Talk:Gender-critical feminism

"Genocidal"

The Lemkin Institute for the Prevention of Genocide has assessed that the TERF movement is genocidal, saying that

Genocidal ideologies are ideologies that deny or seek to erase the existence of a specific group because of the supposed threat it poses to the holders of the ideology. The gender critical movement simultaneously denies that transgender identity is real and seeks to eradicate it completely from society. Genocidal ideologies are ideologies that deny or seek to erase the existence of a specific group because of the supposed threat it poses to the holders of the ideology. The gender critical movement simultaneously denies that transgender identity is real and seeks to eradicate it completely from society.
— Lemkin Institute

When I attempted to add this to the article, @PositivelyUncertain reverted me claiming that the label was "contentious". A google scholar search for "genocide TERF OR 'Gender Critical'" came up with a several sources finding the TERF movement to be genocidal and a single source defending the TERF movement against the claim of genocidality: Holly Lawford-Smith's Sex Matters. Given that Ms. Lawford-Smith is an avowed member of the gender-critical movement, this is hardly enough to render the claim contentious (subscribers to genocidal ideologies rarely accept that those ideologies are in fact genocidal).

Are there actual independent academic sources finding the TERF movement not to be genocidal? If not, perhaps the best approach would be to find a specific wording that reflects the academic consensus. CamAnders (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

the first few sources in your link don't call gender-critical feminism "genocidal". It would seem such a claim is not mainstream and UNDUE EvergreenFir (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

TERFism and Lesbians

Most lesbians are so called "TERFs", i think it's important to note that or do a header in this page about iy ~2026-26552-20 (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Source? InfernoHues (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12119-022-09970-w i will send more sources next ~2026-26680-86 (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

That source does not support the claim you're making here. To quote: Among the three groups of feminists, when compared to hetero cis women, lesbian cis women were significantly less stigmatizing toward trans women across all six measures. MrOllie (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

i said i was going to send more sources for a reason ~2026-26680-86 (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

But why did you send one that directly contradicted your point...? Anyway, the sources you're looking for don't exist. Polling consistently shows that LGB people are more supportive of trans people than the general public, and while few polling breaks that group down, the polling and studies that do do so consistently show that within that group, lesbians are the most supportive of trans rights. It's easy to get the impression otherwise because a lot of coverage focuses on the statistically small number of lesbians who are anti-trans; but that coverage is so intent because that combination of views is surprising, and it's surprising because it is statistically rare. --Aquillion (talk) 03:54, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

