The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them.
The topic of this article is the ideology or movement known variously in reliable sources as gender-critical feminism (including abbreviated forms such as "GCF", "GC", "GC feminism") or trans-exclusionary radical feminism (including abbreviated forms such as "TERF", "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 has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review prior discussions if you are considering renomination.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
This article 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
This article is supported by the Countering systemic bias WikiProject, which provides a central location to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.Countering systemic biasWikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic biasTemplate:WikiProject Countering systemic biasCountering systemic bias
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.
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.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I would like to restore the previous content on here which was removed by one user, Sirfurboy, using spurious reasoning. Please change the following text in the United Kingdom sub-section from the present text:
Sally Hines argues that UK gender‑critical feminism has built close alliances with right‑wing, far‑right, and religious fundamentalist actors to oppose trans rights in the UK. She shows how "gender‑critical" groups mobilised around the proposed reform of the UK Gender Recognition Act from 2017 onward, opposing self‑identification and depicting trans women as threats in single‑sex spaces such as toilets, prisons and refuges. She argues that this mobilisation popularised a discourse centred around "gender ideology," "institutional capture," and "sex‑based rights." These and claims of censorship legitimise campaigns against trans healthcare, legal recognition, and equality policies. She documents how this ideology has gained traction within UK parliamentary politics, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, and conservative media, often via a small network of actors. She also highlights the significance of Tufton Street–based organisations, such as LGBA and Civitas‑linked projects, as hubs where gender‑critical feminism intersects with free‑market, anti‑climate and other right‑wing lobbying efforts.[1]
to the following two paragraphs:
Sally Hines argued that UK gender‑critical feminism has built close alliances with right‑wing, far‑right, and religious fundamentalist actors to oppose trans rights in the UK. She further stated that the mobilization of these groups popularized a discourse centred around "gender ideology," "institutional capture," and "sex‑based rights," and has gained traction within UK parliamentary politics, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, and conservative media, often via a small network of actors.[2]J. K. Rowling has become one of the leading figures associated with this movement in the United Kingdom, and in 2025, she launched the J.K. Rowling Women's Fund, which "offers legal funding support" to the cause.[3]
On July 10, 2026, Amnesty International published a briefing that mapped what it described as 'anti-rights' groups in the UK, which included a number of organizations including For Women Scotland, Sex Matters, Beira's Place, the LGB Alliance, Alliance Defending Freedom, and FiLiA.[4][5][6] Following immediate legal threats from these groups, with an offer from JK Rowling to financially back those who wished to sue,[7] Amnesty withdrew the report, on July 13th, and subsequently stated that the report's "use of language does not reflect the position of Amnesty International UK".[8][9] Shortly thereafter, Beira's Place, a charity founded by Rowling, threatened to sue Amnesty unless it apologised and commissioned an external investigation into the report's publication. On July 16th, Amnesty subsequently submitted a serious incident report about itself to the Charity Commission for England and Wales.[10][11] On July 23, the Charity Commission opened a regulatory compliance investigation into Amnesty over the report.[12]
I am submitting this as I cannot make the change myself due to the fact that the page can only be edited by administrators until July 26th. Thank you for your consideration. This text was already added in line with consensus on here in the "Requested add" section on this talk page and the extensive, and related, discussion on the Amnesty International talk page.In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Agree with this addition. I have some wording quibbles, but it's not worth arguing. InfernoHues (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Also agree Snokalok2 (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Also agree. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for that. But, I do agree with you that the new text is well supported and definitely due. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
The subsection should be a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE overview of Trans-exclusionary radical feminism by country#United Kingdom. That is to say, a relatively brief paragraph covering the most salient points in the more extensive target article. Neither the current nor proposed text comes anywhere close to doing that. There is no way the majority of a summary overview of TERFism in the UK should be devoted to developments in the current news cycle.--Trystan (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
I agree that there is a danger of this becoming news reporting. My view was, and is, that there is no particularly rush to add text on this issue and that it is better to let things play out a little and then add a summary. That prevents constant back and forth with every new development (as is currently happening) StupidLookingKid (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
I wholly disagree. It should be added to the page and to not add it is to do anyone coming to this page a extreme disservice. While saying that, I am more than happy to collaborate on any changes to the proposed text, in line with what Trystan is saying about "a brief paragraph." And you can surely propose your changes at here, in a space created by RoxySaunders. I'm always down to make paragraphs more concise. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
"It should be added to the page" is not the issue only issue. Yuo want to put it in a summary of the situation in the UK. That doesn't make any sense. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Sigh. The first two sentences of your comment are somewhat incomprehensible. If you could re-state them, that would be appreciated. But, yes I want to put it into that section and I wholly defend my edit. It makes perfect sense. Amnesty International is an organization with a lot of credibility in the area of human rights and relatively well-known, so it makes sense to add it, on those grounds alone. In addition, it is relevant and notable, considering those involved in this dispute. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
No need to restate. You got there. But you are wrong to insist that a report that Amnesty International themselves say "does not reflect the position of Amnesty International UK" can ever be a summary of the position in the UK in general, and the summary of how Amnesty withdrew the report is certainly, without a doubt, not a good summary of the situation concerning gender-critical feminism in the UK. That text is on the Amnesty page. Plausibly some mention could find its way somewhere on this page (but I'd suggest it's foolish to do so without secondary sourcing). But no, if you think that a recounting of this piece of current news is a good summary of the UK situation, you need to take a step back and think about this more clearly. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
I don't think the section on the Amnesty report belongs on this page at all. It fits on Trans-exclusionary radical feminism by country#United Kingdom. This page needs to serve more and more as a summary-style meta articles that summarizes the more in-depth content found in other articles.
