Talk:4B movement

Not radical movement

if men can dictate that a woman cannot have abortions from rape or is a child, then 4b is not radical. If men are not held accountable for the rape, or murder, or other forms of torture: then 4b is not radical. For me to engage in 4b: is not anti men, my brain is past that knee jerk reaction. Greateagle17 (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

IDK crap about Korean gender relations, and am just some nerd from Chicago who stumbled across this page, but if you consider "radical" not as a pejorative, but just as a description, it is a pretty radical departure from the norm for all of human history to just say no more love/romance, period. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This would seemingly imply that monks and priests are radical sexists for taking vows of chastity. I wouldn't describe it as radical until they start doing actual majorly radical actions. N7o2h3 (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not about our own judgements of what is radical & isn't. Within South Korea, the 4B movement is certainly seen as an extreme movement. Therefore, it should be classified as such to reflect the culture in which it exists, not the culture of the observers. Itzybella8 (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide any indication that 4B is considered radical to the average person? N7o2h3 (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The only people whose opinion matters is Koreans, because 4B is a Korean movement. It being non-radical to someone like an American is irrelevant. If Koreans find it radical, then this wiki page should label it as radical. 99.159.19.180 (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for the late response. I believe there is a miscommunication of sorts between us. Radical feminism is a specific philosophy/academic tradition. As such the article should reflect if this movement falls under said philosophy/academic tradition before calling it radical. N7o2h3 (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

"Radical feminism is a specific philosophy/academic tradition"

The philosophy varies between countries. The rebuttal is the same: it irrefutably falls under radical feminism in Korea, and that is all that matters. 208.82.97.132 (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Just in:

4B originated from feminist Twitter groups during 2017-2018 and they documented their beliefs on the Korean site (similar to Wikipedia) www.femiwiki.com

Here, they EXPLICTELY state that 4B is a radical ideology. https://femiwiki.com/w/4B

The CREATORS THEMSELVES... the SOURCE THEMSELVES call it radical. "The motto of radical feminism, which means non-marriage, non-childbirth, non-relationship, and non-sex." 🤣🤣🤣🤣 note that this wiki page was made in 2018 (you can see for yourself) which predates the year Google claims 4B was made (2019) and every other source that exists in this Wikipedia page. This is the root source, from the creators themselves. 208.82.97.132 (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding to my recent comment about only Koreans opinion being relevant:

Even feminist groups in Korea consider it radical.

https://www.feministcurrent.com/2018/11/07/radical-feminism-paves-way-resurgent-south-korean-womens-movement/ 99.159.19.180 (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Asexual people have existed for all of humanity. Monks, nuns, priests, etc. A small percentage of women choosing to be celibate, especially in countries where they don't have full freedom or control over what happens to their bodies, is not radical. Nomadlady4b (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is not anti-men, but my personal viewpoints are irrelevant. In South Korea, it is very much seen as a radical movement. Itzybella8 (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

"if men can dictate that a woman cannot have abortions from rape or is a child, then 4b is not radical."

> Abortion was decriminalized in South Korea by court order in 2021.

"If men are not held accountable for the rape, or murder, or other forms of torture: then 4b is not radical"

> Rape, murder, and/or other forms of torture are illegal in South Korea. See Article 297 of the Criminal Act.

All these arguments are based on false premises, hence, it is a radical movement. 208.82.97.132 (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the movement is radical, but equating the word radical with false is inaccurate.

Just as liberal or conservative views may be true, false or something in between, so may radical views.

The term radical is descriptive -- it is not a value judgment in terms of who is right or who is wrong

To oversimplify a bit you could use the word radical to describe almost anything far afield of the mainstream.

And the mainstream is just the mainstream -- neither good nor bad by definition. 2601:19E:427D:4880:5A06:A7BD:95E6:D137 (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The unreliable source used is a website run by the Catholic Church's Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions. Find a reliable source, e.g. a major South Korean or international news agency. Jwuthe2 (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/

Science denial won't get you far 208.82.97.132 (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I hope I don't see anymore vandalism from you: I added an international news agency (AsiaNews) as a source, just like you requested. Also added a Stanford&Harvard source (plus a few more). Further removal will result in a report for vandalism. 208.82.97.132 (talk) 06:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policy surrounding contentious labels like "radical": MOS:LABEL. It doesn't matter what we or South Korean society thinks; a lot of debate in this thread is ultimately pointless. What matters is what the majority of reliable sources call it. If they use the term "radical", then so do we. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

From the first sentence in what you linked: "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia". Read what you link.

These are guidelines, not rules. If the word choice is justified, then it is justified.

