statement is WoLF's own website. While directly citing WoLF's own publications may be fine in some circumstances, seven out of this article's twenty sources cited are WoLF publications and many of them are used to back up controversial statements with nothing to balance them out, which is a problem with neutrality. This statement in particular is relayed without critical commentary, despite the contentious (and again, vague) language and the use of the term "biological males," which is a term that GLAAD recommends to avoid. Here, "biological males" seems to be a roundabout way of referring to transgender women, so that should be clarified. For a more balanced article, it is important to balance out WoLF's statements with secondary sources or remove some of them altogether. Maivea (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm. The sentence it has been described as an all-female grassroots international organization seems to be sourced to the second paragraph The Daily Northwestern, a student newspaper associated with Northwestern University (The Daily Northwestern). I'm somewhat uncomfortable with it, not just because it's a weaker source to be stating something like that in Wikivoice, but also that we use the exact wording of the source to do it, which is skirting on the bounds of a WP:COPYVIO. It also doesn't seem to be supported by the other sources that describe the organisation, so I'll remove it.
 * I'm also going to remove the third sentence, WoLF describes itself as a... per WP:MISSIONSTATEMENT, as that is only sourced to the WoLF website and no secondary coverage in RS seems to exist.
 * On WoLF stated that the directive would allow..., that seems to be sourced to a court filing, which is an inherently primary source. It looks like it possibly could be swapped to be sourced from Santa Fe New Mexican as it contains the same information? Regardless of swapping sourcing though, I am minded to adjust the language as putting "biological males to self-identifiy into female-exclusive spaces" in Wikivoice, for a single source seems to be wrong. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've removed the second and third sentences of the lead in, and the primary sourced court filing in . I've adjusted the sentence on the court filing to be more accurate to the secondary coverage. I've also tagged the 2016 filing with a needs update tag, as that filing was over 6 years ago, so there should have been some sort of resolution or further update by now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , you have objected to the second sentence (which I added) on the grounds that (a) the source is too weak for it to be stated in Wikivoice and (b) that it is skirting on the bounds of a copyvio because we use the exact words of the source. You are mistaken on both points.
 * (a) It is not stated in Wikivoice. If it was in wikivoice, the sentence would be: It is a grassroots international organization comprised of all-female volunteers who work to empower women and resist all systems of oppression. Although, as I said in my edit summary, this description is stated as a fact in the source, I deliberately did not  state it in wikivoice. Please confirm that you now understand the difference between stating something in wikivoice and not stating something in wikivoice
 * (b) Since the text I added says ‘It has been described as…’ and also because the text is very short, this is not anywhere near close to a copyvio. But if you wish to be safe on this, all that is necessary is to add quotes round a grassroots international organization comprised of all-female volunteers who work to empower women and “resist all systems of oppression.”
 * Do you now agree to re-adding this text as: It has been described as ‘’a grassroots international organization comprised of all-female volunteers who work to empower women and resist all systems of oppression.” Or perhaps you would like to attribute it to the Daily Northwestern?
 * You also say that one of your reasons for deleting it is that it It also doesn't seem to be supported by the other sources that describe the organisation This is a breach of WP:NPOV . Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. So, the article should give weight to the different points of view roughly according to the number of sources – which it did before you removed the sentence. The article is now in breach of WP:NPOV.
 * You also seem to have misinterpreted WP:MISSIONSTATEMENT. That essay does not say that statements made by an organisation about itself should not appear in Wikipedia articles. The essay refers to mission statements by companies, and refers to boastful words and puffed-up, flowery language and vague unsubstantiated claims such as we are the industry leaders. This is entirely different from the WoLF’s statement about itself. You have not given any justification from that essay as to why you have deleted WoLF describes itself as a radical feminist organization that works to protect women and girls from what they view as the "risks posed by both 'gender identity' policies and the decriminalization of pimping and sex buying"
 * You have also amended the text about the legal action to say In their filing, WoLF stated without evidence that the directive would contradict the intent of Title IX by equating "sex" with "gender identity".
