Talk:Gender/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

Poor opening sentence and conflicting information

The opening sentence and some information in the article (for example, Biological factors and views) is based in an outdated definition of gender. Nothing about gender is based in biology. "Sex" is based in biology; "gender" is based cultural perceptions and attitudes about behavior that is considered appropriate to a given sex. As the article stands, I am loathe to link to it from other articles because it is so inaccurate. There is so much misinformation in the general population about gender and I see such misinformation has led to some edit wars so I am reluctant to make changes. Meclee (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Meclee, see the past discussions at the Talk:Gender/Archive 4 for (mainly) why the lead is currently the way that it is; indeed, as the article shows, some WP:Reliable sources use the term gender to refer to biological sex or define gender as including biology. It's all there in the extensive discussions I've pointed to. To simply state that gender is a social construct is a violation of the WP:Neutral policy. The lead begins by mentioning the different things that the term gender/concept of gender refers to when it comes masculinity vs. femininity. Also see the Sex and gender distinction article . Flyer22 (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I've stated before at this talk page and elsewhere on Wikipedia that I generally adhere to the sex and gender distinction, but that's my personal view that should not influence this Wikipedia article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
On a side note: I've never heard/seen a biological viewpoint of gender referred to as outdated; out of the sociological and biological views, I would think that the sociological view would be considered the outdated one...since the traditional definition of gender is to simply refer to it as a social construct. Flyer22 (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Meclee: Unfortunately many other non-social science fields still consider it based on biology. If we were talking about the sociological concept, I'd agree, but this is a broader article than that. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
EvergreenFir, you were talking to Meclee or to the both of us? Flyer22 (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Meclee. Forgot to use {{replyto}}. Fixed now. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you also tweaked the WP:Indentation, which is why the current WP:Indentation is a bit off. Anyway, for an article purely about the social construction of gender, we do have the Social construction of gender difference article; much in the same way that the Gender article needs a lot of fixing up, the Social construction of gender difference article is also a mess, but Thatguykalem has committed to fixing it up at some point. While gender is widely accepted as a social construct, such as by the World Health Organization (WHO) (seen here), Thatguykalem is correct that the alternative point of view should feature more than it currently does in that article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Neither viewpoint is "outdated", it just depends on what definition of 'gender' you are using. Unfortunately, our current article seems a bit schizophrenic and contradictory in this regard, especially the opening paragraph. The first sentence awkwardly attempts to combine the various definitions into one. The second sentence then effectively says "Nevermind, the meaning of gender actually depends on the context." I propose that we delete the first sentence and start the article with the second sentence. Kaldari (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:Lead sentence, the lead should start with a definition, if possible. In the case of gender, it is possible to start with a definition. And starting off by stating that gender is "a range of physical, biological, mental and behavioral characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity" is basic and accurate. Stating that "Depending on the context, [gender] may refer to [so and so]." is not truly a definition. It's also not a "never mind" sentence; it's an elaboration sentence. Keeping all of that in mind, I can't agree to begin the lead with the second sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The main problem with the current lead sentence is that it is effectively nonsensical due to awkwardly combining the biological and sociological definitions. The lead sentence should either say:
"Gender is the range of physical, biological, mental and behavioral characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, men and women."
...or...
"Gender is the range of attributes, roles, and behaviors pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity."
Which of these sound like a better definition to you? Kaldari (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Considering that gender is all of those things, I don't find the current opening sentence nonsensical. Your first proposal is not much different than the "Gender is the range of physical, biological, mental and behavioral characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity." wording that we have there now; the only difference is that your proposal trades out "masculinity and femininity" for "men and women." And considering that the whole gender thing starts before a person is a man or a woman, and "men and women" can also be considered limiting due to the third gender and genderqueer topics, I prefer that we don't use "men and women" for the opening line. We used to use "males and females" for the first line, and that's more accurate than "men and women," considering that the term gender relates to boys and girls as much as it does to men and women, is used to refer to non-human animals, and science has not identified a third sex. Intersex people are sometimes classified as a third sex, but they are not actually a third sex (something I recently noted here); they are a combination of the sexes. Even so, because, at its core, gender is about masculinity as compared to femininity, and because of the binary objections that can result from "males and females," I think that we should stick with "masculinity and femininity." "Masculinity and femininity," while one can call that listing binary, is considered more fluid...which is why the androphilia and gynephilia topic is based on it. And as for your second proposal (again, though, I personally employ the sex and gender distinction), I object to your second proposal because it is only defining