"What matters is what the majority of reliable sources call it"

Korean sources consistently label is radical. Take the advice of what you linked and let go of your bias (your bias of only considering western sources on a non-western movement).208.82.97.132 (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

But at what point do you make the call? The 4B movement may have started in Korea but is gaining traction elsewhere. Also, shouldn’t an online encyclopedia be providing objective information? The use of the adjective “radical” is immediately derogatory and demeaning to the movement. In reality, it is a subjective value judgement rather than a description. It would be more correct to delete “radical” and allow the reader to decide how to think about the movement. Mary99801 (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The call is made by consensus amongst editors on Wikipedia and support from sources, and both have settled on the use of the term. seefooddiet (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

radical feminism generally refers to bio essentialist 2nd wave feminism, making 4b radical feminism Jvneslvt (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2024

United states section has an extra " breaking the formatting 66.216.219.33 (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. win8x (talking | spying) 22:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Bush era policy

Can a section be added showing the similarities between this movement and bush era federal government policies called "abstinence only"? 73.167.213.208 (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Are there any sources stating the connection? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This Phenomenon is not as new as it seems

Its resemblance in the USA (at least as recognized in this article) is both a coincidence and not. There is not a unified group who practices these behaviors however the formation of a group with such clear foundational beliefs is newer and linked to the phenomenon abroad in South Korea. The origin of these behaviors in the USA however has its roots far earlier. I am not a historian so I cannot say exactly when but they were certainly present when I started college in 2012. 66.229.85.9 (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Unsupported statements overstating the alignment between 4B and TERFism

This article implies that the lineage of the 4B movement explicitly descended from TERFism, but the given sources don’t support that claim, only mentioning that the movement excludes trans women. I don’t disagree that 4B’s goals are aligned with TERFism, but I don’t think it’s supported enough by sources for a full third of this article to focus on this relationship.

I’m softening some of these assertions in the article in line with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I’m similarly removing the paragraph saying mainstream feminists call the movement “ineffective” along the same lines.

(Disclosure: I myself am trans, support trans rights, and hate trans exclusionism as much as anyone. I’m doing this because I think it’s important to distinguish feminist movements that are explicitly vs incidentally aligned with TERFism, especially since this is a Western lens to view Eastern cultural understanding of gender.) Kjwilber (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m more than happy to change my view or revert my edits if we can find better sources that more fully outline the connection between 4B and TERFism. Kjwilber (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Gender-critical feminism/TERF'ism (depending on your viewpoint) is fundamental to the 4B movement. I think editors are putting an WP: UNDUE emphasis on the recent American interest in its principles. However, while it is true that it remains to be seen on whether the gender-critical aspect of the movement will last, there's no way to claim that it is longer present without going into WP:OR. Multiple sources in the article already describe it as gender-critical/TERF, and opposed to transgender rights movements, but I'll provide higher-quality sources for he article later today.

The article should focus predominantly on the movement in South Korea. Not the recent American interest in it. 4 days shouldn't override 4 years+. OntologicalTree (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

yeah OK, I rescind this point. Looks like my edits have been reverted. Thx. Kjwilber (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

it's mostly terfs who are promoting it

the ones who aren't terfs and are promoting it are radfems (2nd wave bioessentialists of which terfs branched off from) Jvneslvt (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Please when translating words from Korean into English and interpreting words across cultures, remain neutral. The Korean word shouldn't be translated to cisgender, because its both a mistranslation and re-ntrepration. Brent.wilson@gmail.com (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Please provide source

“proponents refuse to date, get married, have sex, or have children with cisgender menor transgender women. The movement upholds gender essentialism and is opposed to transgender rights movements”

its 4B, meaning 4 NOS. Where did you source it’s a radicalized movement of feminist against queer and trans people? There can be intersectionality and different people claim to be part but that is NOT the objective of the movement. Could you provide an objective view and source to clarify the claim? This WIKI page is being used as a source and passed around as renaming the movement as a TERF movement! Please fix! 2607:7B80:6030:4EFA:8543:A1E2:1405:90E8 (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The sources are given in the lead. seefooddiet (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

No, objective sources are not given in the lead. The sources cited are an article that makes no mention of trans people, the second does discuss radical feminism in S. Korea including TERFS and implies 4B is transphobic, but offers zero proof (it cites TERFs but none who are tied to the movement), and the last "source" is a korean culture site akin to BuzzFeed. 2601:18C:9182:6F00:74B6:BCEA:2011:1E7A (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The source is here. Chapter III covers its origins. OntologicalTree (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I gave the sources a closer look and mostly agree with you. The first is a thesis (WP:THESIS) and provides its own analysis, so it may lean unreliable, but it does imply that 4B is often trans-exclusionary. The second source doesn't give it enough nuance. The third is unreliable, per WP:KO/RS. However, the question of WP:DUE weight is complicated. I'll make a post below. seefooddiet (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP undergraduate degrees generally aren't considered reliable, unless they have been cited elsewhere in the relevant literature. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Editor bias resulting in inaccurate and reactionary portrayal of this movement

Needs revision Hat Thief (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. to call it “gender essentialism” is incorrect and reactionary. Needs to be revisited. Dykeuptic (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The source of this can be viewed with this link and other existent citations. 4B developed out of a faction of radical feminists who see "transgender women" as "not being true women". We're not making a political statement or promoting the idea. We're just covering the origins of the movement and why there has been criticism from trans-inclusionary radical feminists and liberal feminists over the natter. There's no endorsement of the views. OntologicalTree (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Not only is that inaccurate but so is the term "gender wars" in the very opening lines of the article. Extremely telling of the editor's bias. Estivoni75 (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Discriminatory, inaccurate and partial description of the movement. Misleading, reactionary and strongly malevolent portrayal of the movement

Pitting the movement specifically against gender idelogy due to the editor's personal bias. Randomperson1450 (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Described as "gender critical" before "radical feminist", the website described as "misandric" instead of feminist all in the first few lines. How is this allowed on wikipedia. My blood is boiling. Neutrality is dead apparently Biss33 (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Not wanting to call Womad (website) misandric is wildly off base. It's pretty much consensus that Womad is extremist in numerous ways.