 * This is wrong. The source says that it is WoLF itself which is complaining that By equating “sex” with “gender identity,” the complaint says, the Obama administration’s memo overturns the language and intent of Title IX without citing any evidence of how it reached the conclusion that the words are interchangeable.
 * TL:DR all your amendments to this article are in breach of Wikipedia policies, and should be reversed.
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sweet6970 re second sentence. It has been described as... has two issues. One is the Wikivoice problem, and the other is vagueness. The Wikivoice problem is that we're saying the description is uncritically a fact. That is in contrast to every other source which describes it as some variation of anti-trans and in opposition to trans rights. The vagueness problem is that we're not saying who described it as such. Per WP:DUE If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. Other than WoLF itself, there doesn't seem any sources that we can point to that say "X describe it as..."
 * On copyvio, there's a reason I said skirting and not "It is a copyvio". It's on that grey area where it could be a copyvio, because the other issues aside, there are alternative ways to phrase it. However because of the other issues, doing that is kinda moot.
 * I do not agree to re-add the text as you have suggested. It has the same vagueness problems. Even if we were to phrase it as something like {tq|According to the Daily Northwestern, it has been described as...}}, we still have that vagueness problem. Who is describing the organisation as that?
 * Re It also doesn't seem to be supported by the other sources that describe the organisation I stand by that. It is not a breach of NPOV, and in fact removing it resolves a breach in NPOV. Per WP:WEIGHT, part of the NPOV policy If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. A single source, that is a student newspaper is an extremely small minority. When you contrast that view against the three other mainstream sources (Advocate, NBC News, Washington Post) they all describe it in terms the organisation would find far less flattering.
 * Re third sentence and WP:MISSIONSTATEMENT, well you've already pointed out the key issues with that sentence. It uses puffed-up language and vague unsubstantiated claims. It describes itself as a radical feminist organization this is unsubstantiated, as descriptions by secondary sources do not call it this in their own editorial voices. that works to protect women and girls this is boastful and unsubstantiated. from what they view as the "risks posed by both 'gender identity' policies this is an unsubstantiated claim that gender identity poses a risk. and the decriminalization of pimping and sex buying this is flowery language that ultimately describes the organisation as SWERF (sex worker exclusionary radical feminists).
 * Re In their filing, WoLF stated without evidence Eh, the source is non-specific enough that either interpretation could be true. The how it reached the conclusion could apply equally to WoLF or the Obama administration. However looking at the filing, it is clearer that WoLF are making the claim that the it refers to the Obama administration and guidance, so I will rephrase it but I will not restore the previous wording or cite the primary source directly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to spend time on the rest but I see no reason to outright remove "WoLF describes itself as a radical feminist organization that works to protect women and girls from what they view as the "risks posed by both 'gender identity' policies and the decriminalization of pimping and sex buying" per WP:ABOUTSELF (MISSIONSTATEMENT is an essay). We could cut "protect women and girls" as too flowery, but viewing themselves as radfems, opposing gender identity policies, and opposing legalization of pimping and sex buying all seem worth mentioning.
 * Regarding SWERF, I have little familiarity with this topic of debate, but I hope people are not equating being trans with a profession (given the parallel construction of TERF and SWERF). There are many, many women who have been abused in the sex industry and who only went into it because they felt they had no other choice. The view of some people that it is just 'empowering' and there should be no restrictions on it whatsoever strikes me as a romanticized vision of prostitution (is this term even permitted anymore?) and should not be equated with simply being transgender IMO. Crossroads -talk- 23:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * With regards to ABOUTSELF, when you contrast their self description against reporting by secondary sources, WoLF calling themselves a radical feminist organisation seems unduly self-serving. If it was the case, then secondary sources about the organisation would use that terminology, and largely they do not. You're correct that MISSIONSTATEMENT is an essay, however WP:PROMO is policy, and policy is largely against such self-serving self-sourced descriptions.
 * With regards to the point on SWERF, you're taking too broad a view. There's a rather large overlap between TERFs and SWERFs, both in membership and rhetoric, which isn't unsurprising as both groups have their origins in radical feminism. The point I was making is that and the decriminalization of pimping and sex buying is flowery language that describes the organisation to be anti-sex work. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