I really don't understand the rush to add the most recent news report to this article. This is an article about a strain of feminism that depending on the interpretation has either been around for 50+ years or ~10. One report from Amnesty and a kerfuffle in the media is a drop in the bucket in terms of overall significance to the topic. Katzrockso (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
It isn't a rush to add it to the page. I still believe it belongs here. I will add proposed/updated text shortly. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
Why is Hines in the summary at all? It is an academic paper (primary research?) that isn't cited in the UK page (so not a summary of that page), and the paper itself states that it is sole aims to summarise links between gender critical feminism and right wing groups in the UK (so not really a holistic summary of the situation in the UK) StupidLookingKid (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
I added in Hines so as to include the edit by Sirfurboy. And yes it is an academic article in the Journal of Gender Studies. It fits directly with this topic. And if it isn't on the UK page, as you say, then it should be added there. Your idea that everything in that section should be a "holistic summary of the situation in the UK" is silly. Your bar is far too high for one section of a larger article. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Your idea that everything in that section should be a "holistic summary of the situation in the UK" is silly That is precisely how we should be writing this section. The place to add the minutiae is Trans-exclusionary radical feminism by country#United Kingdom, not this article. That article was spun-off due to it taking up too much space in this article (Trans-exclusionary radical feminism). When I originally spun it out, EatingCarBatteries removed the content from this article and left no content in the section Trans-exclusionary radical feminism#By country (see ). PBZE added a template indicating that we should summarize the content from the spun-off article here.
I agree with Trystan here. This latest new story in absolutely no way passes the WP:10YEAR test. It would fit on the by country page, but it wouldn't merit mention in a summarization of the entirety of trans exclusionary radical feminism in the United Kingdom. Katzrockso (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
I agree. Citing the 10 Year Test (which is a "thought experiment" by the way) doesn't make sense here, and WP:NOW is much more relevant and timely. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
That essay is relevant to whether or not we fix misinformation, not to whether particular content is WP:DUE in a summarization of another long section of an article. Katzrockso (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Here's my proposed changes, which would change the present text in the United Kingdom sub-section from:
Sally Hines argues that UK gender‑critical feminism has built close alliances with right‑wing, far‑right, and religious fundamentalist actors to oppose trans rights in the UK. She shows how "gender‑critical" groups mobilised around the proposed reform of the UK Gender Recognition Act from 2017 onward, opposing self‑identification and depicting trans women as threats in single‑sex spaces such as toilets, prisons and refuges. She argues that this mobilisation popularised a discourse centred around "gender ideology," "institutional capture," and "sex‑based rights." These and claims of censorship legitimise campaigns against trans healthcare, legal recognition, and equality policies. She documents how this ideology has gained traction within UK parliamentary politics, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, and conservative media, often via a small network of actors. She also highlights the significance of Tufton Street–based organisations, such as LGBA and Civitas‑linked projects, as hubs where gender‑critical feminism intersects with free‑market, anti‑climate and other right‑wing lobbying efforts.[13]
to the following paragraph:
In the United Kingdom, the anti-transgender movement in the U.K. has been described by scholars as building alliances with right-wing and religious fundamentalist groups that oppose trans rights. In July 2025, Sally Hines argued that the mobilization of these groups popularized a discourse centred around "gender ideology," "institutional capture," and "sex‑based rights," and has gained traction within UK parliamentary politics, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, and conservative media, often via a small network of actors.[14] Sociologists McLean and Stretesky added that "a veritable miasma of anti-trans campaign groups [...] united in their antipathy toward transgender people" has contributed to an anti-trans moral panic in the United Kingdom. They identified anti-trans groups such as FiLiA, Fair Play for Women, Get the L Out, LGB Alliance, Sex Matters, and Transgender Trend.[15] On July 10, 2026, Amnesty International published a briefing that mapped what it described as 'anti-rights' groups in the UK, that have emerged since 2017, stating that the "vast majority" were anti-transgender "gender critical" organizations, such as FiLiA, Seen Network, Lesbian Rights Alliance, For Women Scotland, Beira's Place, and Alliance Defending Freedom.[16][17][18] Following immediate legal threats from these groups, with an offer from JK Rowling to financially back those who wished to sue,[19] Amnesty withdrew the report.[20]
