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. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sexology and sexuality C‑class Low‑importance 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. LGBT studies C‑class This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Discrimination C‑class Low‑importance 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Gender studies C‑class Low‑importance 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Domestic violence in lesbian relationships · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Conservatism C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Anti-gender movement appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 September 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the anti-gender movement claimed that the proposed 2016 Colombian peace agreement was "an instrument to impose gender ideology"? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/anti-gender movement.

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

"Gender is death" picket in Warsaw, 2014

• ... that the anti-gender movement (pictured) claimed that the planned 2016 Colombian peace agreement was "an instrument to impose gender ideology"?
  • ALT1:... that, according to the anti-gender movement (pictured), "gender ideology" could destroy Western civilization?
  • ALT2:... that the anti-gender movement (pictured) spread false rumors that masturbation was being taught in French kindergartens?

• Reviewed: Dear Land of Guyana, of Rivers and Plains

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 10:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• New, long enough, hooks are cited, within policy, QPQ done. I prefer ALT2 or ALT0 (which I slightly tweaked). Good to go! Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't want to derail this (because there is a good topic here!), but per my comment at Talk:Anti-gender_movement, this may be viable for a merger with one or two more related articles. I'd suggest delaying this DYK until a merge is completed (or rejected). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• [[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] I'm putting this nomination on hold until the merge tag is taken care of. SL93 (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The merger has been resolved against merging, LGBT ideology is currently being considered for merger into anti-LGBT rhetoric. (t · c) buidhe 01:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don’t edit my comments. No matter how the discussion closed, the article can’t be promoted with a tag on it. SL93 (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, the tag was removed. (t · c) buidhe 07:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it wasn't when you rudely edited my comment. SL93 (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have also linked to Homosexual agenda. This article repeats these themes. Zezen (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let us use sources and text from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_liberation

The first mass protests, religious based or otherwise, were already in the 1970s.

See e.g. 1976 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_in_LGBT_rights .

Or Anita Bryant's 1977 Save Our Children campaign.

Nihil novi. Zezen (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In order to avoid WP:OR, we have to use reliable sources that state these are related to the anti-gender movement. So far, several reliable sources are cited for the anti-gender movement's origin in the 1990s—you would need equal weight of sources to rewrite it something different. (t · c) buidhe 07:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you believe that Homosexual agenda or Save our Children is related to the anti-gender movement, please cite some reliable sources which say so explicitly. (t · c) buidhe 08:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe and many more RSes and wikiedians do, too. No ad hominem, please.

More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-LGBT_rhetoric section 1.6 Anti-transgender themes et ff., with "gender" being the nomen omen.

See also your Talk page for more, including your own source. (Am on mobile so will not paste hereto).

-> Do restore, at least partially.

Or discuss here why not.

Bows Zezen (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to add anything to the article assuming that the cited source actually supports that it is part of the anti-gender movement. The sources that you previously cited for info, such as [6][7] do not mention anti-gender at all. (t · c) buidhe 08:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Life is too short. As a WikiDragon I will leave it to others.

Bows. Zezen (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we should use "so-called" in the lead. It is a term we generally try to avoid as it can often be weaselly. Obviously, we need to say something to make it clear that "gender ideology", "gender theory" and "genderism" are absolutely not real things but I am not sure that "so-called" is the correct/best way to say that. I tried changing it to what it refers to as "gender ideology", "gender theory", or "genderism" but that was reverted by Buidhe saying "reliable sources say that there is no such thing as "gender ideology", etc." I certainly didn't intend my version to imply otherwise. In fact, my intention was to express exactly that. But, if it could be misunderstood then clearly my version was not good and I'm happy for it to be reverted.