References

Neutrality, Due Weight, and Editorial Obstruction - zealous gatekeeping: Gender-critical feminism Formal Complaint: Violations of Neutrality, Structural Bias, and Editorial Conduct (Collapsed as part of gatekeeping of this page)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This complaint concerns the current state of the Gender-critical feminism article, which violates several core Wikipedia content policies, including WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:CONSENSUS. The article is not written in an encyclopaedic tone. Instead, it reads as a polemical essay dominated by hostile framing, selective sourcing, and ideological language. The problems are structural, not incidental. 1. Failure to represent views in their own words Across the ~7,900-word text, only ~3% consists of direct quotations from gender-critical (GC) feminists. GC positions are almost never presented in their own terminology. Instead, the article systematically replaces GC language with labels used by opponents (e.g., “transphobic,” “anti-rights,” “hate propaganda”). This violates WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, which requires that contested viewpoints be presented in the terms used by their proponents. It is extraordinary that a position held by a plurality or majority of people in most countries—representing a mainstream view—is denied basic encyclopaedic treatment. Even the most notorious historical figures (e.g., Hitler, Lenin, Mao, bin Laden) have their ideologies explained neutrally and in their own words before criticism is introduced. It is a fundamental failure of neutrality that a modern, mainstream political position is denied the courtesy afforded to the most controversial figures in history. 2. Inversion of "Fringe" Status The article treats gender-critical feminism as a "fringe" movement, yet polling consistently shows that GC beliefs are mainstream, held by a plurality or majority of the public in countries worldwide. In reality, it is the uncompromising ideological opposition to these beliefs that frequently aligns with fringe-level support. By structurally excluding GC self-descriptions while prioritizing critical framing, the article presents a distorted reality that contradicts global public opinion and mainstream political discourse. 3. Disproportionate use of condemnatory language Approximately 14.5% of the article consists of explicitly hostile labels or moral judgements. Terms such as “transphobic,” “extremist,” and “disinformation” appear over 80 times. No other Wikipedia article on a political ideology uses this density of condemnatory language. This violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, as criticism is not merely included but structurally dominates the article to the point of polemic. 4. Sourcing imbalance and structural bias Approximately 24% of the article consists of long, uninterrupted quotations from critics. Furthermore, the article omits mainstream evidence, including legal arguments for sex-based rights, the UK Equality Act’s single-sex exemptions, the Cass Review, and materialist philosophical arguments. This selective omission violates WP:NPOV and WP:V by presenting a contested, mainstream issue as settled fringe dogma. 5. Gatekeeping and behavioral obstruction The article is gatekept by a small group of editors, violating WP:OWN, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:CIVIL: Coordinated Reversion: Good-faith edits are rapidly reverted to maintain the polemical status quo. Stonewalling: Suggestions for improvement are dismissed without engaging with the substantive arguments. Tone Policing: Legitimate, policy-based challenges are labeled "disruptive" to shut down conversation, shifting the focus from content to the "conduct" of the dissenter. Summary of Requested Actions Neutrality Review: A full review by uninvolved editors. Rewrite of Lead: Bring the summary into compliance with WP:NPOV. Inclusion of Self-Description: Allow the movement to articulate its own framework in its own words per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Balance: Include mainstream polling, legal context, and philosophical arguments to correct the current structural bias. Page Protection: Address the ongoing gatekeeping that prevents collaborative, neutral development ~2026-34691-34 (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The above critisism was collapsed as part of said gatekeeping of this article, it is too devastating for the editors to accept ~2026-34691-34 (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

No one here is devasated, we just do not allow arguments to be made by AI. — Czello ^(music) 08:38, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Its the same gatekeepers over and over again ~2026-34691-34 (talk) 09:07, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Look it up you find who makes the churlish admin style bans, covering them up with claims it was because of this or that, and it is the same people opver and over again going back years even banning users from wikipedia for having a differeing view to them on this issue. Why nit put JK Rowlings route be what youy want .. etc but. etc no its just a litany of bullying critisisms, of gc people. ~2026-34691-34 (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 13 June 2026

Gender-critical feminism → Trans-exclusionary radical feminismTrans-exclusionary radical feminism – I have two reasons why this should be moved; one of them is objective and the other one is more personal.

The objective reason is that this subject is much better known as "trans-exclusionary radical feminism", whereas the label "gender-critical feminism" is only used by some of its adherents and quite controversially so. As such, it should be moved according to WP:COMMONNAME.

The personal (and mayhaps inflamatory) reason is that calling this article "gender-critical feminism" is like calling the article on nazism "Jewish-critical socialism". Which not only would greatly undersell the importance that attacking Jews had in nazi ideology; nazism was hardly socialist in praxis, and so is "gender-critical feminism" hardly an actual feminist movement. It is no more than a neo-reactionary attempt at stablishing a made-up barrier between two ideologies that have no real reason to be devided, considering that both feminism and transgender movements sought to challenge gender roles and as such there is no reason why feminism should antagonize transgender people as TERFs wish to do. But mayhaps this comment is already getting a little too personal, so I will stop myself here. DaniPine3 (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 01:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Survey

Move to gender-critical movement - I honestly don't think the name itself matters that much, but what is your opinion on the arguments brought up in the previous move request (linked in the banners up top)? A lot of people then doubted whether "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" was really the common name.