Okay. I only posed an edit request because I could NOT edit the page. Also, there WAS consensus for the previous text, as far as I understand it. This time, I am asking people for their thoughts, in hopes of gaining consensus for the new text. How is this so hard to understand? Your response is baffling and doesn't align with the fact that no one besides admins can edit this page, so as to prevent edit warring.In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
I think the idea is that we discuss the text while the protection is in place, and then edit it in once we have an agreement, which takes time. The protection expires tomorrow, and we still have this new proposal to discuss. I wouldn't say that there was a consensus in the previous discussion either. InfernoHues (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
Hmm, okay. Thanks for explaining that. Well, ScottishFinnishRadish should have made that clearer, as the response seemed very dismissive, although I think it was more of a routine response. In any case, I can agree, this is a new proposal to discuss. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
That's the standard template for declining an edit request that needs consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
Okay. That doesn't change my impression that it was dismissive. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
Yeah I think that the template should be changed. I used to answer edit requests and it always seemed very unclear to me what the template is asking the requester to do. InfernoHues (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
I like this better than the two-paragraph version, but I think it's still a bit too WP:PROSELINE for my liking and contains too many direct quotes from its sources. How about:
In the United Kingdom, the anti-transgender movement in the U.K. has been described by scholars as building alliances with right-wing and religious fundamentalist groups that oppose trans rights. Sally Hines has argued that the mobilization of these groups popularized a discourse centred around "gender ideology," "institutional capture," and "sex‑based rights," and has gained traction within UK parliamentary politics, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, and conservative media, often via a small network of actors.[21] Sociologists McLean and Stretesky have argued that there exists an anti-trans moral panic in the United Kingdom, spread by many anti-trans campaign groups such as FiLiA, Fair Play for Women, Get the L Out, LGB Alliance, Sex Matters, and Transgender Trend.[15] On July 10, 2026, Amnesty International published a briefing that mapped what it described as 'anti-rights' groups in the UK, that have emerged since 2017, stating that the "vast majority" were anti-transgender "gender critical" organizations, such as FiLiA, Seen Network, Lesbian Rights Alliance, For Women Scotland, Beira's Place, and Alliance Defending Freedom.[22][23][24] Following immediate legal threats from these groups, with an offer from JK Rowling to financially back those who wished to sue,[25] Amnesty withdrew the report.[20]
Loki (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Loki (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
I actually like this version you put together. Thanks for your hard work. It flows really well! I totally support it. There's another report that this withdrawn one is an update of (published in May), but that's on Trans-exclusionary radical feminism by country#United Kingdom instead, as I don't want to make this section any longer. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
Apologies if I am getting lost, as this has now being discussed on at least four discussion pages. However, the Amnesty report is clearly not a reliable sources as evidence for the state of play of gender critical feminism / TERFism in the UK, given that Amnesty retracted it. StupidLookingKid (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
The paragraph should either be changed to summarise what we have on Trans-exclusionary radical feminism by country, or else the whole section here needs rewriting to summarise what the child page is about, and not repeat any country by country versions. Continuing to support novel text (including the text I wrote) is wrongheaded, which is why I withdrew the RfC. If we cannot decide how this section should be rewritten in the light of it pointing to a child page, then a new RfC will be required. We will need a clear neutrally worded set of options for that. An RfC may be avoidable on the principle, however, if we recognise that whatever we have in this section, it should summarise the child page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:39, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