First of all, your comments in your last post:

For heaven’s sake decriminalising of pimping and sex buying is not 'flowery language’. Prostitution is a serious subject. Sideswipe – are you trying to turn this discussion into an unpleasant joke? This is not a rhetorical question: I find your suggestion bizarre.

And: And WoLF calling themselves a radical feminist organisation seems unduly self-serving. If it was the case, then secondary sources about the organisation would use that terminology, and largely they do not. You are assuming that secondary sources are unbiased. On Wikipedia, we report what secondary sources say – but you seem to be assuming that what secondary sources say must be true. This is inappropriate for any subject on Wikipedia, and is a naïve outlook when the subject is a radical feminist organisation. There has always been a considerable amount of hatred directed towards radical feminists, and it seems that this has not decreased in the 21st century. You are making your own judgment about the subject of the article, rather than considering how the article should be drafted, according to the principles of Wikipedia.

Turning to the points in your previous post: I am reproducing your comments, and interpolating my responses. I hope this is clear.

Sweet6970 re second sentence. It has been described as... has two issues. One is the Wikivoice problem, and the other is vagueness. The Wikivoice problem is that we're saying the description is uncritically a fact. ''No, we are not sayaing the description is a fact, and we would not be saying it in Wikivoice. I cannot understand how you can say that 'It has been described as X' is the same as 'It is X'. This is a basic point of interpretation of a sentence in English.''That is in contrast to every other source which describes it as some variation of anti-trans and in opposition to trans rights. That is why it is important to include it, to give the full picture. The vagueness problem is that we're not saying who described it as such. Per WP:DUE If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. Other than WoLF itself, there doesn't seem any sources that we can point to that say "X describe it as..." ''Yes there is - it is the Daily Northwestern who describe it in this way: in their article, they state this as a fact.I do not understand why you are denying this, since presumably you have read the article.

On copyvio, there's a reason I said skirting and not "It is a copyvio". It's on that grey area where it could be a copyvio, because the other issues aside, there are alternative ways to phrase it. However because of the other issues, doing that is kinda moot. ''Since it is not moot, then, as I said previously, we could solve any possible copyvio problem by putting the quote in quotes, and attributing it to the Daily Northwestern.

I do not agree to re-add the text as you have suggested. It has the same vagueness problems. Even if we were to phrase it as something like "According to the Daily Northwestern, it has been described as..".we still have that vagueness problem. Who is describing the organisation as that? ''The Daily Northwestern is describing it as that.

Re It also doesn't seem to be supported by the other sources that describe the organisation I stand by that. That is irrelevant.It is not a breach of NPOV, and in fact removing it resolves a breach in NPOV. Per WP:WEIGHT, part of the NPOV policy If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. A single source, that is a student newspaper is an extremely small minority. When you contrast that view against the three other mainstream sources (Advocate, NBC News, Washington Post) they all describe it in terms the organisation would find far less flattering. ''You still seem to be saying that because some organisations describe it in one way, that means that anyone who describes it in another way must be wrong. It's as if you are making your own judgment and writing this article as your own essay.''

Re third sentence and WP:MISSIONSTATEMENT, well you've already pointed out the key issues with that sentence. It uses puffed-up language and vague unsubstantiated claims. It describes itself as a radical feminist organization this is unsubstantiated, as descriptions by secondary sources do not call it this in their own editorial voices. that works to protect women and girls this is boastful and unsubstantiated. from what they view as the "risks posed by both 'gender identity' policies this is an unsubstantiated claim that gender identity poses a risk. It is not up to Wikipedia to decide which claims are substantiated, and which are not. Once again, you are treating this article as if it is your own personal essay. It seems you do not require 'substantiation' for the allegations that it is a right-wing organisation. and the decriminalization of pimping and sex buying this is flowery language see my comment above that ultimately describes the organisation as SWERF (sex worker exclusionary radical feminists). You do not seem to be taking my point seriously. The statement by WoLF is plainly not a mission statement as described in WP:MISSION. The point of the essay about mission statements is that reproducing a mission statement would give our readers no useful information. But our readers ought to know what WoLF lf says it does – your amendment denies them this information.

Re In their filing, WoLF stated without evidence Eh, the source is non-specific enough that either interpretation could be true. ''No, only one interpretation is possible. It is completely unambiguous.'' The how it reached the conclusion could apply equally to WoLF or the Obama administration. No it couldn't. However looking at the filing, it is clearer that WoLF are making the claim that the it refers to the Obama administration and guidance, so I will rephrase it but I will not restore the previous wording or cite the primary source directly. Thank you for making the change in the wording of the article.

