Talk:Gender-critical feminism
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gender-critical feminism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. Restarting a debate that has already been settled constitutes disruptive editing, tendentious editing, and "asking the other parent", unless consensus changes. |
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information. | ||
This article was accepted from this draft on 24 June 2023 by reviewer Alpha3031 (talk · contribs). |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. | ||
Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. |
WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | This article is within the scope of||
Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion. | This article is of interest to
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | ||
Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | This article is within the scope of||
Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
On 31 January 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to trans-exclusionary radical feminism. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Reference ideas for Gender-critical feminism The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Section sizes
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
MOS guidelines on links and exploratory therapy – James Esses BLP
[edit]@Raladic: There is a reason why MOS:NOLINKQUOTE exists. The guideline says: Be conservative when linking within quotations; link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author.
.
The link in the quotation is obviously completely inappropriate. The quote is from a statement made by Metanoia in settlement of legal action against them by James Esses. It reads as if is was entirely dictated by Esses’ lawyers. It is not conceivable that the Metanoia statement intends to, in effect, accuse James Esses of supporting a practice which will probably become a crime in the UK in the foreseeable future. The link has the effect of being a BLP violation against James Esses, and the effect of making it look as if Metanoia are defaming James Esses. You should self-revert. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not at all, the part linked is about gender exploratory therapy, so it is clear per the
to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended
and is perfectly in line with our guidelines. There is absolutely no BLP violation and the very same thing was also pointed out to you by @DanielRigal, who also said the very same thing. Raladic (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)- There is a BLP violation because there is no way that the person quoted would agree that "exploratory therapy" is a form of conversion therapy. You should self-revert. Void if removed (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- What they belief and what the general consensus of the scientific community agrees is tangential here and WP:OR, the fact that "gender exploratory theory" is a form of conversion theory is agreed upon by the scientific community (and as such, summarized so by us on Wikipedia). We are simply linking to it here and the fact that the institute apologized to Esses due to holding that belief as it is protected doesn't change the fact that we link relevant terms on Wikipedia to help the reader, which in this case, the context is very clear from the inline ref citation by the Guardian as it talks about "gender exploratory therapy" as conversion theory (using the term conversion 6 times). You are welcome to remove the quote itself on the basis of WP:MOSQUOTE and reword the section, but it still is absolutely relevant to link to the article we link to for contextualization. Raladic (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- MOS:NOLINKQUOTE says
link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author
. This is taken from an article where the clear intent is that exploratory therapy is not conversion therapy, and would be wrongly covered by a ban on conversion therapy. You should err on the side of caution and I ask again to self-revert on that basis. Void if removed (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)- Ridiculous. The link is to a section about GET, which is clearly the same topic as what the speaker is talking about (MOS:LINKQUOTE). The fact that the target section has negative and well-sourced things to say about that topic which the speaker would disagree with is unrelated. It strains good-faith to conclude that the link is accusing him of a pseudo-crime or misrepresenting his beliefs. There is no separate topic of "GET but not conversion therapy" to which he was referring instead.
- Defamation is not transitive in this fashion (John Doe has endorsed quantum magnetoquark vaccine theory.[1] ==> Medical experts describe quantum magnetoquark vaccine theory as "a despicable pseudoscience linked to the deaths of children".[2] =/=> John Doe is a despicable child murderer). Or, if it was, it would be troubling and make linking to anything in a BLP context quite dangerous. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 14:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- For the record I'm okay with moving the link out of the quote, if we mention GET anywhere else. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 14:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Why are you arguing about a quote that's been removed by consensus? Void if removed (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- That was not apparent from this thread (which appeared in my watchlist after YFNS's comment below). I lack the patience for this subject or the discussions below, so am not following this article's text very closely. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 15:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- MOS:NOLINKQUOTE says
- What they belief and what the general consensus of the scientific community agrees is tangential here and WP:OR, the fact that "gender exploratory theory" is a form of conversion theory is agreed upon by the scientific community (and as such, summarized so by us on Wikipedia). We are simply linking to it here and the fact that the institute apologized to Esses due to holding that belief as it is protected doesn't change the fact that we link relevant terms on Wikipedia to help the reader, which in this case, the context is very clear from the inline ref citation by the Guardian as it talks about "gender exploratory therapy" as conversion theory (using the term conversion 6 times). You are welcome to remove the quote itself on the basis of WP:MOSQUOTE and reword the section, but it still is absolutely relevant to link to the article we link to for contextualization. Raladic (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is a BLP violation because there is no way that the person quoted would agree that "exploratory therapy" is a form of conversion therapy. You should self-revert. Void if removed (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I can’t even find the edit that’s being debated Snokalok (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okay I still cannot find the disputed edit but just based on what I’m reading, I’m with Loki, Roxy, Raladic, and YFNS. This is an absurd application of BLP Snokalok (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I have removed the quote containing the link, as suggested above. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
This is silly, James Esses' website recommends, among other conversion therapy advocates, Therapy first (formerly the Gender Exploratory Therapy Association) and Genspect - both of whom are listed at Gender exploratory therapy.[1] There is a BLP violation because there is no way that the person quoted would agree that "exploratory therapy" is a form of conversion therapy.