I'll just make one quick comment. I don't think an RfC is necessarily needed right now if we can finish the discussion at Talk:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism by country#United Kingdom section and come to a consensus there. Then once that is done, we can return here and perhaps, if deemed necessary, have an RfC on what to say to summarize the entire Trans-exclusionary radical feminism by country page and/or keep the current structure with some changes (we can decide on what works). That way we don't have so many ongoing/similar discussions going on which would make it much easier for everyone. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. If we are all on board with the principle that we will summarise that page somehow in our text on this page, then the detail of that summary can certainly away updates to that page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
I still disagree with your view of the Amnesty report and feel it is notable enough to include. In any case, I'd recommend following Myceteae's advice and coming to a consensus at Talk:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism by country#United Kingdom section, then returning here. I'm personally going for that because trying to toggle between each of these pages is a bit difficult, admittedly. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
I'd be fine with doing that first. Trying to toggle between all the discussions is a bit hard to follow. I'm fine with putting this on hold until we tackle and come to a consensus with that discussion. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
RFC: Situation by country: United Kingdom
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Withdrawn. In the discussion section it has become clear that the whole Situation by Country section has a child article, and so the RFC options here are insufficient as neither option was written as a summary of the child article, and there is no option asking if the UK should even be a subsection. Per the discussion, there is also no lead in the child article that can be used as an additional option. Any new RFC will need to discover how the summary of the child article is presented on this page, and will probably need some workshopping. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Which of these versions should be included in the description of the situation by Country, United Kingdom sub section:
A)
Sally Hines argues that UK gender‑critical feminism has built close alliances with right‑wing, far‑right, and religious fundamentalist actors to oppose trans rights in the UK. She shows how "gender‑critical" groups mobilised around the proposed reform of the UK Gender Recognition Act from 2017 onward, opposing self‑identification and depicting trans women as threats in single‑sex spaces such as toilets, prisons and refuges. She argues that this mobilisation popularised a discourse centred around "gender ideology," "institutional capture," and "sex‑based rights." These and claims of censorship legitimise campaigns against trans healthcare, legal recognition, and equality policies. She documents how this ideology has gained traction within UK parliamentary politics, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, and conservative media, often via a small network of actors. She also highlights the significance of Tufton Street based organisations, such as LGBA and Civitas‑linked projects, as hubs where gender‑critical feminism intersects with free‑market, anti‑climate and other right‑wing lobbying efforts.[26]
B)
J. K. Rowling has become one of the leading figures associated with the TERF movement in the United Kingdom, and in 2025 launched the J.K. Rowling Women's Fund, which "offers legal funding support" to the cause.[27]
On July 10, 2026, Amnesty International published a briefing that mapped what it described as 'anti-rights' groups in the UK, which included a number of organizations including For Women Scotland, Sex Matters, Beira's Place, the LGB Alliance, Alliance Defending Freedom, and FiLiA.[28][29][30] Following immediate legal threats from these groups, with an offer from JK Rowling to financially back those who wished to sue,[31] Amnesty withdrew the report, on July 13th, and subsequently stated that the report's "use of language does not reflect the position of Amnesty International UK".[32][33] Shortly thereafter, Beira's Place, a charity founded by Rowling, threatened to sue Amnesty unless it apologised and commissioned an external investigation into the report's publication. On July 16th, Amnesty subsequently submitted a serious incident report about itself to the Charity Commission for England and Wales.[34][35] On July 23, the Charity Commission opened a regulatory compliance investigation into Amnesty over the report.[36]
C) - A combination of A followed by B.All options notwithstanding inclusion of any material in any other relevant sections. Exact text may be modified in a normal editing process, but the RFC is asking opinion on the basic principle (of what kind of text should be in this section). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Please do not reply to comments in the survey, but use the discussion section. Replies placed in the survey section may be moved to the discussion section.
Survey
A - The section is headed with a clear banner that reads:
This section should include a summary of Trans-exclusionary radical feminism by country.
