The Ideological Capture of Wikipedia: Gender Ideology / "The Anti-Gender Movement"

Search for 'gender ideology' on Wikipedia and you're taken to an entry titled "The Anti-Gender Movement."

Of course Wikipedia was ideologically captured by the left long ago--I'm not at all sure how long ago, nor even when I first noticed it. But it's been at least ten years.

This is one small way in which that ideological capture manifests itself. Instead of having an entry on gender ideology--under the title 'gender ideology', which is the non-leftist term for the phenomenon--it has, instead, an entire entry on the leftist/gender-ideological response to the non-leftist movement against gender ideology. This is roughly as if, instead of an entry on "Identity Politics," they only had an entry on, say, "Race Marxism" or "Neo-Racism." 

  If the social (")sciences(") were even vaguely objective, someone would be doing a study of the delusional groupthink of the Vanguard of the Wikipedians--a hard-core pomo-prog faction that keeps everything slanted as far to the left as they think they can get away with. 

   Though, I must say, there does seem to have been some pushback/progress in some of the entries--in some cases it's been significant. For years earlier in the Woketarian Jihad, the first sentence of the Race entry was something like "The socially constructed blah blah blah..."...thus building crazy left metaphysics into the very first sentence of the entry. Now the first sentence is the much-improved:

A race is a categorization of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into groups generally viewed as distinct within a given society

Not quite right, but better.* So perhaps there are limits to how outrageously stupid such entries can be--limits to the ability of the VW to spin and tweak and suppress and amplify...

*Better would be e.g.:

Races are putative human biological kinds below the level of species and sub-species.

Then the metaphysical question becomes a straightforward one of the reality or unreality of races. The "social construction" locution never helps in such cases, incidentally. To say that races are "social constructs" can really only mean that they aren't real, but fictions. But in fact it's used to confuse the issue by suggesting that there's a third alternative--not quite real and not quite not. One of the many terrible pomo-prog "arguments" (really just assertions) in this vicinity is: Well, races are socially real... And that's just dumb. By "x is socially real" they roughly mean: some people believe in x and act accordingly. Such an assertion is used in the case of witches in e.g. some parts of Africa. Many postposties don't want to say that such beliefs are false--heaven forfend! They are averse to realism in general, and don't want to say that, say, a tribe can be possessed by a widespread false belief. So they sometimes say that witches are "socially real"...meaning that they aren't actually real, but that people in the relevant society believe they are and act accordingly--sometimes e.g. killing the "witches." But, of course, Bigfoot is "socially real" in this sense--there's a significant tourist industry based on it. But Bigfoot isn't real. To say it's "socially real" is just a confusing way of saying that he isn't real, but some people believe and/or act as if it is. 

   Imagine saying: Well, she really was a witch...socially really...so what choice did they have but to kill her? She really was putting hexes on them and on their crops--socially really. They really did have to choose between her life and their own lives--socially really...

   Blah blah blah