Talk:gender-critical feminism

👉 See also Talk:gender-critical. - -sche (discuss) 01:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Addition about trans men

@-sche, Xenneung.

I recognize that Wiktionary's primary mission is to define words. Finer-grained descriptions of this particular set of political/ideological beliefs are thus probably better left to the relevant Wikipedia article. But if there is going to be a description of GC views on trans men added somewhere, I think it would be better handled here, in the entry for the belief set in question, than in the entry for TERF (which is already rather complex). WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair point. I mostly migrated the wording (back) over, although I left something at TERF because I realized that unlike this entry (which makes a general statement about rejecting trans identities), that one otherwise only refers to trans women. Please revise either entry further if needed. - -sche (discuss) 04:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Definition very misleading and subjective

"centering on an essentialist view of sex as a binary and unchangeable biological characteristic". i'd like the person who came up with this definition to argue with any biologist why humans aren't gonochoric, what is the third gamete, how is there a spectrum between the two gametes, where are those hermaphrodite humans that can change their sex, how having an intersex condition automatically doesn't make one male or female especially when there are intersex conditions specific to one of the two sexes, or any other argument i've seen coming from the crowd who actually believes sex in humans can be changed or is a spectrum. i'll wait "viewing transgender people as belonging to the gender they were assigned at birth" whoever came up with this doesn't have a very good grasp on how things actually work in real life. no one is assigning a gender when you're born. your sex is observed and people refer to you acording to your sex. the average person doesn't even know what "cisgender" means and uses words like man, woman, girl, boy etc based on whether they think you are male or female. the fact that some people are mistaken as the other sex due to makeup, surgeries, sexist views on how men and women should look like etc is a different discussion "branch of feminism that criticizes gender as an oppressive tool of patriarchy, rejects gender as a social construct, views sex as biological and immutable, views men and women not as gender identities but as adult human males and adult human females respectively, women being oppressed on the basis of their sex, the gender critical feminists being neither cisgender nor transgender as they don't have any relation to gender identities" this is as close to a neutral definition as i could get without writing a foot long explanation. tell me what's not clicking Gonegirldean (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk pages aren't the appropriate forum for weighing the merits of any particular philosophy. Wiktionary's goal as a dictionary is to define words and phrases. The purpose of this entry is to describe GC feminism in a manner that's as accurate, succinct, and broadly comprehensible as possible. It isn't here to try to make a case for or against it by framing it in a specific light. The definition might not read favourably to all GC feminists, but, at the same time, many trans-inclusive feminists might perceive the attempt at neutrality as treating GC feminism with an unduly light touch.

I do think the definition could potentially be shortened. Everything after "sex they were assigned at birth..." is arguably a bit redundant. Stating that GC feminists "generally [view] transgender people as belonging to the sex they were assigned at birth" seems sufficient for conveying the prevalent GC views of trans women and trans men in my book. But other contributors seem to be of the mind that explicit descriptions of those views are integral to the definition. So I wouldn't want to shorten the definition without reaching consensus. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

We wouldn't need a "foot-long explanation" if people didn't keep tearing the rug out from under basic words that used to mean something. Equinox ◑ 06:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Language evolves. Languages that cease to evolve often fade into the shadows of history. The calling of a dictionary ought to be to aid understanding of language both by preserving its history and keeping pace with its development. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't dispute that at all, but there is a difference between language naturally evolving, unplanned, and a Twitter mob trying to redefine e.g. "female" or "womb" in activist manner, and angrily fighting those who aren't on board. Equinox ◑ 07:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The words may be of recent vintage. That doesn't mean the concepts they describe are new. The modern understanding of transness threads back to Institut für Sexualwissenschaft research in the 1920s and 1930s (possibly even further - my knowledge isn't complete). Feminist examinations of the subject have been around since at least the 1970s. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The idea that any of this is a new Twitter thing is so weird. There are reports of "males" (if one prefers to see it that way) expressing gender self-ID as women and seeking SRS thousand years before the English word "female" or the English language at all existed! (Contemporary historians said that about Elagabalus, and while some modern folks see that as mere slander, emperors were slandered in lots of ways and this is the only one I know of where the line was "says (s)he's a woman, dresses like a woman, and is offering money to a surgeon if they can do SRS", which would be a weirdly specific line to come up with out of the blue, and in any case establishes familiarity with that as a thing someone might do, like galli did.) Hell, people have been coming out as nonbinary, rejecting binary pronouns and picking Tumblr-style names for over a century before the House of Windsor ascended the British throne—a house whose later name change "traditionalists" aren't nearly as hung up on, I notice. But try rejecting their names or genders, try calling Elizabeth II or the other Liz a man and seeing how he and his friends react: "intentionally misgendering people is rude" is not a new or activist concept, cis people get pressed if anyone does it to them or their dog. - -sche (discuss) 17:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you can go back and find an intersexual Aztec, well done. Everyone was male or female until about 2010. I know this makes me a Nazi or whatever but it's true. So "gender-critical" feminists are not people who say "I have decided, today, to be a bigot, and hate those trannies!", they are actually people who are honestly often mothers trying to raise kids and are confused, how come the male-female dichotomy which worked for 99% of us 99% of the time (outside of Harry Potter academia)... These people are not hateful. They just literally don't agree with you. Disagreeing with you is not a phobia, nor bigotry. I hope this term can be defined in a way that reflects that, and not as basically "HORRID DIRTY TERFS!". Equinox ◑ 17:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)