gender socially (unless one wants to state that "attributes" is the exception), which also does not flow well with the second sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Various proposals have been made for a lead sentence, and various proposals and changes to the lead sentence have proved problematic due to whatever editor objecting to whatever particular lead sentence, as the archives show; again, the current lead is a result of all of that discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Masculinity and femininity are sociological constructions. It doesn't make any sense to say that they have biological and mental characteristics, regardless of how much there may be actual biological and mental differences between men and women. If we're going to talk about masculinity and femininity, rather than biological gender, we should be talking about outward aspects and characteristics (which can include physical and behavioral differences), not intrinsic biological and mental differences. If, however, we are talking about intrinsic biological and mental differences, we should use the biological terms 'male' and 'female'. I realize the lead sentence has already been thoroughly discussed, but the current version just doesn't make sense. Kaldari (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
What is a "man" and what is a "woman" are also often argued to be social constructions, which is why it's common for "man" and "woman" to be designated as gender categories, while "male" and "female" are designated as sex categories. It's also very clear from the Man and Woman Wikipedia articles. So again, I don't understand the point of changing "masculinity and femininity" to "man and woman."; and above, I've already addressed other reasons that I don't see it as an improvement. As for calling masculinity and femininity biological; in part, they are considered biological. And, yes, I'm aware of the extensive debates you've had at the Femininity article about femininity being social, and the biological aspects that are attributed to it simply being due to what society labels as masculine or feminine, but I'm not interested in those debates being had at this article. And again, the same can be said of what is a man or what is a woman. Yes, "masculinity and femininity" has more range than "man and woman," which, as noted above, is why I prefer it to "men and women."
As for the "If we're going to talk about" aspect, as also noted above, this article is not about one or the other; it's about gender as a social construct and as biological. The fact that far too many sources debate what gender is, and one too many Wikipedia editors will challenge either a solely sociological lead sentence or a solely biological lead sentence, is why I can't agree to either being the lead sentence. For the lead sentence, I agree to identifying the range of what the topic of gender entails. The current version of the lead sentence not making sense depends on how one defines gender. For example, because Meclee subscribes to only the sociological view of gender, the article as a whole does not make sense to Meclee. Even though I usually subscribe to the sex and gender distinction, the topic of gender as biological is not at all confusing to me, since I've studied a variety of aspects of it that don't only relate to the sociological viewpoint. Flyer22 (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I wouldn't mind much (notice that I stated "much") if we go back to "males and females" in place of "masculinity and femininity," especially since "masculinity and femininity" can refer to objects (as opposed to humans or non-human animals). But I prefer that we use "masculinity and femininity" instead of "males and females" for the reasons that I've addressed above. Another option is the following: The actual WP:Consensus version of the lead (well, what became the WP:Consensus version after the matters shown at Talk:Gender/Archive 4#The lead and Talk:Gender/Archive 4#Lead and third gender/biological sex discussion led to the lead staying that way for months) read as "Gender is a range of characteristics of femininity and masculinity." As seen at Talk:Gender/Archive 4#Lead and third gender/biological sex discussion, my "22:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)" post noting this and this edit, the wording was changed by Auró adding "mental and behavioral" and by me adding "physical" to make of up for Auró's version being limiting. The lead then read as "Gender is a range of physical, mental and behavioral characteristics distinguishing between masculinity and femininity." And, at some point, as seen by this edit, "biological" got added in by an IP. I initially objected, but left it in; I feel that "biological" is covered well enough by "physical" in this context (and if we mean "biological" regarding mental aspects, "mental" is already noted). "Biological" was recently removed by an IP, but EvergreenFir reverted the IP. At one point, an IP attempted to add "emotional."
So keeping all of that in mind, I suggest we word the lead sentence the following way: "Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity." That wording is pretty much the WP:Consensus wording, but slightly tweaked. And for the second sentence, I suggest that we trade out "the term may refer to" wording for "these characteristics may include." This wording clarifies that we are addressing what we mean by the word characteristics in the first sentence. So then the second sentence will read as: "Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e. the state of being male, female or intersex), sex-based social structures (including gender roles and other social roles), or gender identity." Flyer22 (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
You make a pretty solid argument. I'm fine with going with your suggested wording. It's less complicated than what I was suggesting and ties the two sentences together better. Plus, because it clarifies that the specifics depend on the context, it will hopefully be less contentious. Kaldari (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Tweaked it with my suggested wording. Yeah, I can't see this wording being too contentious, if contentious at all. Flyer22 (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Simply noting here for talk page documentation: I also made this minor tweak to the lead's hidden note and removed some WP:Citation overkill from the lead with this edit. Flyer22 (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
And with this edit, I moved the hidden note to an earlier position. Flyer22 (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