Is there some other way we can eliminate "so-called" which is more acceptable? --DanielRigal (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see the concern. Perhaps we could use your phrasing, but then add that according to scholars there is no coherent definition of these concepts:
  • "Most research starts with a definition of the main concepts and terms under investigation, as well as the issues at stake. In our case, we cannot follow this established practice, as “gender ideology” eludes all attempts to precisely define the meaning and scope of the term..." from "Gender ideology in Austria: Coalitions around an empty signifier", a chapter in Anti-Gender Campaigns in Europe
  • "In recent years several European countries have witnessed the emergence of powerful social movements mobilizing against the enemy they call “gender ideology”, “gender theory” or “genderism”. Under these labels various issues are united and attacked by conservative, partly fundamentalist groups of society, including satellite organizations of the Roman Catholic Church" [8]
  • " Initially, the very concept of ‘gender ideology’ left many of us puzzled, having so little to do with our own perception of what our work was about. ... On the one hand, ‘gender ideology’ is a concept – a signifier for what conservative Catholics construe as the evils of liberalism in the realm of human sexuality. ‘Gender ideology’ is thus a descendant of John Paul II’s ‘culture of death’ and of the ‘bad feminism’, an idea present in Vatican’s discourse in the post-war era and (see Garbagnoli in this volume). It is also a close companion of ‘natural rights’ and ‘complementarity’. On the other hand, there is ‘gender ideology’ as a political slogan, part of transnational anti-gender mobilization, which may mean slightly different things in different contexts. Now, despite its intellectual weaknesses and internal contradictions as a concept, ‘gender ideology’ has been remarkably effective as a rallying cry. It is simply a great name for all that conservative Catholics despise, much better than ‘liberalism’ or ‘culture of death’." 10.18352/rg.10177
• Maybe "these concepts do not have a coherent definition and cover a variety of issues, but have been described as a catch-all term 'for all that conservative Catholics despise'"? (t · c) buidhe 19:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a distinction made between those who see 'gender ideology' as a grand conspiracy, and those who see it as a destructive philosophy that's being pushed by different groups but doesn't really have a conspiratorial thing behind it. For example, most Catholics I know (yes, I know anecdotal evidence obviously cannot be used in the article) don't think there's a 'secret cabal'. They just think that it's a growing movement (which it is), and that's it's wrong. I think a distinction should be made between these people and the tin-foil hat types who think there really is a new world order being devised in secret. By lumping them all together it gives the impression that they are all uneducated lunatics, when in fact many, if not most of them are not.

Additionally, is this really a neutral source? The use of an emotive term such as 'narcissism' to describe those who don't endorse the idea of gender being separate from sex doesn't seem impartial or appropriate to me.

I realise that this is a very divisive topic so please understand that I'm not trying to be inflammatory. I'd like to hear what others think/suggestions, or some advice. Thanks. 120.151.39.27 (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Editors' opinions on the topics in Wikipedia aren't relevant, only the content of reliable sources is. (And reliable sources need not be "neutral" or "impartial".) -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recently tried to add an opinion from Debra W. Soh's book The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths about Sex and Identity in Our Society since it is clearly relevant to this article, but it was removed as an unreliable source. How can this be, since she has a recent doctoral degree is sexual psychology from an accredited university? She would appear to be the ideal informed critic on this issue. Vgy7ujm (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of this article is not sexual psychology, but a political movement that is widely studied in many academic sources. WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE come into play here; just because Soh has an opinion on something doesn't mean it merits inclusion in any particular article. (t · c) buidhe 19:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article makes the unwarranted conclusion that the political movement is based wholly or predominantly on Christian scripture. Those people are fully capable of comprehending criticisms of gender studies that are based on scientific or academic grounds, and incorporating them into their criticisms. In its current form, the article should be retitled Christian opposition to gender studies. Also, the lack of primary sources from gender critics forces readers to judge the movement through the viewpoint of its vociferous critics, which may or may not be accurate, but is certainly biased. Also, an article on Christian opposition to gender issues certainly warrants a wikilink to the parallel situation in Muslim countries.Vgy7ujm (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-gender movement" is the term used in reliable sources. It is not synonymous to opposition to gender studies. (t · c) buidhe 19:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is really dreadful. It has a dismissive tone and really shows a lack of curiosity, a lack of effort to understand what the beliefs or positions of this movement are. It simply dismisses it as incoherent, as Catholic religious dogma (as if being Catholic is the only possible reason anyone might have to have any skepticism toward contemporary gender studies), and hateful. Baller McGee (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The socioeconomic context, the move towards more neoliberal policy in Europa and probably other countries as well, is missing in this article. There are lots of very good sources explaining this larger detail. [9] [10] [11] I have written some paragraphs in the german Wikipedia and could translate it in this article, if a native speaker could assist me and proof-read the translations I could provide. --TheRandomIP (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheRandomIP, I am a native English speaker and would be happy to help in any way or copyedit additions. I agree that more context would be helpful. (t · c) buidhe 18:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your welcoming answer. I have two paragraphs. The first one is about the anti-gender movement in Europe in general:

