This category is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This category is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBT articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Hi, I'm wondering why this category is framed as it is, rather than say as "Gender-critical organisations"? The three organisations listed all self-describe as being gender-critical, and oppose certain but not all rights of transgender people. AndyGordon (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with the category naming from that point of view. "Gender critical" is a intentionally deceptive euphemism, like "race realist", which we should avoid using in Wikipedia's own voice. A category using that term would be intrinsically a POV problem while this one might be OK if used cautiously. I think the current three members all easily pass the "self-evident and uncontroversial" test. The real problem here is that the category only contains three UK based organisations and it is not clear how to fully populate the category or how to distinguish what belongs in this category and what belongs in the parent category of Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights. It is hard to imagine anything in the parent category that would not plausibly belong in here and, quite possibly, vice-versa. I'm not sure what the correct answer is here but I am certain that it is not to use the phrase "gender critical".
One thing I notice is that we don't have any subcategories for "Organizations that oppose lesbian rights", "Organizations that oppose gay rights" or "Organizations that oppose bisexual rights". Maybe the parent category is all we need? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that "gender critical" is equivalent to "race realist" doesn't seem to hold anymore. A number of media outlets use "gender critical" in their own voice: [1][2][3][4][5] and more, but this should suffice to show that it isn't equivalent to "race realist". In recent times I've also seen many critics of gender critical ideology use the term as the identifier for the group. I suspect that this is because it is harder to criticize a group if you only call them A but that group only ever calls itself B, as those criticisms won't be noticed as much by the public since they won't know who you're talking about. Crossroads-talk-05:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DanielRigal: I really don't think the parent category is all we need; there are a number of groups that support gay rights but oppose trans rights. Putting them under a category that implies they oppose all LGBT rights would be inaccurate IMO. If there are any groups that support trans rights but are homophobic (I doubt they exist, but I could be proven wrong), or who oppose gay rights but make no comment on trans people, then I'd say they should be separated too.
@Crossroads: I totally get what you're saying, but the majority of reliable sources say gender-critical groups/people are anti-trans. Including (from a quick skim-read) the sources you mentioned, with the exception of the sympathetic THE interview (and even that mentions accusations of transphobia against the individual, even if it uses scare quotes around the term). It's not on the same level as "race realist" at all, and I'm not against it being used in Wikipedia's voice in certain instances, but I generally think it's best to avoid neologisms – especially when they can be construed as euphemistic. --Bangalamania (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said. I'm not sure of the best way to structure the categories. Maybe we do need to have subcategories for anti-LGBT groups that specifically focus their opposition on each specific stripe of the rainbow? My point is that we don't have this for the others at the moment. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the category 'oppose LGBT+ rights' is not useful for describing some organisations which, for example, might be very pro-lesbian, and are committed to sex-based rights and single-sex spaces, but which are currently at odds with the pro-trans lobby. Melissa Highton (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DanielRigal, it doesn't follow that we need categories for each of the other letters. I am not aware of any groups that would even fit in such categories. Regardless of name, I think this as a separate category makes sense rather than lumping into some other category about groups with a different ideology. Crossroads-talk-05:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There does seem to be a group of editors on Wikipedia that are trying to conflate Gender critical beliefs with the extreme right, with the articles on gender critical feminism being just one sided attacks on the belief. Its the same people time and time again, and it is totally at odds with the public debate as on many of the issues they are labelling far right, such as the debate on womens sport and womens safe spaces in most cases the majority of people back the Gender Critical views in most countries, and even many left wing politicians. This is totally ignored as these editors delete any reference to this fact, in a comical lack of nuance. 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:9008:D627:BEEC:B6E9 (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We go with that the Reliable Sources say. Also, this Talk page is about a Wikipedia category and this seems to be veering way off-topic and towards WP:NOTFORUM. Nonetheless, thanks for having second thoughts and removing the personal attack from the initial version of your comment. DanielRigal (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I mentioned the editors who are always doing it, then realised that is unfair and not good practice, and beside the point. Indeed I should be more respectful of them for investing their time and effort. But I think there is too strong a one sided polemical nature to all the articles on subject, totally out of step with public discourse, and if the same people as ever delete that statement, it kind of proves the point. I mean its supposed to be a encyclopedia, not a propaganda sheet. So lets see when the Orwellian deletion occurs, how many minutes shall it take. 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:5C3A:49FE:AB9B:478B (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also your view of reliable source, is the Times or Telegraph regarded as a reliable source, they never refer to these groups as anti trans, but are major historic publications referring to these groups as anti trans, what publications are you regarding as reliable sources can you list them, are there any as major as the Telegraph or Times, and is it only ones that you can take terms from that then you can paint people as anti trans, when all they have is a different view on this complex nuanced subject to you. I hope you are not saying a minor unknown publication referring to someone as anti trans counts more than major journals like the times or telegraph, 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:5C3A:49FE:AB9B:478B (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. It is certain that the Telegraph and Times would not consider some of these groups, anti trans. 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:5C3A:49FE:AB9B:478B (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