What's going on in the "Science Encompassing a Gender" section

So this section starts off citing male scientists of the past as basically saying "Women should stay out, science is men's work". Then it goes into two quotes by women, also from decades past, saying "Yeah, science is pretty masculine". It then seems to devolve into incomplete and malformed sentences, which seem to be trying to communicate how it's not uncommon for female scientists to hid behind male personas, but I can't tell for sure because, again, they're not real sentences. Something about women delving deep into the jungle for years? An anecdote about women taking trips to give birth? This section simply is simply not coherent, and has but a single citation. Improve or remove. 72.66.108.44 (talk) 07:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I see it's a longer version of what is in Women_in_science#Science_and_gender. To start, I put several sections under a larger "in society" section just to make it more logical. Will think about other tomorrow. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It is astonishingly ironic that the author of the above sentence finishing, "they're not real sentences" immediately follows the claim by four "not real sentences"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.123.49 (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Other Cultures?

The section on cultural perceptions of gender, for example two-spirit people in Native American culture, appears to be missing ? Did no one ever write it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.194.198 (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The concept of "gender" being different from "sex" only works within the context of a single culture. If you look at other cultures it becomes obvious that the things that are being associated with gender are totally relative and infact are sexist stereotypes. For example in many countries men wear what we would call a dress. To address other cultures would be to disprove most of the claims made in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.136.200 (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Questionable Content

There are a few examples, just one being the following sentence under the Measurement of gender identity section. "This conceptualization on femininity and masculinity remains the accepted standard today.[43]" That is certainly an overstatement. In the next section, Feminism theory and gender studies, it notes Mary Hawkesworth's claim that "feminist political science has not become a dominant paradigm within the discipline" in relation to the shift of analytic categorization in which the quoted sentence is a derivative. Also, if nothing else, the citation for the quoted sentence is a marketing report regarding consumers, hardly an appropriate reference for such a claim.Maxxx12345 (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Gender vs. sex

Hello all. I see that the image () and one or two other spots are inconsistent in their use of the words "sex" vs. "gender". This should not be confused: in particular, the image shows symbols used to denote one's biological sex. Any objections if i fix this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulVanDerWalt (talk • contribs) 13:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

PaulVanDerWalt (talk · contribs), we've debated "sex vs. gender" at this talk page times before, as recently as what you see at Talk:Gender/Archive 5 and sort of at #Gender identity above. As the Gender article states, the terms gender and sex are commonly used interchangeably. Not everyone adheres to the sex and gender distinction; in fact, it seems that the vast majority of people these days do not adhere to it. Therefore, I don't see the issue that you do with the lead (first) image that is currently in the article. I also don't know what other parts of the article you are referring to, and exactly what you are proposing. For example, are you proposing to change the lead image or not have any lead image until a better one is found? Flyer22 (talk) 05:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Flyer22 (talk · contribs) OK, i guess i wouldn't be the first indeed to discuss this, haha. The issue for me is the title/filename and caption of that image: i believe in each case that gender should be changed to sex (not necessarily removing the image, although that might be better since it focuses less on a binary gender distinction -- but i suspect i'd only be pushing my own [non-binary] agenda if i suggested that). On closer reading, i think that's all for now (i did indeed imply more in my initial comment, but that was after a very hasty reading of the start of the article, so i retract that, sorry). The image bothers me a bit though since it's quite prominent. PaulVanDerWalt (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes to the article