The emergence and success of these movements, which view the term "gender" as an antagonist, is understood as a symptom of a deeper underlying socioeconomic, political, and cultural crisis of liberal democracy. Among other things, these movements are understood as a reaction to neoliberalism, meaning policies of deregulation, precarization of labor, the erosion of the welfare state and the opening of the gap between the rich and poor.[1]
In the journal Luxemburg in 2018, sociologists and political scientists analyze the term "gender" as the "symbolic glue" of the anti-gender movement, which unites different political and religious actors who would otherwise not cooperate with each other to form a broad alliance. The "gender ideology" that these actors mobilize against is seen as a metaphor for the insecurity and unfairness produced by socioeconomic order. Illiberal populists, they argue, have succeeded in tapping into people's feelings and directing them against gender equality issues. An opposition to "gender ideology" took the meaning of being against prioritizing identity politics over material issues, and the loss of social, political, and cultural security. The political left and progressives, the authors argue, have failed to stop the growing attraction to these movements. They responded by labeling opponents as backwards, biased, and sexist, and by creating a one-sided narrative of being either for or against equality; a narrative that was more successfully exploited by the right than by progressives.[2]

And the second one is more specific to Poland:

Conservative elites and the Catholic Church made national identity the dominant element in public discourse, replacing the class consciousness that had previously existed until the 1990s. Frustration with socioeconomic changes (such as privatization and the weakening of labor rights) was thus directed against liberals, nonbelievers and foreigners, rather than against capitalism and the neoliberal transformation, due to the lack of class consciousness. The discourse of defending national identity acted as a "lightning rod" for social tensions, protecting the new elites and the neoliberal order that has been created in Poland since 1989.[3]

Any comments or corrections? --TheRandomIP (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheRandomIP Thanks so much for your help here. I made some minor changes, added wikilinks, and attributed opinions to individual researchers where appropriate, then added to the article in these edits[12][13] making sure to credit your authorship. (t · c) buidhe 20:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help. I corrected some attributions since some of the authors didn't express their own opinion, rather citing someone else, or saying something like "in the literature it is seen as a reaction to neoliberal transformation of the society". And I have one comment about the sentence "Opposition to "gender ideology" took the form of prioritizing identity politics over material issues", I am not sure if this reflects the original meaning. "prioritizing identity politics over material issues" is what they are against, in the source it reads like this: "... opposition to this ideology has become a means of rejecting different facets of the current socioeconomic order, from the prioritization of identity politics over material issues, and the weakening of people’s social, cultural and political security ...". --TheRandomIP (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Describing diverging opinion as to what gender is or is not as "a form of moral panic" is not in line with Wikipedia good faith article. This looks like an "ad hominem" attack to people who object to particular tendencies within gender studies and sociology, such as that the difference between male and female is socially constructed and that, beyond their social construction as different, male and female are the same. There is nothing wrong with opposing such views which are in fact widely discussed within the academic community.

To remove the NPOV, add context and content and try to strike a balance between "conspiracy theory" accusations and the discussion of the "criticisms" levelled by concerned people at the different gender theories.--86.6.148.125 (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not your opinion. (t · c) buidhe 20:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but what counts as "reliable" by Wikipedia tends toward the most socially progressive end of the political spectrum. This is somewhat inevitable on a site where almost twice as many identify as atheist as identify as Catholic or Eastern Christian, (2,759 vs roughly 1,430 or by my count) but still it is a systemic issue. One that I don't think can be fixed, but doesn't need to be quite as one-sided as in this article.--Tibby57721 (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have many different articles about different ideas about gender. This article is about one of them that is quite extreme and is indeed a classic "moral panic". We are not required to bulk up the article with irrelevant stuff about other gender theories any more than we bulk up articles about one religion with irrelevant stuff about other religions. Each topic has its own article and we link them when appropriate.