The website is openly misandrist; nobody (including the users of the site) disputes that. They split off Megalia because Megalia started prohibiting the use of anti-gay or anti-trans language. Their targets are biological men in general. A number of its members have also admitted to crimes, including spy cameras in bathrooms and date raping a male child [1]. They also regularly show up in the news for their anti-Korean posts as well; [2] [3][4]. Do you really want to soften their image?

However, I'm uncertain about how much WP:WEIGHT should be given to Womad's influence on the 4B movement. They clearly had an early influence in it, but not all 4B members are from Womad, and the movement has recently expanded to be international. seefooddiet (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

He's misinterpreting radical feminism (one of the three major modern theories of feminism) with "radical" feminism. Probably should be quickly clarified in the article but I can't find an obvious place to do this. English-language sources have focused on the movement's predominant rejection of transgender individual and the revived attention to it in the aftermath of Trump's election. I can't find many high-quality sources in English that don't suffer from WP: RECENTISM or WP: DUE focus on the movement's relationship with the transgender rights movement. Probably because it wasn't a major topic in countries where English was spoken until last week. For the time being: we should ensure that this article doesn't become a dumping ground for this week's headlines. OntologicalTree (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You are right about WOMAD being misandrist, but having this in the opening lines of this article gave it a biased tone. The article as it is right now is a much better improvement. It mentions that WOMAD is "openly misandrist" which feels more of an objective interpretation. My issue with the version of this article I was criticizing was that it did not read as an encyclopedic entry. Biss33 (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Biss33 I find "misandric" the most egregious addition to this article. Misandry is not a real axis of systematic oppression. Hat Thief (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It's cited to "critics" of the movement. Not a NPOV issue. OntologicalTree (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Hat Thief see my post above. They are openly misandrist; they embrace that label, it is the objective of the website. seefooddiet (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You seem to want that website in the intro just so you have a justification for putting the word "misandrist" in the intro. That website is not needed in the intro. Move it somewhere down the page. Burntbread36 (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't "want" anything. That's unlike most of the users here who are incentivized to like or dislike the movement. I literally have no horse in this race, I didn't care about 4B until I started noticing the disruptive and poor quality editing happening on the page.

In South Korea, mentions of 4B are frequently paired with Womad. Why would you be ok with Twitter being mentioned there, but not Womad? The two platforms are linked with 4B; it sounds like you just dislike associating a negative website with the movement. That's not proper justification. Align with the sourcing, not with what you want to be true. seefooddiet (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The importance of transwomen in the 4b movement is dramatically over-emphasized. (Also, how can we describe 4b as so fundamentally transphobic, while also talking about the infighting around the inclusion of transwomen? If some 4bers are trans-inclusion, then how can it be that transphobic?) How about we discuss it in a "criticism" section? As-is, it's misleading and biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frugo8 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It's explained in the citations. A large majority of 4B members, perhaps due to the movement's origins with WOMAD and various other gender-critical radical feminist communities, have been hostile to the transgender rights movement and have portrayed it as "men" encroaching on "woman's spaces." We can not have an article about a decades-long movement focus on the last four or five days. High-quality, more recent sources will only be available in a few years. OntologicalTree (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

first of all transphobia has absolutely not be defined: you cannot equate transphobia with gender criticism. secondly, the focus of 4b is for women to decenter men in their lives: gender criticism is such a timy part of it it should be barely mentioned. by highlighting ot and misusing the term transphobia, you are spreading misinformation by misshaping the narrative. may we know why this content is locked from any editing? because it urgently needs one. Randomperson1450 (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

it is hilarious how this article was more or less untouched for weeks and now, all of a sudden, we need a hundred lines that misleadingly label it as bigoted... want to make a movement that centers the female (as in, XX) experience? oh no, you can't do that without us constantly reminding you in each paragraph how politically incorrect that is Estivoni75 (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Arguments like yours that rely on vague feelings is inappropriate. To others reading, please stop with these kinds of comments. What you want to be true about the movement is irrelevant.

[5] The situation is not straightforward, and it's clear that you and many others on this page have not done the reading and are reacting from the gut. seefooddiet (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Merely a comment stating facts – that the article was pretty much unedited until the US elections – and drawing the easiest conclusion from that – that recent edits have been biased and UScentric. I don't care how mean it sounds, but anyone can see that an article that constantly emphasises "misandry" and "gender wars" and "transphobia" and "gender essentialism," has lost all its neutrality, specially considering how those terms are being misused. Either way, sorry if pointing this out was inappropriate. I think I haven't commented here for years, and it's rather late. My point is: how is it a vague feeling when all analysis of evidence leads to this article being edited in bad faith? Estivoni75 (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

When did you analyze the evidence (sources) is my point? Your read on the overall situation is of limited use; sometimes articles experience a burst of edits and the edits are fine because they align with sources. Sources are king, and you didn't present any analysis of them.