Personally, I would prefer gender-critical movement since a lot of the people involved just call themselves "gender-critical," without feminism at the end (though some still use it). Academic sources are starting to reflect that as well, and it's becoming more used in the news as well. InfernoHues (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree Snokalok2 (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I would support this too but I think that would require a separate proposal with its own rationale. I think consensus is unlikely so I'm not sure that it is worth the effort of trying. That said, if it can be clearly shown that there really has been a decisive shift in the terminology used by academic sources then... maybe? --DanielRigal (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

well, at least that would drop the "feminism" from the title and make it thus more objective, since this branch of "feminism" doesn't engage in actual feminist activism, only anti-transgender ones. so if most people here oppose to move it to "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" I will support that it gets moved to the "gender-critical movement" instead. DaniPine3 (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

There's a big range, which is why I support my proposed title. For example, Germaine Greer has obviously done lots of feminist activism, while Posie Parker doesn't even call herself one anymore. InfernoHues (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

If you think it is important to drop "feminism" from the title, it would appear you have not read the page, and certainly not the literature. Gender-critical feminism is explicitly a femininist ideology that may appear to be in tune with a wider anti-gender movement, but is, in fact quite distinct from others such as religious anti-gender activists. This is because gender-critical feminism argues that the gender roles are themselves socially constructed. I'm a little worried about putting words in their mouth, and don't have Lawford-Smith et al. at my fingertips, but essentially they argue that sex, defined biologically, is immutable, and that women are free to take whatever gender role they wish, because these are socially constructed. A woman may dress as a man, act as a man, do what they like, and in so doing they are challenging the social construction of gender.

This is quite different from, say, a religious anti-trans activist, who may, in fact, be convinced there are such things as male and female roles. And there are other positions too - but GC feminism distinguishes itself by very clearly arguing that gender roles are socially constructed, and that is why they oppose the replacement of sex with gender. It very much is a feminist position, and it is simply wrong to say that the feminists hold to that position are not engaged in other feminist activism. They are. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I would also support the proposed move per Katzrockso's reasoning. InfernoHues (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose Whether TERF is the common name has not been demonstrated, nor was it at the last move request. The personal reasons above are irrelevant and more opinion than anything. Additionally, we don't change the name of an article because some people might have a moral objection to the wording. — Czello ^(music) 07:26, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Nothing has changed from the last RM. I also oppose a move (which would be a merge, since it exists) to gender-critical movement. This has also been discussed before. If you got rid of this page, you'd have to remake it. Gender-critical feminism exists, and is a specific ideology with specific beliefs that are written about and notable in their own right, so we should neutrally describe it. That's the role of an encyclopaedia. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  What do you mean it would be a merge? Gender-critical movement redirects to this page. InfernoHues (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think they might be confusing it with the article titled Anti-gender movement. DaniPine3 (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. But again, if you take the feminism out of the page, that is what you get. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. There are legitimate arguments over the WP:COMMONNAME. Most right wing Reliable Sources (most notably British newspapers) have picked a side and they have chosen to use the euphemism "Gender-critical". Academic sources, of which there are not many, are more varied. Less right wing Reliable Sources tend to avoid the subject altogether so we don't get much from them. I'm still uncomfortable with the title including the word "feminism", as the topic is only very tangentially related to feminism and some of the sources don't even say "feminism", but the proposed move wouldn't solve that anyway so there's no point in getting into that here. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NATURAL and WP:NPOV. While usages for both is found in academic literature and both are not neutral, the usage of "gender-critical" is less neutral. It's usage is documented as being a rebranding for political purposes. In many contexts transphobia or trans exclusion are no longer socially acceptable and thus there has been an attempt to pivot to language which euphemistically paints transphobia or exclusionary language as being merely "critical". It is akin to calling Scientific Racism "Race Realism". We should use descriptive terminology over "gender-critical" movement's preferred self-description. TarnishedPath^talk 13:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  I concur, as there is a documented history of the rise of the "gender-critical" terminology corresponding with a type of sanewashing.

  See also:

  Bishop, Ben (April 3, 2025). "TERF by Any Other Name: The Constitutive Rhetoric of Gender-Critical Feminism". Women's Studies in Communication. 48 (2): 229–248. doi:10.1080/07491409.2025.2483692. ISSN 0749-1409.