This is clearly the intent of the "By country" section. The text of (A), which I wrote, uses an academic source that analyses gender-critical feminism in the UK, its impact, alliances etc. This clearly speaks to the subject of situation in the UK in an encyclopaedic manner. I don't mind if the text is amended or extended, but the principle should be this is what the section is about and should be the basis for the sub section. The alternative text is WP:COATRACKING two issues. It mentions JK Rowling and it mentions a report that Amnesty briefly published about anti-rights generally (not specifically gender-critical feminism, and not specifically anti-trans rights). Amnesty have withdrawn the report permanently, stating it did not meet their internal processes for publication. It is a news story about Amnesty, and not a description of the situation in the UK. (Even if it had been - and it wasn't - it is withdrawn, so it can't be a WP:RS for that subject). The Amnesty information may already (rightly) be found on Wikipedia at Amnesty International#2026 Anti-Rights Movement in the United Kingdom report. ETA: I have added option C to the RfC to combine them both. I oppose C for the reasons I oppose B. The text of B is WP:COATRACKING information that does not describe the GC/Trans-exclisuionary radical feminism in the UK. It is news about Amnesty's more general and withdrawn anti-rights report. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Discussion
This RfC is grossly premature. It should be procedurally closed. Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
@InfernoHues @Historyday01 Please note that rather than participate in your discussion above, Sirfurboy has elected to start his own separate one and you may wish to duplicate your replies to this one as well to avoid a consensus mismatch. But I agree, this should be closed - not least of which because there was already a discussion going on one thread above and starting a new one here is counter-productive. Snokalok2 (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Agree with all above that this seems a bit premature. Let's talk this out? InfernoHues (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Hi, got summoned here by SodiumBot to participate in this RFC. I definitely prefer the combined option of the Protected Edit Request to either of the versions presented in the RFC. In solidarity, wertercatt (Talk, Contribs) 14:43, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
I have added option C to the RfC. I oppose it though, because the problem with the text of B is it is not relevant to the section. It is news, the report is not just about gender-critical feminists, and the report was permanently withdrawn by Amnesty International who indicate it should not have been published. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I totally agree with closing this RfC as it is completely and wholly premature. I can say that I oppose all the options to the RfC proposed here, and support my proposed text as included in the previous discussion (the protected edit request), as that actually did include the original text Sirfurboy wrote, but I edited it down to fit with the rest of the text.--In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Summoned by bot. This RfC presents editors two rather long passages having nothing in common and asks them to give their "opinion on the basic principle" (which principle is not specified). I don't know what to do with this. Based only on the text in the options, my suggestion is to include both, edited down to something on the order of half the length. I think the effort to get the word count down will have the salutary effect of focusing attention on what is most essential, which will help editors figure out what the dispute is about. I agree that the RfC is premature. It does not appear to me that preliminary discussion has taken place. Regulov (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
The principle is intended to be speaking to the subject of the section (that is, the situation in the UK regarding trans-exclusionary radical feminism/gender-critical feminism). I've add (of what kind of text should be in this section) to the principle text to hopefully clarify that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
I had not even realised that there is another page on this topic, by country. Presumably at some point that will also be too big and will need to fork into "controversies by country," "legislation by country," "notable figures by country" and so on. None of this is particularly helpful to the casual reader, or to us as editors. I would vote that this particular spat does not need to be written up at the moment, and we set a calendar reminder to revisit in a month once things have played out StupidLookingKid (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Ultimately, we may have to do that (I know the Amnesty International article itself has an issue with already being relatively big), although I would say that probably should be discussion in and of itself. Otherwise, I personally do think we should include this report as it is noteworthy and relevant to this page. While saying that I'm happy to support revisions here, if you choose to add them there. As I said in my above discussion, I'm more than happy to make the text more concise, as long as it communicates the same meaning as the original text I proposed.In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
As the person who split off the by country article and who wrote a large chunk of that article, my next thought was to split by continent and then by country. Katzrockso (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
I was not aware of that page either. And that page is a bit of a mess. It doesn't have its own lead, but transcludes two paragraphs from here. That's problematic, because what this article should have, given there is a spin-out, is a summary of what can be found in the child article. Instead we have a selection of countries in this article which are accruing random additions. On the basis that the spin-out exists, I am also inclined to close this RfC, because the RfC question should actually be do we replace the whole Situation by country section with a short summary of what can be found in the child article.If the child article had a lead, replacing it all with that would make sense. It doesn't have a lead, so something needs writing. If we are maintaining the short summary per country, I'd maintain the summary I wrote is still better than talking about the Amnesty news here (since the withdrawn Amnesty report was not specifically about gender-critical feminism, but went much wider than that, and since it is withdrawn, not indicative of Amnesty's actual position, and this is all news reporting). However, if an RfC on removing the whole lot and replacing with a broader summary of what the sub page is about is possible, then we could close this in favour of that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure the page is necessarily a mess, but more that the content was spun-off to reduce the size of this page. That's my guess. I'm glad that you are inclined to close this RfC. And the intro section just copies from this one, which... is not great and it should be fixed. I tend to still oppose the summary/text you have written and support my proposed text for the reasons I have stated above. Even so, I am willing to say that we may need a broader discussion on that page and its relation to this one, which is I think what you are saying here. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Hines, Sally (4 July 2025). "Hands towards the right: UK gender–critical feminism and right-wing coalitions". Journal of Gender Studies. 34 (5): 699–715. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2025.2468805.{{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); External link in |doi= (help)
Hines, Sally (4 July 2025). "Hands towards the right: UK gender–critical feminism and right-wing coalitions". Journal of Gender Studies. 34 (5): 699–715. doi:10.1080/09589236.2025.2468805.