- Advocates of reparative therapy are famous for insisting it's not conversion therapy, the term still links there and we would link it if we quoted anyone using it... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- A reminder that WP:BLP applies to talk pages too. Void if removed (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- The idea that it's a BLP violation to say that:
- Person A advocates for Thing B (when they clearly do and can be clearly sourced saying so themselves)
- Thing B is pseudoscience (as can also be clearly sourced)
- Therefore Person A advocates pseudoscience
- is absolutely absurd. We make this connection all the time in other articles: see Deepak Chopra, Mehmet Oz, and Gwyneth Paltrow, among many others, all of which explicitly mention the subject promotes pseudoscience or has been criticized for promoting pseudoscience in the lead, as well as David Icke, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, and Mike Lindell, among many others, all of which explicitly call their subjects "conspiracy theorists" in their leads. Loki (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's a BLP violation to imply someone advocates conversation therapy without a source, yes. Void if removed (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Void if removed by this logic
Joseph Nicolosi said "reparative therapy shouldn't be covered by laws against conversion therapy"
is somehow a BLP violation... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Void if removed by this logic
- It's a BLP violation to imply someone advocates conversation therapy without a source, yes. Void if removed (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- The idea that it's a BLP violation to say that:
As far as I can see, there’s no amendment to the article currently being proposed. So I think everyone should drop the stick. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- That is because we're discussing your removal of links from the article. Not just from the part about Esses,[2][3], but the section literally about conversion therapy that mentions Genspect supporting "gender exploratory therapy".[4]
- By my count, me, Raladic, DanielRigal, RoxySaunders, Snokalok, and Loki think we should link exploratory therapy to gender exploratory therapy, only you and Void if Removed don't. There is clearly a consensus to link it (so you should drop the stick).
- So, unless consensus drastically shifts, I say we:
- update the Esses sentence to include this Times article and say something like
Esses campaigned against the government's ban on conversion therapy for transgender people, arguing it would criminalize exploratory therapy
- update the Conversion therapy section so the sentence
Genspect promotes what they call "gender exploratory therapy"
actually links to gender exploratory therapy (which repeatedly mentions Genspect)
- update the Esses sentence to include this Times article and say something like
- Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
so you should drop the stick
- You reopened this discussion about linking text in a quote about a week after the quote itself was removed. The quote hasn't been reinstated. That several editors started arguing about MOS:NOLINKQUOTE when there was no longer a quote to link in just took up space for no clear reason. Void if removed (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with YFNS, and think that this is a good way to link the thing that Esses endorsed without falling afoul of MOS:NOLINKQUOTE. Loki (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- TO YFNS: Have you not noticed Luna’s amendment to the text on James Esses? Sweet6970 (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Definition
[edit]The current definition has a problem. It reads
an ideology or movement that opposes what it refers to as "gender ideology": the concept of gender identity and transgender rights, especially gender self-identification.
While the definition of Anti-gender movement
an international movement that opposes what it refers to as "gender ideology", "gender theory", or "genderism", terms which cover a variety of issues, and do not have a coherent definition.
It does not show what Gender-critical feminism particularly focuses on and why it is a different concept than the more general Anti-gender movement. --by Huhu9001 (talk) at 05:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Because the two are heavily overlapped in their ideological principals as reported by WP:RS.
- Note the hat note at the top of the two articles that reference and interlink between the two of them with notes of what separates them:
- On this article here you find "
This article is about the movement originating within radical feminism. For the broader or related right-wing movement, see anti-gender movement.
" and in turn on Anti-gender movement you will find "This article is about the movement often associated with conservative or religious views. For the anti-trans movement with roots in radical feminism, see Gender-critical feminism.
" Raladic (talk) 06:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)- I think this should also be in the main text. How about this, change the definition to:
- "an ideology or movement originating within radical feminism that opposes ... (same text)"
- --by Huhu9001 (talk) at 06:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Header notes are not always visible, for example in page previews. --by Huhu9001 (talk) at 06:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- That is already there in the lead in the second paragraph -
Originating as a fringe movement within radical feminism mainly in the United States, trans-exclusionary radical feminism has achieved prominence in the United Kingdom
. Raladic (talk) 06:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)- Is it possible to have it in the first paragraph? --by Huhu9001 (talk) at 06:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- That would just bloat the first paragraph, which is basically already pretty long WP:FIRSTSENTENCE, which is why it's in the second paragraph. It is not inherently material on the "what", so it is fine where it is to expand on the origins and the link to the anti-gender movement in the second paragraph. Raladic (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Second paragraphs share the similar problem. They are not always visible like in page previews --by Huhu9001 (talk) at 06:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Which is why in some cases, we have a WP:short description, such as is the case here which reads
Movement originating within radical feminism
. Raladic (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Which is why in some cases, we have a WP:short description, such as is the case here which reads
- Is it possible to have it in the first paragraph? --by Huhu9001 (talk) at 06:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- That is already there in the lead in the second paragraph -
- B-Class AfC articles
- AfC submissions by date/24 June 2023
- Accepted AfC submissions
- B-Class Alternative Views articles
- Mid-importance Alternative Views articles
- WikiProject Alternative Views articles
- B-Class Feminism articles
- Low-importance Feminism articles
- WikiProject Feminism articles
- B-Class LGBT articles
- WikiProject LGBT studies articles
- B-Class Discrimination articles
- Mid-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- B-Class Gender studies articles
- Mid-importance Gender studies articles
- WikiProject Gender studies articles
- B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
- Low-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles