The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The topic of this article is the ideology or movement known variously in reliable sources as gender-critical feminism (including abbreviated forms such as "GC", "GC feminism") or trans-exclusionary radical feminism (including abbreviated forms such as "TERF ideology", "TERFism" and similar expressions). The two main titles are equivalent. The article was split off from the article Feminist views on transgender topics where the corresponding section is titled "Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism."
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism 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.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
This article 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+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Sharpe, Alex (May 2020). "Will Gender Self‐Declaration Undermine Women's Rights and Lead to an Increase in Harms?". The Modern Law Review. 83 (3): 539–557. doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12507. S2CID214079382.
Williams, Cristan (2021). "TERFs". The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies.
Varieties of TERFness, special issue of the Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies, 2023
Da Costa, Jade Crimson Rose (24 August 2021). "Chapter 27: The "New" White Feminism: Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminism and the Problem of Biological Determinism in Western Feminist Theory". In Brunton, James; Carter, Kristi (eds.). TransNarratives: Scholarly and Creative Works on Transgender Experience. Toronto: Women's Press. pp. 317–334. ISBN9780889616226.
Lee, Bora; Kim, Hee-jin (2020-02-21). 가장 보통의 사람]불안이란 이름의 ‘혐오’…트랜스젠더 배제한 ‘터프’ 해부하다 [“Hate” in the Name of Anxiety … Dissecting “TERF” That Excludes Transgender People]. 경향신문 (in Korean). Retrieved 2024-06-28.
Kim, Jinsook (December 2021). "The Resurgence and Popularization of Feminism in South Korea: Key Issues and Challenges for Contemporary Feminist Activism". Korea Journal. 61 (4): 75–101. doi:10.25024/kj.2021.61.4.75.
Lee, Hyun-Jae (December 2020). "A Critical Study of Identity Politics Based on the Category 'Biological Woman' in the Digital Era: How Young Korean Women Became Transgender Exclusive Radical Feminists". Journal of Asian Sociology. 49 (4): 425–448. doi:10.21588/dns.2020.49.4.003.
Lifu, Guo (2024-01-29). "Medals and conspiracies: Chinese and Japanese online trans-exclusionary discourses during the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games". Beyond Diversity. düsseldorf university press. pp. 117–134. doi:10.1515/9783110767995-010. ISBN978-3-11-076799-5. Retrieved 2024-06-29.
Kawasaka, Kazuyoshi (2023). "Chapter 8: Queers and National Anxiety: Discourses on Gender and Sexuality from Anti-Gender Backlash Movements in Japan since the 2000s". Global Perspectives on Anti-Feminism: Far-Right and Religious Attacks on Equality and Diversity. Edinburgh University Press. pp. 182–201. ISBN9781399505390. JSTOR10.3366/jj.7358671.14.
In the paragraph talking about how the Forstater case has been used as precedent we state in wiki voice that there has been a successful claim against United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy, this is in reference to James Esses. The only source for the paragraph is this article, which clearly separates out cases that were settled out of court from successful in tribunals. Moreover the idea that it is a successful claim is not verified by the source used, they clearly use neutral language. If we are to follow RS on this it seems we should not use the term Successful claim for this settlement.
My edit summary said: "It is a successful claim – the settlement only came after legal action". The source says: "After another case that was settled out of court, brought by the student James Esses, who was thrown off his course for expressing gender-critical views, the UK Council for Psychotherapy conceded it was a valid professional belief that children suffering from gender dysphoria should receive counselling rather than medical intervention and people should not be discriminated against for such beliefs. Esses’ case against the Metanoia Institute continues."
Luna, this is a successful claim. The source refers to a ‘case’ that was ‘settled out of court’. This means there was a legal case – which was settled by the ‘defendant’ without a full hearing. This makes it, in practice, more successful than cases which went to court/tribunal, because it means that the claimant did not have to go through the effort and expense of a full hearing. It is in principle possible to have a successful legal claim without even issuing proceedings, if the ‘defendant’ settles after a solicitor’s letter. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how a settlement can be successful (and as you put it more successful) but a settlement isn't automatically successful. We should follow the Guardians approach on this (as it is the RS) and be notably more neutral and fact based, not make a personal judgement about how successful it was. Ultimately the Guardian do not list these cases together like we have done here. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Officially a settlement is a draw. The case does not come to court. It is not adjudicated either way. It is neither successful or unsuccessful. In most cases we don't get to hear the result of a settlement so we don't know the extent to which either party got what they wanted. It may be that the plaintiff gets a large proportion of what they wanted and both sides save on legal fees but it may also be that the a weak suit is settled for a nominal sum, an agreement to drop the matter permanently and neither side to pursue the other for legal fees. So how can we talk about it? Here is what I recommend:
When we don't know anything other than it settled: "X sued Y over Z. The case was settled before it came to court." Readers will understand this as broadly positive for X, without us needing to say so, but they won't know how positive because none of us know the details that would inform that.
When we do know the settlement terms: "X sued Y over Z. A settlement was reached with Y paying X £N, making an apology, undertaking not to repeat Z" (delete as not applicable). Readers will clearly and correctly understand that this is a win for X, unless £N is something like £1.00, without us needing to use the word "successful". If RS coverage of the case calls it a success then we can say that but we need to avoid saying it in a way that implies that X actually won the case.
When a case is settled after adjudication, maybe while an appeal is pending, assuming that we know the details: "X successfully sued Y over Z and was awarded £M. Subsequently, a settlement was reached with Y paying X £N, making an apology, undertaking not to repeat Z" (delete as not applicable). This is the one case were we really can say "successfully" as X actually won the case. Yes, I know that this is a scenario that very rarely happens.
OK. So why am I writing all this? Irrespective of the details of this particular case, which I don't know, I think it is very important that we don't create a path that runs from as little as a lawyer sending a meritless legal claim to a defendant, and being paid a nominal £500 to drop the matter, to us describing that as a "successful" legal case. It's not! It probably is successful from the point of view of a plaintiff seeking to cause a nuisance to the defendant and have something to crow about but that's not the type of success that we are talking about when we describe a case as being successful or otherwise and we should not risk confusing the readers.
TLDR: If a situation is ambiguous then we should describe it, as briefly as is consistent with the reader understanding it, not label it as we see it. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no ambiguity. UKCP settled and apologised, and issued statements saying gender critical views are protected, and issued guidance to that effect.
Last year he reached a settlement with UKCP, which said that gender-critical beliefs were protected and psychotherapists were entitled to hold such beliefs. The details of the settlement are confidential but in a statement it said it breached its own policies and “we apologise to him for the impact of his expulsion, both professional and personal”. It said he was motivated by a desire to protect children.
The important distinction here that @DanielRigal is trying to make is that the statement by the UKCP is a private settlement statement, not that of a court of law.
Compare that to the actual legal case of Forstater (actual ruling) - which make an important distinction in their ruling that people who may hold such a personal belief - Just as the legal recognition of Civil Partnerships does not negate the right of a person to believe that marriage should only apply to heterosexual couples, becoming the acquired gender “for all purposes” within the meaning of GRA does not negate a person’s right to believe, like the Claimant, that as a matter of biology a trans person is still their natal sex. Both beliefs may well be profoundly offensive and even distressing to many others, but they are beliefs that are and must be tolerated in a pluralist society. - may be allowed to have the belief for themself and that may (in the UK) not be basis for certain things, but the ruling also stresses that while they may hold such a belief in the UK, it does not allow them to express the beliefs in a discriminatory or transphobic nature - This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment under the EqA. Whether or not conduct in a given situation does amount to harassment or discrimination within the meaning of EqA will be for a tribunal to determine in a given case.
So basically, people in the UK may personally hold such philosophical beliefs, but they are not protected from using such personal beliefs as the basis to discriminate against transgender people, such as by misgendering.
This is also for example why the removed comments by the IP editor above fell afoul of our Wikipedia rules against using such language that misgenders transgender people, whether it be in sports or otherwise, as it constitutes disruptive editing/a personal attack against a group of people and as WP:HID explains, by extension of our population, editors. With more detailed explanations at WP:HID,WP:NQP,WP:GENDERID on the nuances. Raladic (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what this response has to do with the discussion which is:
An article about successful legal claims for gender critical views mentions Esses' case against UKCP (as part of his subsequently case against Metanoia)
Editors arguing that "settlement" in a tribunal is not a "successful claim".
I think it very much depends what constitutes "success", and this is an overly narrow interpretation for such a blanket statement. For example, Pike v Open University ended with a settlement in which the OU admitted liability, apologised unreservedly, and promised a full internal inquiry. Esses v Metanoia ended with a similar fulsome apology after a settlement.
"Settlement is only a draw" is just unsupported guesswork, frankly. If the employer capitulates and admits wrongdoing before going to a tribunal it knows it will lose, that's a clear win. Judging that case-by-case is over-interpreting events and out of scope. In this specific case the Esses settlement with UKCP is presented in the source with not much detail, as part of an overall picture of successful claims, and is certainly not framed in the text as either a loss or a draw. It is somewhat circumstantial but I'm not sure how you can justify picking it out and treating it differently to the other cases when the author doesn't.
The point was that a settlement is that the article currently doesn't state that this was a private settlement, not the result of a legal court ruling and the section is titled legal cases. A settlement is a private contract that pre-empts a legal case, the UK appears to have a special version called a Compromise agreement of this as linked in the hat note, so I think the point that Luna was trying to raise was that if its included on the article in the current section on legal cases, we should make this clear as it was a private agreement between two parties, which by definition is a compromise or draw, but in any case we should mention it was a settlement as our article is missing this at the moment, so it could be misread as the result of a legal ruling, which it was not. I just re-read the actual statement the institute published after the settlement and corrected the article to reflect the actual statement, please take a look at the edited article. I think this should address the concerns brought and accurately reflect the source. Raladic (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood the paragraph I was talking about, I am talking about paragraph 3 in the legal cases section (starting "The Forstater Case has been used"). In that paragraph there is a list on successful claims, which includes a claim against the UK council for psychotherapy.
To address concerns from Void and Sweet, I am well aware that you believe this is a successful claim, I just think we would need a source making the analysis for this to be said in wikivoice. I don't believe the Guardian fulfills this role as it lists this in a completely different section and uses distinct different language. The guardian has 3 different sections on histotical cases: successful tribunals, settlements and the failed tribunal. To include something from section 2 in a list about section 1 feels like we're not following the RS and how they present these various different claims.
My idea to fix this would have been to remove the UKCP from the list, but add it to the paragraph on Esses. I was thinking something along the line of "in December 2023 the UKCP settled with James Esses and issued a formal apology" however I can't find another RS about this case (or even SPS to provide basic facts like the date). If those RS exist it would be great to include, but I can not find them. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However I think it's incorrect - if you Google the text they attribute to UKCP, it actually seems to be from the Metanoia apology.
Aside from that, I really think we're in the weeds about what is "success" in tribunals. More than half end in settlement. With employers facing high profile losses when claims go to tribunal, inevitably more employers will settle claims. If there is a distinction made in the guardian article it is that this is the way the wind is blowing - fewer claims reaching a tribunal, more being settled, and eventually employers correctly following the law, and the litigation dying down. Void if removed (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which rights are being eroded by trans people existing?
.svg){kind=small}