Also, you're arguing that the article became US centric, and the person you're accusing of bias is claiming they're making the article non-US centric. [6] seefooddiet (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I was going to reply in a serious tone and answer to your question but, honestly? God, whatever helps you sleep at night. Surely this article is oh so neutral. Nothing suspicious about so much space dedicated to criticism of the movement or supposed ideals that an ignorant reader (like most people who visit wikipedia, to be honest) would typically be against, even if said ideals are inaccurately tied to the article's subject Estivoni75 (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

If you had actually bothered to read that post I linked, you'd see that I don't think the writing is neutral. I'm just doing the right thing by rigorously disproving the claims in it before moving to fix the article. I'm saying your approach, complaining without rigor, is not helping. seefooddiet (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I read the post and I'm glad we agree. What I'm saying is that I already explained in my second comment that I'm aware my approach might be counterproductive (" sorry if pointing this out was inappropriate. I think I haven't commented here for years, and it's rather late" and "I don't care how mean it sounds"). Why continue asking me to analyze when I am so explicitly having an attitude, and being aware of that? Sure, maybe the Wikipedia talk section is not the ideal place for that, but there's always the possibility that some uninformed woman will read this and understand how the demonization of the 4B movement came to be, even in this website Estivoni75 (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Ps: Either way, thank you in advance for fixing the article Estivoni75 (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm analyzing because it's the right thing to do. If you're worried about others, that's what the {{Neutrality}} tag on the article is for. Let's not discuss this much more, takes up space (part of the reason I called out your original comment, long discussions hurt progress) seefooddiet (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Randomperson1450

It was locked because of disruptive editing; that was the correct move. I'm working on trying to revise the article. Such revisions should be done after discussion.

In the meantime, do not rely on your own WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. The only analysis you should be doing is aligning the article with what reliable sources are saying. I have found enough attestation to transphobia in the movement that I think it is worth mentioning [7] possibly in the lead. seefooddiet (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

i am talking as a radical feminist, as someone who adheres to the 4b movement; i am not reacting from the gut. i recognize how illegitimate it is to manipulate the knowledge a movement whose main aim is to decenter men, and frame it as a mainly "transphobic" stream of thought. to even suggest the criticism of this article is a gut reaction when the term "transphobia" and "misandry", two extremely biases terms, are being used as objective facts is hypocrital at best. those terms are not neutral; your own bias in using them within your impartial fonts is missplaced. the only vandalism that is being done is the terrible misinterpretation of the movement. Randomperson1450 (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The only analysis you should be doing is aligning the article with what reliable sources are saying. It doesn't matter all that much if your inpretation of the movement is different. On Wikipedia, what matters is what the sources are saying. I disagree with sources all the time, but I still report what they say. And the sources do mention transphobia [8], I just think it's overeemphasized. seefooddiet (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

this is not what is being criticized; reporting sources is, and should always be, the upmost priority. the problem lies within the framing: any ""transphobic"" or ""misandric"" controversy, due to the extremely subjective and individual nature of those claims, should properly be put in a subpage considering the standpoint of (at least) both parts. to put them in the veey description of the movement is an implicit agreement with the statement which corresponds with my original comment - "editor's bias". everything regarding the correlation with gender ideology should be part of a very specific, properly curated subpage: everything else is bias. Randomperson1450 (talk) 11:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

still - i want to thank you for helping us improve the state of this page specifically and of wikipedia generally. Randomperson1450 (talk) 11:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

And you think that being a member of the movement makes your perspective less biased than an impartial editor with no skin in the game? 24.113.229.172 (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Trans exclusionism

Trying to use this post to consolidate discussions on how much WP:WEIGHT is due on the movement's link to trans exclusionism; there's several disconnected threads saying the same things above. As discussed in this post above, I don't think the current sourcing supporting the anti-trans allegations are strong enough.

More reliable sources (Korean-language):

• [9] From The Hankyoreh (reliable source). This source states that Womad was trans exclusionary and that 4B was a significant presence on the site.
• [10] From a South Korean feminist newspaper. It claims that recent South Korean feminist academics view TERFs as having popularized the 4B movement, although it doesn't clarify which academics say that.
• [11] From The Chosun Ilbo (reliable source) and [12] From Pressian (reliable source). These two articles cover similar topics.
  • There was a controversy at Sookmyung Women's University, wherein nearly 20,000 students of various women's universities signed a petition asking to bar a transgender woman from being accepted to the school. The Chosun Ilbo article claims that trans exclusionism amongst radical South Korean feminists is disproportionately higher than compared to in the West.
  • The 2018 Hyehwa station protest against sexual harassment against women: some protestors wanted the protest to have 4B standards (banning married women) and transphobic standards (banning transwomen). There was internal debate around these topics, and in the end only transwomen were banned.

From the sources above, the situation isn't really clear to me.

