Information icon.svg See the 2017 Moderator election results here!

Talk:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Article extremely biased[edit]

This article is extremely biased and it's quite clear that whoever wrote this hates TERFs. This is NOT a rational and unbiased description of "TERF". It's so bad it should be immediately removed and I say this as someone who do not stand with the "TERFs".— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Yes, whoever wrote this hates TERFs. You have correctly identified the editorial position this site has arrived at with respect to the TERF ideology. Neutrality is nice to have, but not a central goal here. I think you should make a stronger case than "It's biased" to remove this entry. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

This is just a propaganda piece. How can this sort of nonsense exist on a site dedicated to rational thinking? The uncritical endorsement of intersectionality and third wave feminism is mind boggling - both of these are highly contentious issues to rational thinkers. Accusing TERFs of being anti-feminism is implying ownership of the true meaning of 'feminism' which is plain dishonest. This article is ideologically based drivel, and should be archived in a special place reserved for bad examples. If a student handed in a paper of this quality in any university course - except for a gender studies course - they would have it covered in red pen as each logical error was highlighted, then their professor would screw up the paper and throw it at the student's head. (In a gender studies course, this article would be accepted as a PhD thesis and the student would be awarded a doctorate). Suggestion: this article needs to be rewritten, that much is obvious to anyone who cares about rational thinking or honesty. The original author/s need to be prohibited from participating in this rewrite, and perhaps banned from this wiki. The article needs to present facts (not opinion) in a neutral way, including common criticisms of TERF ideology (and potentially TERF responses to those criticisms). Then logical flaws in those arguments can be highlighted. Social Justice Warriors need to understand something: apply critical thinking BEFORE you associate yourself with any ideology, because your brain won't let you do it afterwards. Follow this advice and you won't end up writing articles like this. Although, if you are an SJW, then you are already past this point and there is no hope for you.

First, if you dislike it, then edit it. This is a wiki, after all.
Second, you're rather vague in your suggestions.
Third, there is no way in hell that the original editors will be banned for writing a non-troll article.
Fourth, congratulations. Your accusation of this article being ideological drivel broke my irony meter. *Slow clap*.
Sincerely, RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
"How can this sort of nonsense exist on a site dedicated to rational thinking?"
Drink! LEFTYGREENMARIO 03:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
But seriously, your criticism stinks. You accuse this of being "propaganda" and "nonsense" and an "uncritical endorsement". It is "ideologically based" and "if universities saw this, they would fail you and then spit on you and then wiggle their butts at you and then dance on your grandma's grave because this is so bad (except for gender studies courses) and did I mention how bad it is and how the author(s) should be ashamed of themselves?". And that's pretty much all what you have to say. You suggest a "rewrite that is obvious to anyone who cares about rational thinking or honesty" but since you don't bother to explain why you disagree with the article's content (saying that it's "obvious" is not a valid support for your stance and your need to assert that the claim is "obvious" for anyone hints that your argument is too weak to stand up on its own), your criticism is meaningless. So far, it's all buzzwords, ranting, rhetoric, and the unironic use of "SJW", which won't get you far into getting us to rewrite the article to suit your tastes. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Citation needed for trans rate statistic[edit]

This statistic: "...the transgender population is about 1 in 30,000..." could really use a source. The first academic source I could find on this was here:

and estimates the rate to be 0.3%, which is 2 orders of magnitude different, so it would be nice to be able to compare sources.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

I think this question may be very difficult to really answer, because there is no fixed definition of who is "transgender". I mean, a person might have transgender feelings sometimes, they could vary in intensity through their life. Some people, the feelings become so intense, it often leads to them transitioning. Other people, for whom the feelings are not so intense, or aren't so constant, are less likely to transition. But, if a person has some transgender feelings, but they are never strong enough and lasting enough for them to seek transition, are they cis or trans? What will they see themselves as? What will they say if you ask them in a survey? How honest will their answer be? I think we need to adopt a model like the Kinsey scale, in which trans and cis are points on a continuum rather than distinct categories, and a person may move back and forward along this continuum over time. But once we adopt a model like that, how is the question "what percentage of people are trans?" even answerable? (((Zack Martin))) 09:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
The issue you've correctly identified here is what is known as the Sorites paradoxWikipedia's W.svg, which is the reason why any imposed system of classification that relies on more or less absolute categories (broadly speaking: Power plus prejudice, identity politics, racialism, etc) will typically never be able to mature into much of anything but an expression of the moralistic fallacy. I bolded "imposed" because you can (theoretically) establish categories when people self-identify into them — but even then, you may only sort those who do. You can still never truly impose categories in the same context, however. This particular logical limitation tends to greatly upset those whose thinking depends largely on forcibly labeling othersWikipedia's W.svg, by the way. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

