Collective article record

5,000+ people agree: TERF group is a hate group

Collective Archive Number CAN-0000-0180-C6A8 Permanent resolver

Source Summary

The nonprofit, Secular Women has created a petition calling on the Southern Poverty Law Center to regard TERF attorney, Cathy Brennan’s group, Gender Identity Watch, as a hate group. The petition starts off, “As a feminist organization, Secular Woman promotes gender equality. We stand against and combat sexism, hate, intolerance, and misogyny.” It then make the following radical claim: Transgender women are women. Cisgender women are women. The petition details the way Brennan and her group has acted to adversely interfere in the personal lives trans people Brennan designates as being fair game. Members of our community have been targeted by trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs). Personal information such as former names, current legal names, and photographs have been compiled and displayed on the website “Name the Problem”. Several of the entries are self-attributed to “Pegasus” (“PegasusBug” is a pseudonym of Cathy Brennan, the head of Gender Identity Watch). This information

The Source Summary reproduces the first 150 words of the source article unless a Collective editor has explicitly locked a replacement.

Read the original article View inbound sources

Interpretive context

Why this article may matter

Community significance

“5,000+ people agree: TERF group is a hate group” may matter to community readers because it preserves a first-person or testimonial account connected to transgender identity and history, while also engaging feminism and gender politics. Such accounts can document how an issue was understood and experienced from within the period or community being discussed.

Historical significance

As a publication record from 2013 at The TERFs, “5,000+ people agree: TERF group is a hate group” provides dated evidence of how transgender identity and history was being argued in relation to feminism and gender politics. Comparing it with earlier and later records can reveal changes in vocabulary, evidence, and emphasis.

Policy significance

“5,000+ people agree: TERF group is a hate group” discusses institutions, law, or governance in connection with transgender identity and history. Even without a dominant policy classification, the article may help researchers identify practical consequences for feminism and gender politics.

Content analysis

Ranked themes and framings

Rank 1 is the dominant inferred theme or framing. Parent labels identify broader theme families; the relationship key beneath the diagram explains the line styles used for hierarchy, same-family relationships, overlap, and separate-but-related themes.

Themes

1
Transgender identity and historyTheme family: Identity, culture, and community
100%
2
Feminism and gender politicsTheme family: Power, ideology, and social conflict
66%
3
Law and civil rightsTheme family: Institutions, law, and public life
36%
4
Culture, identity, and representationTheme family: Identity, culture, and community
30%
5
Community and organizingTheme family: Identity, culture, and community
21%
6
Violence, safety, and dehumanizationTheme family: Power, ideology, and social conflict
9%

Academic framing

1
Clinical and medical analysis
100%

Editorial function

Source topics

Relationship key

Overlapping themes
Separate but related themes
Related theme in the same family

The diagram distinguishes hierarchy, same-family relationships, overlap, and separate-but-related themes inferred within this article. It does not assert that all themes are mutually exclusive.

These classifications are inferred from article text and source metadata and remain directly editable. Relationship labels express corpus-analysis judgments, not immutable facts.

Granular comparative context

How “Transgender identity and history” appears across the Collective corpus

This article was published during the theme’s highest-presence year in the registered corpus (2013).

Relative presence by year

Peak year indexed to 100

5 2004

11 2005

4 2006

90 2007

64 2008

47 2009

14 2010

130 2011

112 2012

240 2013

126 2014

33 2015

28 2016

50 2017

41 2018

15 2019

2 2020

4 2021

2 2024

1 2025

Presence by member publication

Frequently co-occurring concepts

Academic framings in this topic

Policy framings in this topic

Values measure relative presence in the registered Collective corpus, not public search interest or public opinion.

Inbound-link and citation evidence

Documented circulation and reception

No broad reception evidence has been documented yet; this may reflect unconfigured or incomplete indexes rather than an absence of circulation. These observations describe circulation and reuse; they do not assign cultural worth or evaluate the communities, arguments, or people discussed.

0distinct source records documented

0distinct referring domains

0best available scholarly cited-by count

0books or volumes documented

0references retained by the source publication

—observed years in dated evidence

Evidence by channel

Independent counts; bars are not additive

No channel totals are available yet.

Coverage of the evidence search

Shows what has actually been checked

Publisher-held referencesChecked · August 31, 2026

Scholarly indexesChecked · August 31, 2026

Book and volume searchNotchecked

Public-web searchNotconfigured

Collective corpus linksIndexed · August 31, 2026

Review scholarly results Review book results Review public-web results

No individual references have been stored yet. This can mean that source-held pingbacks have not been imported, provider access is not configured, or available indexes do not expose this work in a machine-readable form.

Counts describe documented circulation and reception in the sources currently available to the Collective. They are not a score of quality, merit, popularity, or social value, and provider totals can overlap.

Article authors

Author profiles and related researchers

Admin

98 publications · 0 inbound sources/citations