One thing we can do here is make it easier to find articles about other gender related topics from this one. To this end I have added the Gender studies template at the foot of the page. As I think this is sufficient to address the only semi-plausible part of the complaint I am also removing the NPOV tag. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the lead was fairly concise, including information regarding the movement's Catholic roots, but I do believe that it could have been explained in a clearer manner. Jakobkatchem (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jakobkatchem, Anyone can edit! Please feel free to improve the article as you see fit. (t · c) buidhe 19:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the article has not proper references or footnotes and the opening lines do not follow the good-faith-based Wikipedia policy. The fact that the anti-gender movement is inspired by religion or any religious movement does not allow outright rejection. Finally, and most clearly, the idea that sexual identity is a social construct has no scientific base. These good-faith requirements must be met before untagging the NPOV.--86.6.148.125 (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is about gender identity not "sexual identity". Overall, your complaint seems confused enough that it does not justify the tagging. Referencing is not required in the introduction so long as the intro only includes content that is referenced in the body. If there are any specific thing you feel are not referenced in the article then please feel free to raise those here. Please do not tag it again. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opening a discussion here with Buidhe about recent edits. Can you please explain what you find objectionable about the most recent edits? Ergo Sum 14:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You move scholarly explanation about the meaning (or lack thereof) of the term "gender ideology", from the part where definition is discussed to a different part of the lead where it doesn't belong, and characterize it as comments by "opponents".

I also believe that the language of "some scholars" minimizes the support for the characterization of a moral panic and/or conspiracy theory, which is very prevalent in the literature, see for example [14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Most or all scholarly works on the subject discuss it either as a moral panic, conspiracy theory, or both. (t · c) buidhe 15:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty darn clear that the Graff source cited at the end of the sentence in question "opposes" the anti-gender movement about which the article is about. The author all but explicitly says so, and at the very least acknowledges they are writing from a POV: Engaging in debate with liberals was never part of the plan of the orthodox camp. The plan is to delegitimize our work and our way of thinking, to give us a nasty name that will stick and exclude us from public debate. The fact that the name happens to be borrowed from our own lexicon does not make matters any better." (emphasis added).

One cannot simply say "scholars" because "scholars" implies unanimity, which obviously is not true because if there was unanimous agreement that it were just a conspiracy theory, there would be no such thing as an anti-gender movement. One can say "many" or "most", but that would require a source to support such a statement. Absent that, one can either name specific authors or just say "some scholars." Ergo Sum 00:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can discredit someone's scholarship based on their personal viewpoint, since in order to be published in a journal such as Religion and Gender (published by Brill) it is necessary to pass the usual method of peer-review. It's different if this was an editorial, but it's not, so it's a work of scholarship, not advocacy. However, I'm not attached to this particular quote, and would consider replacing it with another one that reflects independent, reliable sources in noting that "gender ideology" is a flexible term with no clear definition that is applied to many things its originators don't like.

Anti-gender movement is not a scholarly movement, it is a religious or political movement. Something being a moral panic or conspiracy theory certainly does not prevent people from believing in it (which some do, by definition) or starting a movement to oppose it. For example, QAnon is a political movement followed by many people despite unanimous agreement in all reliable sources that what it purports to oppose is a conspiracy theory invented by QAnon adherents. Since the characterization as a moral panic and/or conspiracy theory is so strongly based in the literature, I don't think it needs attribution at all. (t · c) buidhe 01:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not discrediting it. I'm just pointing out that it quite obviously writes from a POV. Peer-reviewed social science journals take explicit and implicit POV positions all the time; scholarship and advocacy are not mutually exclusive. Just because one author or one journal makes a scholarly assertion does not mean other scholars agree, and much less that it is true. I have no problem finding another quote to that effect, but that can't be written in the voice of WP because it's clearly a POV. The proponents/scholars of the anti-gender movement certainly don't accept that claim. Other articles handle this routinely by simply saying "critiques of X say Y...". So here, we can say "critiques of the anti-gender movement say Y" or "scholars who critique the anti-gender movement say Y". I'm perfectly fine with that. Ergo Sum 02:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as attribution goes, that's not really up to us. WP requires that everything be attributed. But importantly, that's not correct that the anti-gender movement is non-scholarly. As this article explains, it arises out of Catholic theology. There is a voluminous scholarly literature to be found. E.g. [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. One can find this in certain Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Evangelical, etc. academies/journals. In the same way that e.g. "gender ideology" scholarship relates to left-wing politics on gender, so does the "anti-gender ideology" scholarship relate to conservative anti-gender ideology politics. While much of the anti-anti-gender ideology scholarship describes itself as the only scholarship on the subject, this is certainly not true. When there is disagreement in the scholarship, WP has to mention it; we cannot just ignore it. Ergo Sum 02:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]