Hines, Sally (4 July 2025). "Hands towards the right: UK gender–critical feminism and right-wing coalitions". Journal of Gender Studies. 34 (5): 699–715. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2025.2468805.{{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); External link in |doi= (help)
Hines, Sally (July 4, 2025). "Hands towards the right: UK gender–critical feminism and right-wing coalitions". Journal of Gender Studies. 34 (5): 699–715. doi:10.1080/09589236.2025.2468805.
McLean, Anna; Stretesky, Paul B. (2025). "The Influence of Authoritarian Beliefs on Support for Transgender Rights in the UK". Sociology Compass. 19 (7) e70088. doi:10.1111/soc4.70088. eISSN1751-9020. A veritable miasma of anti-trans campaign groups have wafted in to public discourse in recent years. These have included, but are not limited to, Authentic Equity Alliance, CitizenGo, FiLiA, Fair Play for Women, Get the L Out, Keep Prisons Single Sex, Lesbian Rights Alliance, LGB Alliance, MayDay4Women, Object!, Safe Schools Alliance, Sex Matters, Transgender Trend, and Woman's Place UK. Although the ostensible focus of these groups is varied, they are united in their antipathy toward transgender people.
Hines, Sally (July 4, 2025). "Hands towards the right: UK gender–critical feminism and right-wing coalitions". Journal of Gender Studies. 34 (5): 699–715. doi:10.1080/09589236.2025.2468805.
Hines, Sally (4 July 2025). "Hands towards the right: UK gender–critical feminism and right-wing coalitions". Journal of Gender Studies. 34 (5): 699–715. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2025.2468805. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); External link in |doi= (help)
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.
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{subst:EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
I generally agree, but I'd also say that entire section needs to be rewritten (more on that in the above discussion "Protected edit request on 24 July 2026"). My first discussion on this has been moved to the upper discussion, so as to keep this one narrow.--In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
No, if we have the Trans-exclusionary radical feminism by country article, we have to consider why any countries are singled out in the main article. If we want people to read the "by country" article, we should have a brief summary of that subject with the link to it. The risk of putting in per summary countries in this article is that this will only grow and subvert the principle of the other article. There are some 195 countries in the world. Too many for a summary of each here.Now some will state that some countries are more clearly relevant than others. That may be right, but it may also just be availability bias. Anyone arguing for treating any individual countries here would need, I think, to make the case that they are especially pertinent. But my first thought is what would be better here, if we go beyond a short summary at all, is at most one paragraph per region. That would not, at least, duplicate the child article. But then, maybe even that would be too much here. I think a short description of Trans-exclusionary radical feminism by country is all that is required for the whole section. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
I completely disagree . What I added above is a summary of that section (particularly the first paragraph) about the UK. And what you are saying in paragraph number two is a discussion for the Trans-exclusionary radical feminism by country talk page, not here. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Update: I am striking part of this text.In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
No, it is a discussion for here and it is for here because the information is detailed by country there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
Okay, but what you are talking about is a much broader conversation, whereas my request here is narrow, just focusing on this one section, about the UK.In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2026 (UTC) I am striking some of this text.In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
I agree with @Sirfurboy. First, the discussion about what goes into this article should happen here. Second, it seems pointless to have the 'by country' page and then replicate large chunks here. The current page is too long, and we should be trimming where we can. Third, I still haven't heard an explanation as to why Hines is the go-to paper, especially when it did not even appear in the 'by country' page until you added it a few hours ago. Fourth, the retracted Amnesty report is not relevant in the way that you propose, because it was retracted. No-one involved in that dispute wants the report to be in the public domain. Reporting the story about its retraction might, possibly, be relevant in the harassment section, but probably only after the lawyers have worked out who, if anyone, needs to apologise to whom. StupidLookingKid (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
I don't disagree that "discussion about what goes into this article should happen here" but all I am saying is that is a broader discussion, as my request was specifically about the UK section, not the other discussions, so it would be better to have an entire discussion about that. In terms of saying "it seems pointless to have the 'by country' page and then replicate large chunks here", what I have added is not that large in terms of text. And if the page should be trimmed as a whole, that's fine, but the whole "by country" section is relatively short (and again, a discussion about trimming down / reducing the size of this entire page is a bit of a separate discussion, although one worth having). Your other issues, when it comes to the Hines paper, the retracted Amnesty report, and more will be addressed above in the "Protected edit request on 24 July 2026" discussion.--In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
We can only write what we have sources about. We can't synthesize content about regions since sources don't say anything about that, we can't make claims about per country trends or anything since there aren't sources for that. We also can't simply omit any content from the child article.