To my understanding, 4B was popular with Womad (website) users,[13][14][15] and Womad is widely agreed to be transphobic; it was literally founded because users wanted to keep using homophobic and transphobic language after Megalia began restricting it.[16][17][18]

That said, I couldn't find clear proof about what % of the movement was composed of Womad or Womad-like users. In the West, TERFs are clearly in the minority. But in South Korea I think it's possible there were proportionately more of them.

However, overall it seems like trans people are rarely discussed in the context of 4B by the news media. I had to really dig to find these sources; on Wikipedia we're supposed to proportionately cover mainstream opinions. Also, to my understanding the 4B movement and Womad have since declined a lot in South Korea. It was mainly a late 2010s thing I think.[19]

Conclusion: I'm not sure how much weight we should give trans exclusionism, although we should certainly give it some. I think it might deserve a brief mention in the lead; currently it's given too much weight. Coverage in the body can be expanded on, but it needs to be presented with more nuance than it currently is. The current presentation reads like it's unambiguously transphobic, when my understanding from the RS differs.

@OntologicalTree tagging primary contributor of this content seefooddiet (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, I removed the NPOV tag right before you posted this, @Seefooddiet:. Give me 15 to 30 minutes to respond to this. Writing now. OntologicalTree (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It's WP: DUE if you hold the belief, and I do, that this article should predominantly focus on the movement's history in South Korea. It's very possible (if not likely) that interest in the 4B movement will quickly fade away in the Western World and the United States.

You're correct that many English sources do not particularly focus on it. But one has to remember that there's not been many high-quality sources published on 4B in the English language. The one's that do exist are relatively recent, and, unsurprisingly, they're overwhelmingly focused on a certain figure who shall not be named due to events over the past week.

The South Korean feminist newspaper and peer-reviewed WP:THESIS are both reliable sources and identify the movement as gender-critical. Several other English sources also mention the movement's opposition to the transgender rights movement and criticism over it excluding transgender women.

Ideally, none of this would be removed, and other types of information could be added in. It's just going to be hard to do while avoiding WP: OR or low-quality sources. Most English related sources are about Trump (WP:RECENTISM) or transgender-related topics. OntologicalTree (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

They theoretically base their work on Sheila Jeffreys, a British scholar who has been leading the radical feminist movement of the 1970s and 1980s until 2020. They deny gender as a social gender and call for solidarity among women and the exclusion of men. They are the ones who popularized the so-called '4B': non-marriage, non-childbirth, non-dating, and non-sex. is as explicit as it gets. Other English sources also make references to it. OntologicalTree (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I pretty firmly disagree with your read on the situation. I gave it a South Korea-centric view (looked at basically none of the Trump-related coverage) and read mostly articles from the late 2010s to 2023. Extremely few of the sources mentioned trans people at all; the ones I gave are basically the only ones I could find. And even the ones that I could find say that people are conflicted on whether to exclude trans people (although they give the impression that exclusion has happened; just extent is not clear, per above). That's what almost all of the sources that you've given in the article say as well.

Also you need to provide page numbers when you provide sources that have multiple pages. Consider using {{rp}} for that. With the Koreaboo source, the pushing for a thesis to be considered reliable for a controversial claim (I'm still skeptical of its use, it's making original arguments which may push it under "primary source" in WP:THESIS. The single citation helps its use but really not by much.), it's not looking good. I also found a ref that doesn't support a claim made. I'll give your writing a more thorough vetting later; in the mean time you should provide page numbers for individual claims.

The burden of proof and the need for solid writing is really high on controversial topics. I feel like you're reaching for the thesis to be reliable too desperately. If these views really were mainstream, you wouldn't need to rely on a master's thesis for them; they would be in lots of mainstream sources. seefooddiet (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we differ on this, but the claims are established in reliable sources:

• 1.) It is a radical feminist and gender-critical movement.
• 2.) It was popularized through radical feminism and the gender-critical movement.
• 3.) The large majority of 4B's do not consider transgender women to be women in terms of feminist analysis and concern. As the movement is deorganized, radical trans-inclusionary feminists attempted to move away from this perspective, but were ultimately unsuccessful.
• 4.) Critics claiming it is misandric, transphobic, or homophobic.
• 5.) The movement is/was online ans predominantly decentralized, popularized online through radical feminist conmunities on Twitter, Womad, and various other websites.
• 6.) The movement declined in the early 2020s. Factors in this included X, Y, Z.
• 7.) Attention to the movement was revived in 2024. While I can't likely say this without getting into WP: OR, I'd add that this has given it "a lessened emphasis on radical feminism or gender-critical theories."

Are any of these points contentious? There's a consensus among sources on all of them. I don't doubt that we need higher quality sources. I'm just skeptical many of them presently exist on the matter.

What would you propose changing? Not doubting that the article has flaws, but I'm not sure how fixable it is without getting into WP: OR issues.