That still leaves the original issue that the number '1 in 30,000' is unsourced. The associated issue about the definition 'transgender' or 'transexual' is covered to some extent in the article on Transgender and needn't in itself be repeated here. A way round the original issue would be to give several statistics (if the are available), stating clearly what they represent, giving readers an idea of the difficulties of definition and in finding reliable data. Zeno (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC) I've added a [citation needed] to the figure. I wonder if the actual proportion even needs to be in this article: would it not be better in the main transgender article (where different meanings/estimates could be more fully discussed)? I don't see that it has anything specifically to do with TERFs. Zeno (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Shockingly bad, factually inaccurate article[edit]

... and I say that as a man! A 'cis' man at that! There are plenty of things to critique about so-called TERFs, but this article is so dishonest that it can only have been written by a very militant trans-activist concerned only with demonising 'TERF's.

It's the worst article I've ever come across on Rational Wiki, which is usually fairly balanced and sane. This is just insane propaganda, the whole entry needs deleting.— Unsigned, by: / talk

Is there anything specific wrong with the article? Christopher (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Basically every sentence of the form "TERFS think ______" has, in the blank, a statement that GC feminists do not think— Unsigned, by: Some BoN, I'm too sick for this / talk / contribs
Literally zero sentences in this article match that form. So I guess by the logical definition of universal predicate, you technically said something true. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Come up with one sentence in the article that is factually incorrect, one sentence. It shouldn't be hard. Christopher (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

One sentence you say? How about this particularly stupid claim from the first section: "the TERF movement can actually be understood as being overtly anti-feminist"

TERFs not only call THEMSELVES feminists, but you idiots already call them feminists as well, hence Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists.

Calling them 'overtly anti-feminist' is just childish trolling, but then the entire entry is just childish trolling that anyone with a modicum of intelligence would recognise as such immediately. — Unsigned, by: / talk

Without even questioning your initial premise — that the article itself could stand to be improved (it's not even Bronze; it could) — here's why your most recent argument fails;
P1. Group X gives itself title P.
P2. Title P alludes to feminism.
C1. Group X defines title P.
P3. Site Y charitably refers to group X by title P.
P4. Site Y recognizes that while title P does indeed allude to feminism, group X still acts contrary to it.
C2. Title P does not (recursively) define group X.
...And speaking of the obvious; the first step towards cultivating a coherent overview of contemporary feminist movements is realizing that all feminisms cannot compatibly endorse all other feminisms as genuinely feminist (without explodingWikipedia's W.svg the very term 'feminism' itself to kingdom come).
By logical necessity — as in politics and religion (arenas of comparable ideological breadthWikipedia's W.svg) — the unavoidable clashes of differing values serve proverbially to establish 'mutually ex-communicating papacies'. This is not a flaw, but a feature (one resulting from diversity, no less — a concept foreign to TERFs, I'm sure).
While the wider TERF position itself is no stronger than the gender essentialist bigotry it ultimately builds on (something involving self-imposed eunuchs in ill-fitted wigs gatecrashing the REAL biological determinist feminist struggle), the fact remains that nobody is arguing against the logic of TERFs seeing themselves as feminist and seeing trans-inclusivity as antifeminist. The fatal flaw we see in such reasoning is one of ethics, not of logic (per se).
As such, you paint yourself into a corner by calling us childish for simply maintaining the deductive truth that groups who actively impede the goals of inclusivity and equality inherent to feminism are in fact groups who actively impede the goals of inclusivity and equality inherent to feminism.
You being caught off-guard even by tautology is certainly a conundrum — what matters, however, is your acute failure to meet Christopher's challenge. And I'm sure you can meet his challenge — the article isn't even rated Bronze, and thus, far from perfect. The question remains if you will meet it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't a challenge as such, I was genuinely hoping he'd find an inaccuracy. There are probably quite a few given the fact it's not even bronze. Christopher (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Sex worker exclusionary radical feminism[edit]

What is this section doing in the article??? I know the followers overlap but the subject matter seems to be entirely different. Why can't this be its own page? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Because they're very often the same people, speaking of both in closely related breaths. But if you think there's material for a separate article .. - David Gerard (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

coinage of TERF[edit]

[1] - David Gerard (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Zero (talk - contributions) 17:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Missing word/s[edit]

In the TERF as a slur section, the second paragraph starts, "While TERFs can extremist examples of promoting violence". Is this supposed to be "While TERFs can cite/provide extremist examples of promoting violence" or something else? Zeno (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that too. The sentence is very confusing as written as I'm not quite sure what was intended to be stated, and removing it doesn't harm the section it's in. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
@FuzzyCatPotato added it and might be able to clarify. CowHouse (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)