Talk:Gender

Citation Suggested

The rise of criticism against the WID approach led to the emergence of a new theory, that of Women and Development (WAD). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhum.group2 (talk • contribs) 17 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Citation suggested

In contemporary times, most literature and institutions that are concerned with women's role in development incorporate a GAD perspective, with the United Nations taking the lead of mainstreaming the GAD approach through its system and development policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhum.group2 (talk • contribs) 17 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Opening sentence - are "man" and "woman" genders?

The opening sentence isn't quite clear: "social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of being a man, woman, or other gender identity."; does this therefore imply that being a man or woman is a gender?. It seems very ambiguous to imply that men and women are genders outright, given that this is in the first sentence in an article entitled simply "gender". Zilch-nada (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I.e., why does the sentence employ "man" and "woman" instead of "male" and "female", which are the terms generally used regarding the gender binary? Zilch-nada (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

You may wish to review past discussions of the lead, which are collected and linked here: Talk:Gender/Archive 11#Past discussions of lead. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Semiotics aside, a good reason to prefer the current phrasing is that "being a man ..." more clearly communicates "embodying the male gender" and is less ambiguous than "being male" which could be confused with "being assigned male at birth". Doesn't help that our article Male is about sperm-producing organisms, something which has given gender-related articles immense strife over the years. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The article on male closes the lede by saying In humans, the word male can also be used to refer to gender, in the social sense of gender role or gender identity. I honestly think "man, woman" in this article should simply change to male and female, as it is clear that the gender-binary refers most commonly to male-female, masculine-feminine, and not man-woman. One can embody the male gender as a boy as well... Zilch-nada (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, I'm sure you'd agree that there is ambiguity in the current wording; it is unclear whether or not "man" and "woman" are genders Zilch-nada (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I have made the change to the article with my reasoning in the edit summary. I don't think (as I mentioned last month) that "man" more clearly communicates "embodying the male gender" as that clearly excludes boys. Furthermore, "male", while it may redirect to the male sex, this article specifically refers to the social, psychological etc. nature of being male, therefore unambiguously ruling out male (as in gender) as being biological. (Gender is described as the socialised obverse of sex). Thirdly, "male" and "female" are very commonly used to describe the gender binary, more often than man/woman: e.g., Fourth, as I stated in February, defining - let alone describing - gender in relation to "man or woman" is even more ambiguous, as that will perhaps imply that "man" and "woman" are genders, but that is not clear, not elaborated upon. Zilch-nada (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Beccaynr Please explain - as you reverted my edit - why you think "man"/"woman" is more suitable than "male"/"female" in defining gender. Zilch-nada (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead reflects the contents of the article, and there does not appear to be support in sources nor the article to alter the first sentence to male and female, which are articles predominantly about organisms generally. The first sentence was developed after extensive discussion and is also written broadly, i.e. uses the word "including", so it is not an exclusive statement. The first sentence is also not expected to include every detail (see e.g. MOS:FIRST), and more than one source is considered when developing the lead (see e.g. MOS:LEADREL). This is a contentious topic, so particular care needs to be taken to reflect the weight of reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I have two things to comment upon there:

• "which are articles predominantly about organisms generally"; but they are also generally used regarding gender; similar to what you said, not exclusive.
• As the article specifies the social, psychological (etc.) aspects of male/female, I therefore think it can't be ambiguous for male/female to be used; however, the use of the word "including" which you support creates significant ambiguity, as I have said above, as it does not a) actually define gender, and b) say whether or not "man" and "woman" are genders.

Zilch-nada (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, what I think we should do is to summarise as many sources as possible describing gender as relating to a) men / women, b) male / female, and c) masculine / feminine (although more so under "gender expression"). There are admittedly sources like the WHO that employ men / women (alongside "boys and girls"), as well as a significant amount of sources that employ "male and female" in defining gender. So I don't think this is set in stone yet, either my proposal for the usage of male/female, nor the current men/women wording. I.e., I think this must be gauged by summary. Zilch-nada (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The man and woman articles both include human children, so the concern expressed about not including children in the first sentence seems addressed by the lead formed by consensus after extensive discussion. This is an article about gender; your proposal in the context of the male and female wikilinks seems to suggest making a fundamental and unsupported change the article, but the content and sources in this article do not seem to support using articles about organisms generally to broadly introduce the concept of gender.

Also, the words 'male' and 'female' may be used by some sources, but that is not the same as reliable sources indicating organism-based definitions are intended by the use of those terms. There have been past discussions about the use of terminology, and how this is not simply a matter of counting usage of terms that may be used differently over time and across academic disciplines; how the terms are used and discussed matters more than the mere use of the word. Beccaynr (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The man and woman articles both include human children So what? Those are different articles, aren't they? What matter's is what is in the sentence itself, and that ambiguously excludes children, whereas the most cited source in favour of the man/woman variation is the WHO, which includes "boys and girls". I don't intend on merely counting sources, only summarising the most reliable sources, considering which sources are reliable - and which are not -, in relation to what gender actually is.