I haven't edited Wikipedia in a year and half so I have forgotten a lot about how Wikicode works. OntologicalTree (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

1. "radical feminist" I have no issues with, "gender-critical" (i.e. trans exclusionism) is literally the crux of this contention. The issue is this: how much weight do we give it in the overall movement? I'm starting to think you don't really understand my points; you haven't really addressed them specifically both times.
2. No issues here, although we need to be mindful of weight to gender-critical, per above.
3. Large majority is not established. The "ultimately unsuccessful claim" is only attested to in that thesis, do not attempt to portray it as consensus.
4. Misandry hasn't been directly established. See my recent edit [20]. You need to be mindful of weighting the affiliations with homophobia and transphobia; again they're not in a significant majority of sources that I've read.
5. No issues here
6. No issues here
7. No issues here

I don't buy that you've simply forgotten how Wikipedia works for some of your improper uses of sources and misrepresentations of consensus. A more appropriate excuse would be that you've forgotten how information works.

What I would propose changing is deemphasizing trans and gay exclusionism, and perhaps relegating it to a single brief mention in the lead, perhaps at the end of it. I (preferrably you) need to also verify all of your writing to make sure it's strictly representing what the sources are saying; I've now caught multiple issues with factchecking and rigor that are inappropriate for a topic this contentious. seefooddiet (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• 1.) Much weight for the South Korean version of the movement. Significantly less (if at all) for the revived interest in the movement outside of SK. Is a feminist website in South Korea not a reliable source when it calls the South Korean movement gender-critical? I do not believe that the American interest in the term has anything to do with gender-critical or trans-exclusionary feminism. I would support mentioning this if there was some way to do it without WP: OR.
• 3.) WP: THESIS's can be used if peer-reviewed by an established academic and subsequently published. This is the case here.

Lastly, I still remember how Wikipedia works in terms of rules and guidelines, I was referring to the Wikicode behind articles and how to cite sources with it, such as page number. OntologicalTree (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

At least you actually addressed my points this time, unfortunately you only addressed a fraction of them.

1) You still don't understand that this opinion is fairly rare.

3) No, meeting one of the criteria listed on WP:THESIS doesn't automatically make a thesis reliable. Even if it did, you still too heavily rely on a single source to make controversial claims. WP:WEIGHT. Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. You really are stretching for this source to be acceptable.

I think it's safe to say nobody else on this page supports your edits, and your responses to my points are woefully inadequate. I'm going to start significantly revising your edits. seefooddiet (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes please, revise their edits. They are clearly biased, politically-charged and unreliable. ProudTransgender (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your well spoken facts and views for this page. Due to the rapid attention this topic is getting in the US (as Americans frequently morph topics/discussions to center on themselves), I hope to see fast and significant care put toward editing to avoid mass misinformation. I want to believe Wikipedia can do better than what I’m currently seeing within this disappointing page. S L Dunbar (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Misuse of the term "gender essentialism"

Besides the obvious fact that whoever edited this article overnight is extremely biased against the 4B movement, plenty of terms are misused. I could make a list of them all, but the one that caught my attention the most is the sentence "supporting gender essentialism," which simply is not true. Argue all you want about whether or not transgender movements can coexist with feminism, but use accurate terms. As the name explains (and anyone with a degree related to the humanities could attest) essentialism refers to a belief in INNATE characteristics, in this case, gendered – this is inherently at odds with radical feminism, the basis for the 4B movement, given that radical feminist theory is built upon ideas regarding gender SOCIALIZATION, which is, you know, not innate.

Again, setting aside the fact that someone (definitely not a man...) has completely messed up with the neutrality Wikipedia is always meant to keep, terms must be used accurately, rather than namedropped as if they were meaningless buzzwords. 186.122.3.72 (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Move "Opposition to transgender rights movements" to the "Social Media Controversy Section"

Though they are related, transgender movements are not that important to the beliefs of the 4B movement. Instead, they're often pit up against each other thanks to controversies... which happen in social media... hence the reason I think the section should be edited. Besides that, it is in no way that important to be mentioned in the very beginning – because, again, that's not what the movement is about. 186.122.3.72 (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Please do not make multiple posts. I made a post above that addresses this issue, please instead comment there. seefooddiet (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The part about trans opposition should be separated from the rest of the article. It should not be in the lead section at all. It is making the whole movement appear transphobic when only a small subset of it is. All the sources quoted do in no way indicate that the movement as a whole is transphobic. Putting that in the lead section and almost everywhere on the article is bad faith, very biased and hurtful to the entire movement that is spreading all around the world right now, not only South Korea or America. It should be as neutral as possible, and not make such bold statements calling the movement transphobic and gender-critical as an absolute fact or an absolute truth. ProudTransgender (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I just rewrote the contentious sections.

Not sure if it was you or someone else, but someone added WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH to the article in an attempt to fix the bias. Stuff about reddit and transphobia only being a small part of the movement; none of that was supported by sources. They also moved forward without letting the discussion above that I was having with OntologicalTree conclude. seefooddiet (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Your edits are great, good job if you're the one who made them! It was clearly too biased and the article should always be as neutral as possible.

I have two suggestions though;

1) I think it should be mentioned in the lead section that the membership estimation of 400-5.000 was only from 2019. I think it's important to make that precision in the lead sectioned where this estimation is mentioned so that people reading know that it's most likely outdated.