  Corredor, Elizabeth S. (March 2019). "Unpacking "Gender Ideology" and the Global Right's Antigender Countermovement". Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 44 (3): 613–638. doi:10.1086/701171. pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 23:03, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  "As research student Clair Thurlow observed, this gender-critical “moniker represents more than a renaming. Instead, it can be interpreted as a rebranding for a present-day where the explicit transphobia of earlier trans-exclusionary feminism is no longer tolerated.” Claire Thurlow, From TERF to Gender Critical: A Telling Genealogy?, SEXUALITIES (forthcoming) (advance online publication available at https://doi.org/10 .1177/13634607221107827). Although I personally agree with both McCann and Thurlow, I nonetheless follow Deborah Shaw’s lead by refraining from referring to this brand of “feminism” as trans-exclusionary feminism and those who subscribe to it as transexclusionary feminists; instead, “I will apply ‘gender critical’ here out of respect for people’s rights to self-define”—even if those people have not shown much respect members of the transgender or intersex communities. Deborah Shaw, A Tale of Two Feminisms: Gender Critical Feminism, Trans Inclusive Feminism, and the Case of Kathleen Stock, 32 WOMEN’S HIST. REV. 768, 769 (2023) 25.2022.2147915."

  Quoted in H. F. Fradella, The Imperative of Rejecting "Gender-Critical" Feminism in the Law, 30 Wm. & Mary J. Race, Gender, & Soc. Just. 269 (2024), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmjowl/vol30/ iss2/3 (Page 275). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Also worth noting that Thurlow's PhD thesis uses the term "gender-critical" more than TERF and trans-exclusionary put together. Not because she prefers the term, but because she recognises and discusses that the terms are not, in fact, synonyms. she writes:

  Yet as I have begun to demonstrate, I view TERF and gender critical as distinct and I will now interrogate these differences.

  Thurlow, Claire. ‘It’s just common sense’: A critical exploration of contemporary trans-exclusionary feminism. PhD Diss. Cardiff University, 2024. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  If "TERF" and "gender-critical" are different terms, should there be two distinct articles for each term? Maybe TERF (acronym) could be moved as just "TERF", and have "Transgender-exclusionary radical feminism" redirect there instead (or have the TERF (acronym) article renamed as "Transgender-exclusionary radical feminism"). Also I still think that this article should at the very least have the "feminism" removed from the title, instead being called "Gender-critical movement". DaniPine3 (talk) 08:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Noting the fluidity of use of the term, Thurlow says: Once the label ‘TERF’ was popularised, its use in traditional and social media came to signify trans-exclusionary views more generally and therefore was also not synonymous with being a radical feminist (despite the ‘RF’). Furthermore, being trans-exclusionary, and therefore liable to being labelled a TERF, did not necessitate being a feminist of any variant. Nevertheless, as coined, and as used in the academic literature (inasmuch it is used at all), the RF is important, as I said to your comment above. Should we have two articles? I don't think so. Following Thurlow alone may be a tad risky in any case, but even if we accept the discursive shift, Thurlow's view is that GC feminists have attempted to change the narrative. She cites, for example, terms such as pro-woman, used to replace anti-trans. I think it is helpful to have an article that is quite clear that the "discursive pivot", as Thurlow calls it, nevertheless grounds the GC movement in the trans-exclusionary radical feminism of the 70s and 80s. I think this is important context for the reader (although how well we do it at present is another question). This article is about feminists who are anti-trans because of their feminist views regarding the social construction of gender. That's a single discrete subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  WP:NATURAL is irrelevant here: it's about disambiguating two different concepts with the same name, not about different ways of referring to the same concept.

  As for your link [1], "document" is the wrong word. The article is the author's opinion - it is an argument rather than a documentation: In this article I argue that this new moniker represents more than a renaming. Instead, it can be interpreted as a rebranding... [emphasis mine]

  The article also suggests that "gender-critical feminism" is the WP:COMMONNAME, contrary to the original proposal: What was once termed TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminism/feminist) is now more often referred to as gender critical feminism/feminist. Astaire (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  WP:COMMONNAME state that "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; see § Neutrality in article titles".