What's DUE is what devoting more text to countries receive the most coverage in reliable secondary sources. Katzrockso (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
I oppose the paragraph in question, as I noted above. Katzrockso (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
We are at a bit of an impasse, as earlier discussions supported a previous version of this paragraph, but those individuals have not weighed in here. Sigh. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
I don't know why you moved the conversation there. The discussion above is still for discussing that content. This section was purely for discussing the minor cosmetic change to move or remove the maintenance tag. Katzrockso (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
I wouldn't say I moved it here, but rather that I wanted to expand on your minor cosmetic change. I'll see if I can salvage it somehow... In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Okay, it should be fixed now. Most of the content I posted here has been moved to the other discussion with this edit.In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
I support the version with both Hines and Amnesty Snokalok2 (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
Support removal but for a slightly different reason than Katzrockso. I agree that the main focus of the problem so far has been §United Kingdom, as this is the only country where the content here has a substantially different focus than the content of the parent article. However, there is also presently no consensus as whether the section here should include a summary of every country in the parent article, whether it is acceptable to only include selected countries, whether we should instead summarize by region, or whether we should include this duplicate coverage here at all. The tag suggests a straightforward, uncontroversial task when in fact there are multiple disputes regarding the parent article and the tagged section. We should not be directing every editor who stumbles across this article to make specific changes in the middle of active discussions. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
I can agree with that. Honestly, I personally do not know if there should be a summary of every country or... just certain ones, and if only certain ones, then which ones, and whether we should summarize by region. Personally, I do think that there should be a straightforward, uncontroversial task, but sadly there are multiple disputes regarding the parent article and the tagged section. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep in mind that at the time it was added, the section was completely empty, so the tag was completely warranted then. I mistakenly didn't remove the tag when I added the content from the child article. Katzrockso (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
I see you've gone ahead and moved it to the UK section, now that edit protections are loosened. That's fine for now, while the other questions remain. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
I oppose this edit , which is bringing in all the countries that were spun out via transclusion. This circumvents the very purpose of a spin out. We should not have information per country when there is a child article for that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Previously, some countries and not others had their own sections in this article, and some of those sections were already copied from the child article. The arbitrary selection of some countries over others introduced bias. I have made an effort to keep each transcluded section a reasonable size, by excluding subsections and selectively transcluding specific paragraphs from the longer sections. The child article's larger size is mostly caused by extended coverage of a few countries. PBZE (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
I spun the information because it was too detailed (ie each section was getting to be the length of what could be a subsection), not because this article shouldn't contain any information on the situation in each country. It would only defeat the purpose of the spinout if we just excerpted the entire article, rather than summarize each section. Katzrockso (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
I do agree we don't need to summarize every country. We should be summarizing content in proportion to its representation in reliable sources. Iceland, for example, has little to no mention in reliable sources so its omission in this article wouldn't be anything but reflecting the 'bias' of reliable sources Katzrockso (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
Note: There is an active discussion underway at Talk:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism by country#United Kingdom section. I agree with the other editors who have suggested the we first tackle Trans-exclusionary radical feminism by country § United Kingdom section and then summarize the key points from that more detailed coverage here. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