Sweet6970 (talk) 11:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Prostitution is a serious subject I agree. However being anti-sex work is something that can accurately and succinctly be described in a few words.
 * On Wikipedia, we report what secondary sources say I agree, and the balance of the reliable sources quite clearly describe WoLF as opposing trans rights and gender identity legislation. They do not describe the organisation as radical feminist. I am following policy when describing the organisation as our reliable sources describe it. If there are other reliable sources, that describe WoLF in different terms, could you please provide them? but you seem to be assuming that what secondary sources say must be true For the most part, when it comes to writing Wikipedia content I follow the principles behind the Verifiability, not truth essay. If the balance of our reliable sources describe a subject in a specific way, then we follow those sources. There has always been a considerable amount of hatred directed towards radical feminists that is true, and it is also not the whole story. You are making your own judgment about the subject of the article, rather than considering how the article should be drafted, according to the principles of Wikipedia So far in this discussion, and not counting this reply, I have wikilinked policy and guidance four times, and referred to it in text three more times. In this reply I have linked to policy seven times, and referred to it three more times. I am basing my argument in policy and guidelines, and so in line with the principles of Wikipedia.
 * That is why it is important to include it, to give the full picture. That is called false balance, which quite clearly states Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. and We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. In this case, there is little scholarship about WoLF, however there is still reliable media sources. We are simply following how media sources describe the organisation.
 * Yes there is - it is the Daily Northwestern who describe it in this way: in their article, they state this as a fact.I do not understand why you are denying this, since presumably you have read the article. Yes, I've read the Daily Northwestern article. What we previously said, and what I removed, was almost verbatim what they said. And there it is also vague, as it doesn't tell us who have described them in that way. Neither that source nor our article, both of which presented that compound sentence It has been described as... as a fact, actually provide any useful information on who has described it as such. To quote from WP:DUE; If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts and If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents and If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. This statement is, in my opinion based on the reliable sources that describe WoLF, somewhere between a significant minority view, and a small minority view tending towards the small minority viewpoint. As such per policy, if we want to include it in the lead, then we need to include in the article's body who describes them as an all-female grassroots international organization composed of volunteers who work to empower women and “resist all systems of oppression”, and to do that we need more sources to show that it is a small minority viewpoint. Thankfully those two go hand-in-hand, as you will need sources (plural) to verify statements like X has described the organisation as...
 * we could solve any possible copyvio problem by putting the quote in quotes, and attributing it to the Daily Northwestern Yes that would work around the copyvio issue, but even as a quote, attributed to the Daily Northwestern, it is as I've said in the previous paragraph so vague to be practically meaningless.
 * That is irrelevant That is very relevant. Policy, in particular WP:DUE, requires us to only include majority and significant minority viewpoints in articles. Small minority viewpoints are excluded. As I've just said above, this seems to be tending towards a small minority viewpoint, based on the sources we have. If there are other reliable sources that describe WoLF in this way, then please provide them per WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN.
 * You still seem to be saying that because some organisations describe it in one way, that means that anyone who describes it in another way must be wrong. No, that is not what I've said, and I'm not sure how that has been your takeaway from the discussion. I have said that the majority of sources, and therefore the majority viewpoint in line with DUE, describe WoLF as opposing trans rights and gender identity legislation. We also have a single source, that represents at best a small minority viewpoint, which states otherwise. Per policy, we exclude small minority viewpoints from articles, and require significant minority viewpoints to be attributed to named prominent adherents (ie, people and organisations).
 * It is not up to Wikipedia to decide which claims are substantiated, and which are not. Correct. It is up to our sources who decide which claims are substantiated and which are not. And because our sources do not describe WoLF in those terms they are unsubstantiated.
 * You do not seem to be taking my point seriously. Please stop ascribing speculation on my emotional state as I'm editing this article and responding on this talk page. I am taking this point, as with all points, quite seriously, which is why I am responding to you in great length.
 * The statement by WoLF is plainly not a mission statement as described in WP:MISSION. That statement was sourced to two pages on WoLF's website. The first source has the words "Our Mission", in all caps gold lettering right at the start of it. The second source is an explainer and expansion on the first. Both sources contain aspirational statements for what WoLF want to achieve, and does not seem to be verifiable in secondary sourcing about WoLF. That is a mission statement per the definition in the essay.
 * But our readers ought to know what WoLF lf says it does – your amendment denies them this information. This is not policy compliant, as to do so would result in WP:FALSEBALANCE issues. If a significant minority of sources describe WoLF, in WoLF's own terms, then we can include it. But that requires more reliable sources, which have not been provided, and which I'm unable to find. Sideswipe9th (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for giving your attention to my lengthy post. My comments on the various points are:
 * I’m glad you agree that prostitution is a serious subject.
 * On the description of WoLF, see Endwise’s post below.
 * Linking to Wikipedia policies is not the same as following them.
 * Media sources refer to it as a self-described radical feminist organisation – see Endwise’s post below.
 * You still seem to be misreading the factual statement in the Daily Northwestern, which does not say ‘it has been described as….’ (that was my wording when I added it to the article.) But now, thanks to Endwise, we have an article in the Washington Post, so we can say that the Washington Post, a well-known newspaper says (what it says)
 * I was not ascribing speculation on [your] emotional state as [you were] editing this article. I said you do not seem to be taking my point seriously. The word ‘seem’ means ‘to give the impression of’. You gave me the impression that you were not taking my point seriously. This is an objective statement about the effect of your action, not a speculation about your emotional state.
 * No, the statement by WoLF is not a ‘mission statement’ in the meaning in the essay.
 * Depriving our readers of information about the organisation, which would be the effect of excluding what WoLF says about itself, would be to provide an article which gives a false impression about its subject.
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