  As has been demonstrated here, "GC" is a euphemistic label; there is little dispute about that point. Using "TERF" makes it immediately clear to readers that the movement in question is characterized by the exclusion of trans people. By contrast, GC presents the movement as merely adopting a critical or analytical stance toward gender, which can give a misleading impression of neutrality or scientific rigor. For that reason, using "GC" is less precise and less informative for readers, and does not accurately reflect the nature of the movement. Haymillefolium (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. No effort has been made to show that "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" is actually the WP:COMMONNAME, and Wikipedia articles are not moved based on personal sensibilities (WP:NOTCENSORED etc). Astaire (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per opposers - that "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" is actually the WP:COMMONNAME doesn't seem to have been demonstrated, and the term has an inherently POV flavour; does anyone ever so self-describe? Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think that it makes any difference to the matter here but I will note that I've seen some random anti-trans people gleefully describe themselves as "TERFs", using the acronym not the full form. It is hard to say how many of them knew what it stands for or what Radical Feminism is. So that's not a definitive yes to your question but it's also not a definitive no either. Anyway, I think some of the other arguments against the move are more persuasive. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  NOt a lot of people assume their anti-trans positions of course, that is why gender-critical feminism is considered has a rebranding or euphemism : Talk:Gender-critical feminism#c-Haymillefolium-20260619120600-Survey Haymillefolium (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support (strongly), and I couldn't agree more with the proposal (and TERF is absolutely the more common term), but I do wish the proposal did a better job providing evidence that TERF is the more common term. However, I'd also support changing the last word of this page's title ("Gender-critical movement" is also a term that gets used), and it might make sense to move TERF (acronym) to just TERF. Paintspot Infez (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with this support and I'm working on a list of sources in my User:pauliesnug/sandbox if anyone is interested :D pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 00:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support (strongly), Gender critical " can be interpreted as a rebranding for a present-day where the explicit transphobia of earlier trans-exclusionary feminism is no longer tolerated" https://journals-sagepub-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/10.1177/13634607221107827. "“Gender critical” is a more common term used for self-identification; however, PRA cautions against using the term, unless directly quoting a source, due to its euphemistic nature. PRA suggests instead anti-transgender activist or advocate. [See: Transphobia]."https://politicalresearch.org/research/glossary "Since Lawford-Smith positions her book as a philosophical foundation for the gender-critical movement, my primary goal is to show that this philosophical foundation is both metaphysically and politically flawed." https://www-cambridge-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/core/journals/hypatia/article/whats-wrong-with-gendercritical-feminism/8E7700B8CCF460462C5639629BA8A5A1Haymillefolium (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Killmister (2025) is an excellent source, because it both describes and criticises the concept of the page subject in an argumentative article of critical philosophy, published in a good academic journal. But, critically, it is titled What’s Wrong with Gender-Critical Feminism? and has a section What is gender-critical feminism?. It does not use "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism" at all. It surely makes the case for the existing title of this page, as the WP:COMMONNAME, rather than for changing it. Thurlow is discussed above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose move to a term that is clearly meant to be insulting and inflammatory per WP:NPOV. And as for comparing it to the crimes of Nazism, frankly words fail me! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  the term became insulting after it's creation, like "nazi" is now an insult. But you wouldn't rename it to "Jewish-critical socialism" for this reason. We can call WP:NPOV to state that "gender critical" is an euphemism/rebranding (according to various academic sources). Also see Talk:Gender-critical feminism#c-Haymillefolium-20260619122900-Astaire-20260616140300. Haymillefolium (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support The rationale of the original move request still holds today. Using Google scholar to survey the academic literature, ("gender-critical feminism" OR "gender-critical feminist" OR "gender-critical feminists") yields about 3,920 results, and ("trans-exclusionary radical feminism" OR "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" OR "trans-exclusionary radical feminists") yields about 32,800 results. This suggests that "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" has been about 8 times more common than "gender-critical feminism" in the academic literature. If we filter to results since 2025, we still get 542 versus 835 results, suggesting that, despite a relative rise in "gender-critical feminism", "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" remains the predominant term. It also remains true that all three of the academic journal issues dedicated to this article's topic that I am aware of, which are listed in this article's "Further reading" section, primarily use "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" instead of "gender-critical feminism".