2) I don't think the use of misandric in the very first paragraph of the article is necessary, even if yes the website Womad is associated with misandry. Because it's not associated with the movement as a whole, only that website specifically, but having it used in the lead section might create some confusion about it and make people read the article with an instant bias. The "misandric" aspect of Womad should be mentioned in a different section, like the last one talking about radical feminism and transphobia in South Korea.

Respectfully, and thank you for your work. (: ProudTransgender (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Adjusted it, lmk thoughts seefooddiet (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You're great, thanks! ProudTransgender (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't understand why there's still a random bit about some members in Korea being transphobic in the first section of this page. Transphobia exists even in the gay community yet that's not the first thing anyone would think to mention on the wikipedia page on homosexuality. I don't know what group of people doesn't have some members who are bigots. This was added to this page, front and center, after 4b gained popularity in the states, clearly with the intention of demonizing any American woman who chooses to remain celibate and make it seem as if they're terfs. Something the vast majority of American women find abhorrent. This was done to scare women away from this movement and paint any woman choosing celibacy in a negative light. Nomadlady4b (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You're taking an America-centric perspective on this issue, something that others have decried elsewhere on this talk page. America is not the entire world.

TERFism is surprisingly prominent in South Korea [21] and tied to 4B because of its strong affiliation with Womad. The current wording of the bit in the lead is clear about TERFism being local to South Korea. seefooddiet (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm taking an American-centric perspective because this was edited into this article after the American presidential election-which was the last straw for many American women and 4b saw a surge in popularity. And immediately, men (and no doubt it was American men) ran to edit this article to call this movement misandry, transphobic, homophobic and every other insult they could link it to and made sure to put that front and center, instead of at the bottom of the page in a "criticism" section like almost every other wiki article has. You can feign ignorance if you want, but the timing of these edits and putting this as the first thing in this article make it so obvious that it was done to paint this movement-an overall peaceful and inclusive movement of women simply choosing a celibate life-in as negative a light as possible. Because men-per usual, are furious about women making decisions about their own bodies and will do everything possible to stop that from happening. I will not be reading or replying to you anymore. Nomadlady4b (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

"Feign ignorance"? Considering I'm the one who pushed hard to tone the article down, your sloppy accusation is completely misplaced. I disliked the POV added (and the America-centric war that you and others are trying to wage). Pushing to make the article even more America-centric than it used to be is unhelpful.

Grateful that you're going to stop engaging. Please keep to your word on that. This has been unhelpful. seefooddiet (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2024

Citations do not support the following: “Members affirm gender essentialism and oppose transgender rights movements, seeing them as furthering the oppression and domination of women and maintenance of patriarchal societies.[10][12]”

Citation [10] is an undergraduate thesis paper and [12] is a cbc article that makes no reference to gender essentialism or transphobia. This is inaccurate and appears an intentional move to discredit the movement. Atlantic-cod (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Addressed it through a separate edit. seefooddiet (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussed on Reddit

This article was recently discussed on Reddit [22][23]. It's possible it was discussed elsewhere too. For context, it's important to disclose this for others to be aware that there is off-site attention on an article.

Many of these users' edits introduced significant issues and made fixing the problems more frustrating and difficult. Please don't edit Wikipedia like this. Sources are king on this website, and you must strictly stick to what they are saying. If you edit based on your own opinions or personal knowledge, or haphazardly make talk posts without clear direction, what's stopping someone with the opposite opinions from doing the same? You're really just introducing more POV, just in the opposite direction. This is why we must stick to the sources.

In a sense, many of you were lucky. If the sources supported the claims of widespread transphobia, I would have advocated for stronger emphasis of transphobia. I suspect reception towards me would have been much colder then. seefooddiet (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

What? Women are "lucky" that you realized something wasn't true because if not you would have kept perpetuating a lie to harm us? I can't believe I thought this site was a legitimate source of information for as long as I have. 2603:7000:8900:4ACB:E0A7:2764:3408:10A4 (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I want to be clear, I am not speaking for the international 4B movement. I am speaking about its origins in South Korea. Foreign 4B followers are choosing to adopt a movement from a different country that speaks a different language without thoroughly understanding the context in which it emerged. That is clear from this talk page.

Look at how many people on this page were initially defensive of Womad, a website that is openly misandric, homophobic, and transphobic.

Thought exercise: keeping in mind the surprising prominence of TERFism amongst radical feminists in South Korea, it could have very well been (and it's still possible) that the original 4B in South Korea had a strong documented connection to TERFism, and there could have been a manifesto or organizing group somewhere (that nobody in the West knew about but was known in South Korea) that had TERFism as a stated goal. If so, a sentence like this would have been appropriate: "The 4B movement's beginning in South Korea was strongly linked with transphobia".

Yes, that would have been unflattering to the international movement, but I would have just been reporting what the sources were saying, regardless of how it makes anyone feel. More importantly, the international movement is a different and recent trend. You're not bound by what extremists in South Korea do or believe.

I have no doubt that the international 4B movement is overwhelmingly not transphobic. I would have aimed to avoid portraying the international movement as such. But the movement's origin in South Korea is a different matter, one that few of you knew about in detail.