Shmapple shauce has been making changes to the article. Two of those edits have been altered or reverted so far, once by EvergreenFir (seen here) and once by me (seen here). Shmapple shauce, I see that by clicking on your contributions that it currently states at the top, "Shmapple shauce is a student in Human Development (course talk)." So you are editing the Gender article as part of a WP:Class assignment, correct? Whatever the case, do you mind slowing down on your changes to the article and explaining here on the talk page what changes you are looking to make? This will allow others to better interact with you, and possibly help you. For example, you are WP:Overlinking in some cases. Flyer22 (talk) 06:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Noting here that two more editors, Sloan.16 and StylusOne, from the Human Development course are editing the Gender article. Is there anything in particular that you all have planed for this article? Continuing to edit the article as part of a WP:Class assignment without participating here at the talk page might not be the best route to go. Read WP:Class assignment, if you have not already. Flyer22 (talk) 04:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Flyer22 We have a very general assignment of improving the page by adding citations, information, and pictures. There will be five us that are editing the page from now until December. It is all our first time editing, so thank you for your advice. Sloan.16 (talk)

Adding of 'gender and climate change'

I just added the section 'gender and climate change' to gender and society. I know that climate change is not regarded as part of society by many people. However, since in this case it is mostly about the social dimension of climate change (and, as discussed in the text), a purely technical framing of climate change may be problematic[1]) Please feel free to comment! Theo-bromin (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ MacGregor, Sherilyn. "A Stranger Silence Still: The Need for Feminist Social Research on Climate Change." The Sociological Review 57 (2010): 124–140. Web.(accessed October 25, 2014).

Gender identity

The one revision was inappropriate. "Changed first line back to how it was. Except for genderqueer cases, gender identity is not usually a choice." That represents a specific philosophical view, and is not neutral. There is also a problem with consistency. Besides issues with there being a choice in the sub-category and not in the overarching category (a possible categorical error), the editor who revised the original statement notes that in their philosophical view the issue of choice is present. In short, the revision itself acknowledges that it contains an error. This is further illustrated by the first sentence of the following paragraph, which quite clearly, illustrates the problem with not allowing such a choice. This is just a fairly straight forward contradiction, which further illustrates the lack of consistency. I've returning the inclusion of the word 'choice' to the opening sentence of the section. Ideally, the section would receive a rewriting, better balancing the multitude of schools of thought on the subject, with less of an emphasis on Butler and her derivative views. Maxxx12345 (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This revision that you speak of was not inappropriate. And, regarding a similar edit you made, I explained why on your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we get another editor to address the inconsistency in the article? Obviously there's a problem regarding some sections stating there is a choice, and stating there is no choice as the editor, Fly22, has posted. The contradictions in this section need to be addressed. Maxxx12345 (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Like I just stated here at your talk page: Different beliefs among people about what gender identity is should be in the Gender article. We include different definitions and views of biological sex, gender and gender identity in the Gender article, just like we include different definitions and views of domestic violence in the Domestic violence article. We include WP:Notable definitions and views in articles that have more than one definition or view for a topic. You have once again cited the topic of gender binary, as if that changes the fact that people usually identify with a gender by age three of four; in the usual case, it is not a conscious choice at that age (except for natural gender variance aspects that can happen as a child is exploring what it means to be a boy or a girl), but rather what that person feels internally is their gender. You act like not including the words choice or chooses to for the sentence you challenged means that we are stating that people are born with a gender identity; it's not a matter of "you are born this way or you are raised this way"; it is a complex combination of biology and environment, just like sexual orientation is. You want to call gender identity a choice, when it is, in fact, not a choice for the vast majority of people. That is the problem with your edit. Leaving the words "chooses to" out of describing gender identity is not a problem; stating "Gender identity is the gender a person identifies as." is neutral, and does not speak of whether gender identity is a choice or not. Stating "Gender identity is the gender a person chooses to self-identifies as." is not neutral. And has a grammar problem with the word self-identifies; should be self-identify.
And as for why I told you to not bring this matter to my talk page: You took the matter to Boomur's talk page. Article matters should ideally be dealt with at the article talk page. I prefer to keep talk page discussions centralized; see WP:TALKCENT. Further, stating or implying that editors are engaging in WP:Advocacy with regard to this gender identity topic, as you have done on your talk page and here, should stop. My user page is very clear that I do not tolerate WP:Advocacy. I am going by what the overwhelming majority of research states of gender identity; WP:Due weight and all that.
To others: Take note that, besides taking this matter to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy (noted above with this link), Maxxx12345 also took this matter to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions; see here. Flyer22 (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Maxxx12345 replied further at the Maxxx12345 talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Maxxx12345 keeps replying at the Maxxx12345 talk page, as seen here, even though I mentioned there that this discussion should take place at one talk page. So if anyone wants to read additional replies from Maxxx12345 on this matter, perhaps check the Maxxx12345 talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 07:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it really not possible to get another editor to do something as simple as read the introductory material from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry regarding the subject to fix the fairly straight forward problems in the article? That would seem quite reasonable for an encyclopedia entry, particularly considering that there are problems with edits by people who don't seem to understand even the basic differences between particularity and normative positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.117.176 (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see that 108.25.117.176 (talk · contribs) is also 108.25.112.234 (talk · contribs) (see here and here). Best to ignore then. Flyer22 (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
And now, thanks to this, this, this and this, I know that IP 108.25.117.176 and IP 108.25.112.234 are Maxxx12345. Apparently, my "04:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)" above comment inspired Maxxx12345 to start WP:Hounding me by going to talk pages I have commented at and attributing my editing and things I support as problematic, despite my editing and things I support being in line with the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. WP:Pinging I JethroBT, who blocked IP 108.25.112.234, so that User:I JethroBT is aware of this. Flyer22 (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change to the article: Kate Bornstein