In addition, articles are supposed to be written from a global perspective. The term "gender-critical feminism" is particularly common in the United Kingdom, but TERFism is a global phenomenon. There should be more consideration of how prevalent each term (including translations) is in non-UK and non-Anglophone countries. PBZE (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Google-fu can be problematic. For instance, you give us numbers for those search terms, but if we restrict the terms to the current title Gender-critical feminism and the proposed title, Trans-exclusionary radical feminism, we get a different story. Those links give uses since 2022, which are 693 versus 629 respectively. That is, since 2022, more academic sources use the current title than the proposed one. And if you now click on hits since 2025, the numbers are 305 versus 236, which suggests an accelerating trend.

Many of those sources use both, of course. And some, such as this one [2] use Gender-Critical/Trans-exclusionary radical feminism" which gets counted as a hit for TE but not for GC in the above. It may not be the only one. But I took a look at the TE hits, whilst excluding "gender-critical" from those, to get an idea of the kinds of sources that use TE but not GC. The first page had this article, that I've read before [3]. It is an interesting one, because although the author didn't seem aware of the GC terminology, they said, inter alia:

Since it was first coined, the use of the term TERF has changed and nowadays is imbued with strong emotions, leading to some of those who identify with TERF values to reject the label (Hines, 2019). Due to its emotional associations, and for the sake of scholarly rigour, we will not use the term TERF for the profiles we analysed in this chapter, but the word radfem

Scholars are aware of the issue with the term trans-exclusionary radical feminist, and increasingly GCF is being used. And, of course, other tertiary sources have noticed this too. For instance, a few years ago The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy was updated, removing trans-exclusionary radical feminists and replacing it with gender critical feminists. That is clear evidence that they too have seen this trend.

There is an issue of course, mentioned above, that gender-critical feminism is a self definition. The GC feminists have chosen this term. It is simply wrong to say it is euphemistic, of course. It is not euphemistic. It is a statement of the core of their philosophy, in the same way that "pro-choice" is both self description and a statement of their philosophy. But all the same, there are those who might argue that they have no right to self-define. Which is ironic, when those same people are fighting for the right of people to self define their gender identity. It may not sit entirely comfortably with us, but there does seem to be an emerging consensus in academia as well as the rest of the world, that this term - while not perfect - is better than the alternatives. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

For instance, a few years ago The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy was updated, removing trans-exclusionary radical feminists and replacing it with gender critical feminists. That is clear evidence that they too have seen this trend I'd read this particular SEP page many many times, as the academic philosophy work on gender/feminism is a particular interest of mine. I have never seen it use the term "trans-exclusionary radical feminists", so I don't know when you're claiming this supposed change happened, but I don't think it ever happened. I checked archived versions of the webpage on the depracted archive.is website (since stanford.edu is excluded from the Wayback machine for whatever reason) and no versions from 2012-2025 included the term "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". The first version I saw archived there that included any pertinent terminology was a 2022 version that included the following passage:

The so-called ‘gender critical feminists’ in social media and public fora have also recently argued against the sex/gender distinction in a spirit similar to Bogardus and Byrne. As this type of position is discussed in non-academic settings, and articles in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy concern academic philosophical discussions, this entry won’t outline recent debates on social media. Although in academic philosophical sources and publications beyond those already noted this sort of view is hard to find, it is exemplified by Holly Lawford-Smith (2021) who takes the prevalent sex/ gender distinction, where ‘female’/ ‘male’ are used as sex terms and ‘woman’/’man’ as gender terms, not to be helpful. Instead, she takes all of these to be sex terms and holds that (the norms of) femininity/ masculinity refer to gender normativity.

This was slightly reworded by 2023, where it remains today:

Others such as ‘gender critical feminists’ also hold views about the sex/gender distinction in a spirit similar to Bogardus and Byrne. For example, Holly Lawford-Smith (2021) takes the prevalent sex/gender distinction, where ‘female’/‘male’ are used as sex terms and ‘woman’/’man’ as gender terms, not to be helpful. Instead, she takes all of these to be sex terms and holds that (the norms of) femininity/masculinity refer to gender normativity. Because much of the gender critical feminists’ discussion that philosophers have engaged in has taken place in social media, public fora, and other sources outside academic philosophy, this entry will not focus on these discussions.