Please explain what you mean by organism-based definitions; I think you missed (emphasis mine) that I said "sources that employ "male and female" in defining gender."; therefore I clearly wasn't looking for organism/sex-based definitions. Zilch-nada (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Another editor in this discussion also commented about the male and female articles being focused on organisms generally. If you are not trying to replace the meaning of gender with organism-based definitions, then perhaps you can review the past discussions about the lead, the differences in the wikilinked articles, this article and its sources, and further reflect on your proposal. Beccaynr (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not defining male and female in relation to organisms, only to gender, as that is what this article is. By analogy, the articles on man and woman also employ the defining term male and female (which would perhaps initially imply sex, if one is unaware), only with notes that say that "male"/"female" can refer to either sex or gender. That is what I have suggested below. Zilch-nada (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The use of the organism-focused wikilinks male and female to replace the human-focused wikilinks man and woman seems to achieve the result, even if that is not the intent, and that seems to be the problematic alteration according to WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD. A note does not seem needed when we can have a lead that reflects the article and its reliable sources, and when the human-focused wikilinks man and woman seem to fit as part of a broad introduction. Beccaynr (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that the wikilinks are organism-focused does not matter whatsoever, so long as we are unambiguous that this article is employing "male" and "female" in the sense of gender, which an abundantly sourced concept, including in this very article. "Man" and "woman", as I have said previously, is both a) vague (are they genders?) and b) not broad enough (as the gender binary is most commonly described as male-female, not man-woman.) Zilch-nada (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Idea:

What if, like the articles on man and woman, we employ the wording "social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of being male, female, or other gender identity", with a note that states: "male and female may refer to either sex or gender."

I.e., so it would read:

"Gender includes the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of being male, female, or other gender identity"

Zilch-nada (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

There has also been extensive discussion about when and how to use dictionary definitions; according to MOS:LEAD, we are looking to summarize the article, according to reliable sources. Discussion about the lead ideally reflects the article contents and its sources. The proposed idea seems to continue to suggest a fundamental change to the first sentence of the lead that does not seem to reflect the article and its sources. Beccaynr (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

How does it not reflect? "Woman" is mentioned a mere 19 times; "female" is mentioned 58 times. Examples within the very article include:

• socially constructed" aspects of male–female differences (gender) from "biologically determined" aspects (sex)."
• Later, in 2011, the FDA reversed its position and began using sex as the biological classification and gender as "a person's self-representation as male or female, or how that person is responded to by social institutions based on the individual's gender presentation."
• gender role that exists more in the middle of the continuum between the feminine and masculine polarity. For example, the Hawaiian māhū, who occupy "a place in the middle" between male and female,
• Gender difference is merely a construct of society used to enforce the distinctions made between what is assumed to be female and male, and allow for the domination of masculinity over femininity through the attribution of specific gender-related characteristics. "
• Contemporary sociological reference to male and female gender roles typically uses masculinities and femininities in the plural rather than singular, suggesting diversity both within cultures as well as across them.

Zilch-nada (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, there are perhaps only 2 references of gender specifically to men/women in the article:

• gender role as a man or a woman in society varies cross-culturally according to what things are considered to be masculine or feminine.
• agreed that the term gender could be properly applied only to humans, because it involves one's self-concept as man or woman

And the first one refers to "gender role" which is quite different. Zilch-nada (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be an attempt to tally usage without an in-depth look at meaning and sources, and does not seem to help support removal of human-focused wikilinks and replacement with organism-focused wikilinks. Just because 'male' and 'female' terminology is used, it does not mean (nor does it appear to mean based on these unsourced quotes) that we should be using wikilinks that are written broadly about organisms. Beccaynr (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Then why would man and woman employ the terms male and female in their definitions, if man and woman are socially constructed, not biological, whereas the wikilinks for male and female ((initially)) refer to that of organisms? I don't think it's particularly important that the wikilink must adhere strictly to male and female genders, only that "male" and "female" are elaborated upon; they can be referred to as either genders or sexes in different contexts: the note added would clarify that here, just as it would at the "man" and "woman" articles.

Furthermore, the male and female articles go beyond organisms in the lede; in fact in the second paragraph: "In humans, the word male can also be used to refer to gender, in the social sense of gender role or gender identity..."