Just passing through, and I have a change to propose. The mention of Kate Bornstein under "Social Assignment and Gender Fluidity" and the referenced book do not fit the scholarly approach of the article. While I am not familiar with the name or the book, cursory investigation revealed that she has no experience as a researcher, no credentials to indicate that she is an academic authority on sociology, psychology, physiology, or medicine, and no relevance to the topic other than her personal experiences as a self-identified transgender individual and her performances on the subject. 'Gender theorist', to the extent of my knowledge and awareness, is not a title conferred on or held by Bornstein, and the cited work appears to be autobiographical, and not clinical or academic in nature. Gender fluidity is a new concept, one still being explored and evaluated, and not fully reconciled to existing bodies of knowledge; the line appears to confer an inordinate degree of established credibility to the concept and the author. I therefore propose that the reference to title be removed, and the line be moved lower in the section, or removed from the article, per WP:IRS. talkHuntingTarg (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

HuntingTarg (talk · contribs), I moved your comment down, since your comment is essentially a new topic and, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout, newer sections go at the bottom. Flyer22 (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


The removal of Bornstein is one of several changes that still needs to take place. The sections, Feminist theory and gender studies, and, Social construction of sex hypothesis, are confused and mix contradictory positions through-out, largely for failing to simply demonstrate an absolutely necessary issue: essentialist and anti-essentialist positions. Butler is presented, several times in fact, as both an essentialist who holds gender is constructed by society and an anti-essentialist holding that gender is preformative. She is, quite famously of course, the latter. Without noting at least an introductory level understanding of essentialism (that gender is reducible to biology, that gender is socially constructed, both essentialist positions) and anti-essentialism (that gender is preformative, and/or that gender is choice dependent, that there is no essential predicate, biological, societal or otherwise) the article will continue to confuse and misinform curious minds, and make old hands of the subject cringe. This is precisely where the non-binary approach to gender originates, it has to: it can ONLY come from an anti-essentialist position. Essentialist positions are inherently binary, anti-essential positions are inherently NOT binary. These two sections need some work. There seems to be some confusion regarding the philosophy in question. Maxxx12345 (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

A recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Needing to edit this heavily

There's only two genders as far as I was told, and raised knowing this, countless scientific CONCRETE evidence has shown that there are only two genders characterized by chromosomes. Why the hell is this even a question? Inb4 this Subject gets taken down 97.85.9.249 (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