I think your claim that there is a shift in these tertiary sources is unfounded. Indeed, the SEP only uses 'gender critical feminists' with the scare-quotes, something extremely common in the academic literature. The issue is because 'gender critical feminists' are often held to not be truly gender-critical or not be truly feminists (see my review of this literature in our previous discussion), so to uncritically describe this milieu as 'gender critical feminists' would do readers a disservice (in the views of many academics).

Consequently, when the square quotes are used in academic work, we cannot excise that context from the usage of the term. Katzrockso (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with the nominator (even setting aside the personal reasoning) and find the arguments in support of a move more persuasive overall. The term has been more widely used over the last couple decade although usage is changing. There are arguments put forward that the terms are not exactly synonymous but they are demonstrably discussed as being the same or even with gender-critical feminism being a rebranding of the older term. We have a single article that defines them as synonymous in the lead but goes on to describe the history and usage of the terminology. There seems to be broad agreement not to split these, and I agree that these should be covered as one topic. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support. I would prefer "Trans exclusionary feminism" as a WP:NDESCR title, given both the baggage behind the TERF acronym and the aforementioned issues with the current title, but "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism" would be an improvement over the status quo. There are several reasons why the proposed title is superior to the current title.
  

1) It is more precise. "Gender critical feminism" tells us very little about what distinguishes this branch of feminism from other branches. Nearly all types of feminism are critical of "gender", in at least some aspect. Xenofeminism is openly gender abolitionist. Most forms of radical feminism and materialist feminism envision the abolition of gender in at least some respect. Even the most milquetoast liberal choice feminism will advocate for women to not be burdened with gender roles (perhaps adherents of the so-called "gender critical feminism" think their policy prescriptions fail to achieve this, but this is a different question than the actual positions of a branch of feminism). "Gender-critical feminism" fails to tell a prospective reader what the actually distinguishing characteristics of this type of feminism are and how they might know what characterizes this type of feminism. "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism", while not perfect, does highlight the most distinct characteristic of this branch of feminism vis a vis others - it is explicitly trans-exclusionary. This is the probably the only truly uniting characteristic between all those feminists who can are called "gender-critical feminists" or "trans-exclusionary radical feminists" in reliable sources - the fact that they are trans-exclusionary.
2) It reflects the balance of reliable, academic sources more adequately than the current title. As I pointed out above [4], even when reliable sources use the term "gender-critical feminism" it is often prefixed by "so-called" or enclosed in scare-quotes. This is because most reliable academic sources recognize that this term is not an adequate description of the variety of feminism it is commonly used to demarcate. See also the previous discussion [5], where I catalogued many of the arguments specifically made about the accuracy of the descriptor in question by reliable sources. A title that reliable sources dispute is accurate is certainly not one that we should be using uncritically.
I oppose the proposed move to "gender-critical movement", as this would involve a change in the scope of the article. We already effectively have an article on the Gender-critical movement, which is cataloged at Anti-gender movement. We could expand the content there and perhaps create a subsection specifically describing the so-called gender-critical movement as one section of the anti-gender movement. But the distinguishing characteristic of so-called gender-critical feminism from other parts of the "gender-critical movement" or "anti-gender movement" is the fact that it presents purportedly feminist rationalizations for trans-exclusionary ideology. Regardless of what you think about the connection between this brand of feminism and the rest of the anti-gender movement, it is a fact that they are different factions.Katzrockso (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis regarding the term TERF (I considered doing something similar, but decided that the page name wasn't that important to me). I don't agree though that "gender-critical movement" is the same thing as "anti-gender movement," the main reason being that anti-gender people don't call themselves gender-critical. Regardless of whether they call themselves feminists or not, gender-critical people frame their arguments around promoting women's rights, while anti-gender people generally do not. InfernoHues (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

Look, if you talk to most people about that specific comparison—the one comparing "gender-critical" to "Jewish-critical"—most are going to find it pretty jarring, regardless of where they stand on the issue.