"Radical feminist"
I'm not going to read this whole talk page discussion as it is impenetrably long, but just regarding the central claim above that it's unduly self-serving to note that they describe themselves as radical feminists because there aren't really sources which say this -- that claim appears to be false. Many different sources introduce the group as self-described radical feminists, e.g.: Other sources introduce them as trans-exclusionary radical feminists/TERFs, then later describe them as things like a self-proclaimed radical feminist group (Vox) when making separate points. Some even describe the group as radical feminists in their own voice, e.g.: It's not "unduly self-serving" to say the same thing that reliable secondary sources say. Endwise (talk) 05:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * NBC News: the Women’s Liberation Front, or WoLF, a self-described radical feminist organization...
 * The Hill: the Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) — a self-described “radical feminist” organization...
 * Seattle Times: the Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF), self-described “radical feminists” who...
 * Santa Fe New Mexican: The Women’s Liberation Front, a self-described “radical feminist organization,” has...
 * The Daily Northwestern: The Women’s Liberation Front, a self-proclaimed radical feminist organization...
 * Xtra Magazine: Keith founded the “radical feminist” organization Women’s Liberation Front...
 * The Washington Post writes that they're a radical feminist organization who are part of a long-running strain of feminism that rejects the existence of transgender identity.


 * Though in a some instances the group has described itself as radical feminist and news sources highlight that, its important to note that the entirety of their about us section on their website is specifically about their opposition to transgender rights. Radical feminist is mentioned briefly in reference to another group's actions towards radical feminists generally and it is also used as a descriptor for individual board members in their bios.
 * The vast majority of the way the group describes itself in most all spaces is in relation to their position on transgender rights. So, describing the group as "an American anti-transgender organization" is, in spirit, a better fit even for a self description. It is also significantly more specific and accurate than something as vague as radical feminist, which includes groups in support of the rights of transgender people. Filiforme1312 (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

women are defined by biology ??
The text says WLF "say that women are defined by biology, rather than gender identity". That they reject the validity of 'gender identity' is indisputable, but the source actually says "They say women are defined not by their gender identity, but by their biology and by having “survived girlhood.” " and in the same piece Mary Daly is quoted as saying ''“no male can assume female chromosomes and life history/experience. ”''

The combination of biology and social conditioning based on biological factors seems to be what is central and distinct about the underlying beliefs here. Saying that biology trumps all is very close to implying that they believe in unquestioned traditional sex roles. Pincrete (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t see how you can take ‘implying they believe in unquestioned traditional sex roles’ from the statements which you have quoted. The statements say that women and girls are defined by their biology and by having the experience of being biologically female i.e. this is what makes women different from men. This may include experience of pressure to conform to traditional sex roles, but I don’t see how the statements could imply that they actually agree with traditional sex roles.
 * Do you have a suggestion for a change to the wording?
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well one simple way would be to include ALL of the quote. Partial quoting of the words used by the source is misleading, regardless of whether you agree with what my 'impression; of the effect doing so has. The Daly quote reinforces that 'sexed/gendered experience' is key to this outlook. I have only the scantest knowledge of feminism, but have never read any GC feminists that thought that biology alone was defining. which is what the article says. Pincrete (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am in favour of including the quotes in full. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

‘Transgender male student’ and edits 13 June 2023
Presumably the text in our article ‘Gavin Grimm, a transgender male high school student who desired to use the boys' school restroom’ is based on ‘Gavin Grimm, a trans student from Virginia who sought to use school bathrooms that correspond to his gender identity’ in the source. The source makes it clear that Grimm is a trans boy. Our text does not – it confuses gender identity with sex, and could be interpreted to mean that Grimm was assigned male at birth – that was, in fact, how I originally read it. So I agree that the word ‘male’ should be deleted.

