Talk:Gender-critical feminism

Proposing a specific change

In "Views - Sex and gender" we can find this phrasing: "they believe sex is biological and cannot be changed". I propose that we slightly modify it by saying: "they state sex is biological and cannot be changed in humans". It is factual that sex is entirely biological (simply because this notion pertains to the scientific branch of biology), and it is factual that humans do not change sex (we can certainly modify some sex-related traits, but if biological sex is to be understood as the developmental pathway aimed at organising a person's body around one of the two reproductive strategies, then we cannot undo those workings). I find it weird that stating factual notions is turned into a matter of belief, where one belief is just as legitimate as the other. Should we say that scientists believe the Earth orbits around the sun, or is it, instead, a better option to portray the opposite view a belief? Simogne (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to propose another specific change. In "Views - Transgender Youth" the paragraph ends with information about WPATH supporting puberty blockers as a prescription for children. I agree that we ought to represent medical views and opinions and it's useful if we also add contrasting (although reviewed) positions of other medical organisations.
1) the NHS of the United Kingdom has come to conclude that prescriptions of puberty blockers in minors, aren't clinically effective for treatment of gender dysphoria following the Cass Review.
2) While not pertaining puberty blockers, but still in the realm of interest of Transgender Youth, the ASPS has recommended to delay surgery for gender-affirmation purposes until at least the age of 19.
3) Sweden, Finland and Norway' health policy bodies all support precautionary guidelines wrt puberty blockers in some form.
4) Italy and France are backtracking on the usage of puberty blockers for safety reasons. Simogne (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Several things:
1) The article reflects what reliable sources say about the subject. Legal judgements are not reliable sources except for the opinion of the court, lest we say that black people aren't equal to white people courtesy of Dredd vs Scott.
2) WP:DUE requires us to represent the subject's own perspective fairly can you explain what part of DUE requires this? Katzrockso (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where they're getting their confusion from, but WP:DUE specifically does not require abstract "fairness" (which would require editors make value-judgements, and could lead to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS situations.) What it requires is that we fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. The latter point is key. We don't weigh non-expert objections to climate change, or evolution, or opinions on who won the 2020 US election, or the effectiveness of vaccines, or views on the Shakespeare authorship question equal to those of high-quality scholars published in peer-reviewed sources. And according to those sources, the "gender critical" view is, medically and academically, on the fringes. There are legal, political, and cultural institutions that would declare climate change to be false, for instance; we don't weigh those equally to high-quality academic sources. This is no different. --Aquillion (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are replying to a person who used ChatGPT to write that essay, check their history!! Simogne (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As for your suggestions @Simogne, this is not the place to summarize the entirety of each medical body's opinion on the matter. Honestly, that sentence fragment should be removed since it seems to invoke a hint of SYNTH. I think I added that, so my bad. Katzrockso (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No problem @Katzrockso. Can you give me, if you want to, some further insights on the initial suggestion ? (The one regarding Views - Sex and gender") Simogne (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We are describing their beliefs (hence the "Views" section), so it is strictly accurate and correctly worded for this type of section. See, e.g. the second sentence of Feminism (Feminism holds the position that modern societies are patriarchal—they prioritize the male point of view—and that women are treated unjustly in these societies); I think one could argue that this is a factual statement and it is quite strange to describe this as a "position", but this is a necessary part of encyclopedic writing (WP:NPOV). I don't think we need to involve ourselves in any particular notion or conceptualization of "sex" or its malleability. Katzrockso (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you sm for the explanation !! Simogne (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can you specify which sentences you are objecting to in the article? I can see rewording this sentence again Emerging from a fringe movement within radical feminism mainly in the United States if you dislike "fringe" so much; the point here is to express the point that the antecedent ideology of "gender-critical feminism", a particular strain of radical feminism from the 1960s and 1970s, was numerically small and limited in its influence/salience within the broader feminist movement. As currently worded, it seems to imply something inaccurate (that this movement was a very small numerical minority within radical feminism, a statement that I do not believe is as accurate) so I will try to rewrite it later.
As for your repeated citations of the Forstater ruling, the legal judgement once again has no standing here. Legal judgements are not reliable sources, and Wikipedia itself does not decide whether or not a belief system is "worthy of respect in a democratic society". The article catalogs and describes what reliable sources say about a subject, particularly those sources that are independent of the subject.
As for the comparison to feminism, you are misunderstanding the basis for these articles. The Feminism article does not describe the tenets of the movement because the movement defines itself that way, the articles describes the tenets of the movement because reliable sources do. The relevant factor is not deference to a group itself to describe/define itself, something that would inevitably lead to problematic promotional content and inaccuracies, but what independent reliable sources state about the subject. Katzrockso (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually looking back at it, I'm not sure that rewriting that sentence would do any good. Katzrockso (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Using a LLM will get you nowhere. Katzrockso (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is just the way I talk. ~2026-97970-5 (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bummer. You talk exactly like an LLM. In Wikipedia talk discussion, you'll do much better if you make your case clearly and concisely. I kind of share your apprehension about labelling a philosophical belief as fringe (but I note it is a minority position). It is also not divorced from the science. There is science on this matter, and although the application of the science is debatable, those who express a view that is clearly opposed to the science on principle clearly are taking a fringe position. Whether that is the case for gender-critical feminism is where the debate lies. I think you should engage with the science, see what we know, and go from there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm just a human who has undergone extensive Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF).~2026-97970-5 (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delightful troll since RLHF is literally a spicy autocorrect training technique. I've gone ahead and collapsed all the obvious climate-change-Clippy content. Machines have no voice in article talk pages. Simonm223 (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that you are arguing at cross purposes. The article says that GCF is fringe within feminism and has sources for that. That is different to saying the gender critical views are fringe within society. It can be simultaneously true that GCF is fringe in the field of feminism while certain GC views are mainstream in society. StupidLookingKid (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The whole article reads like a polemic, there does not seem to be any attempt at being a encylopaedia. ~2026-97970-5 (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any specific changes you might propose to improve the article? Wikipedia is WP:Not a forum, so your edits on the talk page here should offer actionable and specific advice on how we might remedy the alleged issues you have identified Katzrockso (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gender-critical_feminism