Here is the breakdown of why that kind of rhetoric usually lands the way it does in a regular conversation:

It’s seen as a "nuclear" option: Most people, even those who strongly disagree with the gender-critical side, tend to roll their eyes or get frustrated when someone immediately jumps to comparisons involving Nazis or hate groups. It feels like a way to stop the conversation dead in its tracks rather than actually talking about the topic. It’s the definition of "bad-faith" to a lot of folks—it’s not meant to persuade; it’s meant to brand the other person as evil so you don't have to listen to them.

It feels like a massive reach: Even people who aren't experts on the history of feminism or trans issues usually have a "that’s a stretch" reflex. When someone tries to draw a straight line between a debate over gender labels and the horrors of history, it usually comes across as hyperbolic. It’s hard for the average person to see those two things as being in the same ballpark, and it often makes the person making the comparison look more extreme than the person they’re attacking.

It ignores the actual disagreement: The real friction here is about things like language, rights, and biology—things people are actually worried about or feel passionate about. When you throw a "Nazi" label at it, you bypass all of that. Most people want to know, "Okay, what are we actually arguing about?" and they get annoyed when they feel like they’re being forced to pick a side in a culture war that has been turned into a shouting match.

It backfires: Honestly, for a lot of people, that kind of comparison is counterproductive. If you’re trying to convince someone that a certain viewpoint is wrong, calling them a Nazi usually just makes them dig their heels in. It doesn't change anyone’s mind; it just turns a disagreement into a feud. ~2026-34691-34 (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Additionally the Nazis never called themselves the Jewish critical socialist movement, so the comparision being made is so off target and bizarro world it is surreal. That would be like banning the term Manchester United in this dimension and time, as "if" the Nazis had called themselves "The national socialist Manchester United movement" then that would make the term "Manchester United" a far right term, in reality they did nit call themselves the Jewish critical socialist movement or the Manchestr United party, and even more bizarely the term you want to ban is gender critical movement, which would still be a compltely different term, to the one you made up, so even then that would not be the same, making it doubly surreal this is a 540 degree off the mark comment, ~2026-34691-34 (talk) 08:27, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

and also it is not the same, as the adjective Jewish describes a entire group of people, while the term gender describes a philosophical use of a word, so it is actually a 900 degrees round the compass off the mark comment, or is this comment going to be miss interpreted off the mark as well, :) ~2026-34691-34 (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

What is even more bizarre is that articles on the Nazis on Wikipedia provide the most evil man in history—the Austrian painter—quotations in his own words, and the party he represented, the Nazi Party, is under the name he gave it. Yet, the moderate, mainstream, vanilla "gender-critical" (GC) movement just has an article with lots of churlish, unknown bullies slagging the ideology off. There is no list of quotations from J.K. Rowling or others; the closest thing is usually a mangled, "newspeak," anti-GC version written in the language of the competing ideology that opposes her views, which turns any quotations from GC folk into garbled versions.

Wikipedia has stepped off into the deep end with this absurdist interpretation of everything. Actually banning the term "gender-critical" because "the Nazis never used the term 'Jewish-critical'" would be like banning the term "Nottingham Panthers ice hockey team" with the excuse of, "What if the Nazis had called themselves the Manchester United National Socialist Party?"

What is even more absurd is that if the Nazis had called themselves the "Jewish-Critical Socialist Party"—just like there is an article on the National Socialist Party—then there would be an article on them under the name "The Jewish-Critical Socialist Party," and nobody would bat an eyelid, as it would be the term used.

This Orwellian, "newspeak," off-the-mark idea of banning "gender-critical" because you don't like the term, and giving it a completely different name, is actually the opposite of what an encyclopedia does. This surreal attitude of banning a term—based on the logic that "if said movement had called themselves it, then that..."—is just ridiculous ~2026-34691-34 (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

All this confused verbiage is completely unconstructive and too incoherent to engage with. I will just remind you that your other comically long-winded attempt at incoherent kvetching was shut down for being LLM generated and that these long interjections are becoming disruptive. It's time to dial it back to a few shorter comments, preferably ones that stay on-topic and which people can actually understand. I don't think that an LLM can help you with that. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

References