And I am not merely tallying, but analysing specifically were gender is equated with a) male and female etc., and where it is with b) "man and woman, etc.". You claimed that the former "does not seem to reflect the article and its sources", when, just for example, its usage quite clearly outnumbers the latter. Zilch-nada (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

We're now having a split discussion in two sections, which probably is not helping readability, including for anyone else trying to follow along or participate. From my view, this is ultimately about the sources, and how the sources use the terminology, not which terminology is 'outnumbered' in the article.

And I think the wikilink content matters a lot, particularly in this contentious topic area; for example, your proposed change seems to make a major change to the article, because of the content of the organism-focused wikilinks. I do not think suggesting this does not matter is an adequate justification for inclusion - for example, we typically do not wikilink to concepts a speaker does not clearly intend, and this guidance seems reasonable to broadly apply here. Beccaynr (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Would you therefore argue that the articles on man and woman are flawed in their openings for that reason? Zilch-nada (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, the guideline you linked to refers to direct quotations from speakers. The opening line isn't directly quoting anyone. Hypothetically, if 100% of sources described gender in relation to male and female, but the articles on male and female were (as they are currently) organism-based (and therefore supposedly problematic), would you even then support this article using "male" and "female"?

If no, then that would imply that this is a flaw in Wikipedia's own articles; specifically a different article, the ones on male and female; those articles, while undoubtedly important, are not as important as citations from reliable sources. Therefore, we should consider what reliable sources say, more than any wikilink issues that you point out; the former is necessary for this article - the wikilink issues are problems for the "male" and "female" articles. Zilch-nada (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I think I have said more than enough to express my objection to the proposed use of the male and female wikilinks. This article content and supporting sources do not appear to support broadly introducing this article topic with those article links; the wikilinks do not broadly reflect what appears to be intended by this article and its sources (similar to the guidance I noted about quotes from speakers - we would not add wikilinks to quotes from speakers unless clearly intended, so it also does not seem appropriate to do this for entire articles, unless the entire article clearly intends to use a predominantly organism-based definition of gender, similar to e.g. gender-critical feminism and the anti-gender movement). Beccaynr (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The wikilinks issue is a problem for different articles, not this one. I am assuming you therefore object to the style of the man and woman articles? Zilch-nada (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Male/Female is used for Sex. Man/Woman is used for Gender when it comes to specificity though in colloquial usage both are exchanged.

The page should be updated to change usage of Male/Female to Man/Woman and similar for the page on Sex for consistency. Galdrack (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not the case. It's true that man/boy and woman/girl should be reserved strictly for gender, but the adjectives male and female are used interchangeably for both sex and gender in English, even in formal/academic use. The Radical Copyeditor's Editor Style Guide (not a definitive source but useful) describes the male:sex::man:gender dichotomy as a "misconception". I'm in favor of stylistic changes which enhance inclusivity wrt sex/gender, but this is not a hard rule to be followed. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, I do prefer the current text being a man, woman, or other gender identity. I'm open to proposals which include boy and girl in there too if Zilch-nada really believes it's such a glaring omission, but seems unnecessary (and I can't imagine a non-clunky version of that man/boy/woman/girl/other text). As in the WHO source, man and woman are pretty recognizable as collective nouns for all humans of the male and female genders, regardless of age. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

How to word statements like this one, as far as whether to write them using nouns like "men and women" or adjectives like "masculine and feminine" or "male and female", has been discussed many times (and in relation to many articles); I see that many of the most relevant past discussions (about this particular article) have been linked above. Each option has issues, but in this case and context, "being a man..." is significantly clearer than "being male...". -sche (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Why exclude boys and girls from the lede then? Their mentions are sourced by the WHO, for instance? Zilch-nada (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Boys and girls are included in the lead, currently mentioned in the third sentence [1]. Beccaynr (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence, as the WHO puts it? Zilch-nada (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The area of contention is in defining and / or introducing what "gender" is. The mention of boys and girls would be just as important as man/woman in the first, defining sentence, as that is also how reliable sources have defined it. Zilch-nada (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

MOS:LEADCLUTTER says, Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. A broad introduction in the first sentence (which has previously been extensively discussed and developed by consensus), followed by further relevant information that expands on the broad introduction seems to generally reflect the guideline, article contents, and sources. Beccaynr (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence would be less than a line long if we included "boys and girls" as the WHO do. How on Earth is that over-cluttered? Via WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, as I mentioned "woman" being mentioned 19 times throughout the article, "girl" is mentioned 17 times, also in context in relation to gender. These terms are both abundantly used alongside "man" and "woman" if we are employing that (as opposed to male/female) definition. Zilch-nada (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, can you please answer my question from earlier about wikilinks: I am assuming you therefore object to the style of the man and woman articles? (as you say that the wikilinks for male and female are problematic) Zilch-nada (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

References