Alternatively, how about changing the wording to refer to Grimm as a trans boy rather than a transgender male? For instance:'Gavin Grimm, a trans boy who desired to use the boys' restroom at his high school’?

And this should have been discussed on the Talk page, instead of various editors engaging in repeated reverts, without examining the problem with the wording in our article.

Sweet6970 (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a less ambiguous solution, given the use of terms such as "transgender male" as means of misgendering by transphobes. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I support Sweet6970's version of that wording. As we're tweaking, we should remove the wlink to Gavin Grimm, which redirects to the case page already linked. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this on to the talk page. The block I received for edit warring has been lifted and I would like to edit out "male" and replace it with "boy," but I'm a new editor, unsure how to proceed; I'm worried I will miss some step of making edits, and my edit will be reverted again… Doogemu (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you agree with my proposed wording::Gavin Grimm, a trans boy who desired to use the boys' restroom at his high school’?
 * 2) As regards missing steps in editing: in general, it is OK to make an edit without getting prior approval from other editors. But if someone reverts your edit, you should not revert them, but instead, start a discussion on the Talk page.
 * 3) There are certain topics on Wikipedia which are specified as ‘Contentious topics’. The general rules of Wikipedia are enforced more strictly in these topics, because of the potential for conflict. Gender is one of them. This article involves gender, and so, great caution should be exercised.
 * I think Doogemu would benefit from the introductory Contentious Topics Notice. I don’t know how these templates work – can you assist, please?
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that wording seems appropriate to me. Thank you. Doogemu (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing transgender male to trans boy is fine for me. Good catch Doogemu!
 * Sweet6970 I've sent Doogemu the CTOP notice now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Sideswipe. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

If you have some comment, please make it on this Talk page. It was reasonable for to make the amendment which you have reverted, because there had been unanimous agreement on this Talk page. Do not edit against consensus. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I just returned the article to a version before all this started, which it should stay until this discussion is concluded. I have no interests on the discussion itself. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 18:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How have you judged that the discussion is not concluded? And by the way, you should not have marked your edit as ‘minor’ – reversing an edit made in accordance with a discussion on the Talk page is not minor. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for self-reverting. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

"Self-described radical feminist"
The first sentence of the article calls WoLF "self-described radical feminist." To me, "self-described" sounds like an expression of MOS:DOUBT. It is true that WoLF describes themselves as "radical feminist," but the cited sources don't merely attribute it to WoLF, the cited sources all call WoLF feminist.

From the cited Washington Post article:

"The Women’s Liberation Front is part of a long-running strain of feminism..."

"And Chart and other radical feminists are helping to bolster their message..."

"The fight between radical feminists and transgender rights advocates began decades ago..."

From the NBC article:

"Heron Greenesmith... said this latest iteration of cooperation between conservatives and radical feminists (sometimes referred to as transgender-exclusionary radical feminists, or TERFs)... "

From the Advocate article:

"The far-right Heritage Foundation is aligning itself with a certain type of feminist -- those who oppose transgender rights, often called trans-exclusionary radical feminists, or TERFs."

It is true, based on the statement by NOW (in the wikipedia article), the statement by the ACLU (in the wapo article), and numerous other statements, that the feminist label is contentious. However, based on the sources cited for the claim, and other reliable sources in the article that refer to WoLF as "feminist" without reservation, the phrase "self-described" seems misleading. Of the universe (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I propose removing "self-described":
 * "The Women's Liberation Front (WoLF) is an American radical feminist organization..."
 * Another possible resolution could be: "The Women's Liberation Front (WoLF) is an American advocacy organization that opposes transgender rights and gender identity legislation." And add a sentence saying "They describe themselves as feminist, and abc sources describe them as feminist, but this description has been challenged by xyz groups." Of the universe (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Firefangledfeathers Of the universe (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI, there's some prior discussion at Talk:Women's Liberation Front/Archive 1. I would be fine with your "possible resolution". We could also be more vague than that, provided we add some content to the body about who describes them as feminist and who disagrees. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Firefangledfeathers Thanks! I'll read through the past discussion Of the universe (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's mercifully short! Main thing is that it's got more sources that lean on "self-described". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It is not a feminist organization in a mainstream sense, and the idea that they are feminist at all is disputed by many large feminist organizations and others, with the National Organization for Women characterizing them as "anti-trans bigots disguised as feminist". However it is a fact that they describe themselves as radical feminist, so the best solution is simply to mention their self-description, as a self-description. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)