Also, 4B does not represent all women; do not use that to portray me as sexist. You're welcome to vet my writing on Wikipedia to verify that I'm not. seefooddiet (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Right? I, for one, am just baffled by the lack of female editors on this website. Who wouldn't want to be addressed like a child being scolded? Can't imagine why anyone would avoid a space where their demographic's attempt at self-preservation was immediately demeaned and discredited. Spifferella (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Why are you making it out like I'm targeting women? I don't care who is doing the editing and for what purpose; I dislike bad editing. There are great feminist editors on the site, and I never complain about their editing. And again, 4B doesn't represent all women.

I'm trying to avoid POV altogether, in any direction. If this website let the poor editing run rampant just because it favored some group you liked, even fewer people would trust it, and rightfully so.

I'll admit, my tone is harsh, and I apologize for that. But I'm confident in the content of my messages. seefooddiet (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Thought I should mention that the discussion on Reddit likely started from this post on tumblr. Although it seems obvious there's off-site attention to this article with how big the discussion about 4b is on Tiktok and Twitter.

Many of the sources cited in this article do not support the claims made in it (I’ve seen others work on removing those/rephrasing the article to comply with what's said in the citations and done so myself, but it's far from perfect), newcomers should instead focus on checking for that IMO. - BrimoTrimorphos ^(🗨) 01:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Seriously, these users are pushing a conspiracy theory that the offended men on Wikipedia falsified the information that the 4B movement was created by South Korean transphobes. Comments from American Reddit users with cognitive distortions in the style of "we haven't seen transphobia in the South Korean 4B movement, so it doesn't exist" are not a source for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources. Especially since there is a category of American internet feminists who are all like "I'm not transphobic, I love trans people," and then "when I say men, I mean cis men." Reprarina (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Careful; idt we have any source that confirms the movement was solely created by transphobes. Transphobes were a notable part of the movement, but not the entirety of it. seefooddiet (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Because nothing has been edited in bad faith in Wikipedia, specially when it comes to feminism, specially when it comes to women of colour, specially when it comes to both of those subjects after the most important elections in the west resulted in a win of the alt right, right? 186.122.3.72 (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Admin should remove this page

It’s not a noticeable topic and it’s not encyclopedic. Should be removed. 151.16.199.206 (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s been on the news for days in the United States, and for months/years before that in the rest of the world too. What is your definition of “encyclopaedic”? Careful, at first glance, it just sounds like someone, for some mysterious reason, simply does not want women to know about female separatism… 186.122.3.72 (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It is important, should not be removed Biss33 (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability. Wikipedia uses reliable sources for this. Grayfell (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@151.16.199.206 According to the front page it has over 200k viewers, it is absolutely a noticeable topic. Oranguru765 (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Let's stop discussing this; it's clear this article is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Noticeability is not the same thing as WP:NOTABILITY, which is actually what determines what goes on Wikipedia. Plenty of topics would get tons of views but aren't worthy of being on Wikipedia seefooddiet (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

More sources that link the movement with others…?

I know this is original research, but does anyone have or know of sources regarding the two following factors: 1. 4B being linked with pro-LGB groups/individuals, specially lesbians 2. 4B resurgence following the “New Nth Room” that recently flooded the news about South Korea and Telegram…?

As someone who personally participates in the movement, I know both of these subjects (support for homosexuality, & the link with the recent news) have been discussed thoroughly by female separatists, but I have no idea which sources would be of actual use. Still, I leave this comment in case anyone knows and, if not, so that people can at least find out here, if not in the main article. :) 186.122.3.72 (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Womad and misandry

[24] @Davefelmer On whether to describe Womad as misandric, [25] However, Womad users have taken this argument a step further by reclaiming the accusations of misandry and boldly asserting that they indeed harbor negative feelings toward men, thus advocating for the concept of misandry [26][27] [28][29]

It's a widespread adjective used for the website. It's due. The sourcing did need to be stronger, but there's pretty clear consensus around this in the sourcing. seefooddiet (talk) 05:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Bichulsan (childbirth) Section Needs Some Polishing

The section opens with the fact that South Korea has the lowest birth rate in the world. This is not true, and the citation goes to a Time.com article. While the birth rate for South Korea is low, it is not the lowest in the world and the citation is lacking credibility and is outdated as it was written on December 13, 2023. CIA.gov puts Ukraine at 228th place and is the country with the lowest birthrate. South Korea exists at 224th place.

Aside from the nonfactual/outdated information, I would argue that having the section talk mostly about the birth rate of South Korea rather than going into more detail about the definition and meaning of what "No Childbirth" actually means, and why women of this movement are rejecting childbirth (reasons such as: patriarchal society, government policy, economic insecurity, shifting focus on career, and a want for personal autonomy) is bad writing. I think it would be helpful to give a more in-depth explanation of this tenet with factual information.

This Wikipedia article is being edited by someone who knows surface level information of the 4B movement resulting in the entire Wikipedia page being lackluster. The point of editing should be to cover all areas of the topic good and bad while remaining a neutral tone. Your "job" when editing should be to just simply give information, not try and influence opinions. Vorpalm (talk) 10:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)