See the Sex and gender distinction article (and parts of the Gender article that clearly debate social aspects vs. biological aspects). Gender is more commonly defined in social terms, as opposed to biological terms. And, of course, it's also defined in biological terms often enough. Flyer22 (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
For one, thanks for the quick reply, for two http://i.imgur.com/32dJKye.png I'm going off the definition of it, and often enough isn't enough it should be ALL the time, saying "I'm a tri-gendered pyro-fox" doesn't make me one, it's not the truth it's a huge ass lie, also since you replied quickly, isn't this Talk page broken as hell? can't I just edit what you said to make you look dumb? Sorry, somewhat new to this whole talk section thing 97.85.9.249 (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
First, people can see your edits and will revert vandalism. Editing other people's comments is called refactoring and frowned upon. Second, this is not a forum for your opinions about people's genders. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Modern psychology does support viewing gender as a continuum. Note that Wikipedia simply reports what reliable sources publish, not the opinions of individual editors. And to answer your question, you technically could edit talk page comments, but it would be quickly reverted and you'd likely be blocked for editing the comments of others. ~ RobTalk 20:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@Rob13 Thanks for letting me know about the talk thingy, I assumed Wikipedia kept to the truth with facts to back it up, not because the source is "Reliable" don't take that as intended in Ill-Will, just quoting you
@EvergreenFir I know this isn't a forum about my opinions about genders, when genders are Facts and classified by what's in your pants (Chromosomes technically) same to you, don't take that intended in Ill-Will can't really tell emotion really well over text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.85.9.249 (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
IP, your source relays "the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)." That aligns with what I stated above -- that gender, although commonly referring to biological aspects, more often refers to social aspects. The point is that gender is commonly considered outside the context of biology; see the Genderqueer article, for example. So arguing the chromosomal aspect is more so a biological sex thing. A person may be genetically male, but identify as a female/a woman. Gender identity is about a person's own view of their gender. Flyer22 (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As I'm sure you can see in this article and others on the topic (e.g., sex and gender distinction and intersex) that the topic is much more complicated than genitals. Academic sources think of gender as a spectrum, an identity, etc. and this article reflects that fact. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22 So they "Say" they are, when they aren't and the Gender Wikipedia page is acknowledging it rather than condoning it? If so I misunderstood and I deeply apologize, don't get me wrong I'm all for people wanting to be a Man, when they are a Woman, or vice versa, it just pisses me off seeing "I'm a guy because I Said so, it's idiotic and wrong. Makes me mad when people are being something they aren't, that and the Genderfluid bullshit, "Oh, I'm sorry I was unaware you could change your chromosomes and what's in your pants at will" Ya' know? @EvergreenFir "Academic sources think of gender as a spectrum, and Identity, etc. and this article reflects that fact" It doesn't matter how complicated it is, it matters what the truth is, I'd rather die than see Falsehood on Wikipedia, as much as you THINK that it is, that doesn't matter, again what matters is the truth, if you took the surgery to change your gender then it's true right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.85.9.249 (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You may want to read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, which is an essay that certainly applies in this situation. Reliable sources don't back up your version of the truth. ~ RobTalk 20:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rob13 My reliable source is 190,000 years of repopulation, also, isn't that kinda' flawed? If I say "Hitler did nothing wrong" from a Reliable Source I can post it to his Wikipedia entry no harm done? If so that's somewhat broken, but I can see why it's in place — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.85.9.249 (talk • contribs)

If you can get that past the editorial teams of multiple reliable sources (i.e. New York Times, etc), and it was printed enough to outweigh the existing reliable sources that document his atrocities, then yes, you could include that in an article. The good thing about reliable sources is that the above situation would never happen. Editorial review would prevent it. Reproduction has nothing to do with gender. As explained above, gender describes the social concept, sex describes the biological concept. ~ RobTalk 21:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Godwin's Law has been fulfilled. Recommending not to feed the trolls. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir, I'm not a troll, really just confused as to why we included it when it isn't the truth, and Gender is a Synonym for Sex just so you know, meaning they have the same meaning — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.85.9.249 (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, I see where IP is coming from. These are all criticisms you would be better off lodging with the wikipedia page for "Sex" not "Gender." Sex is that which deals with chromosomes (although how would you describe the following as male/female: X, XXY(Klienfelter), XYY, XXX, XXYY), and gender is that which deals with identification. This is not a complicated distinction, and the consensus agrees with both me and the preceding editors. Wikipedia is not a place for you to rant on about your opinion or unproven truth claims (which yes, would include stating that there are only two sexes, since it is not backed up by literally thousands of pages of documentation).Skberry889 (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, words have multiple definitions, and one definition of one word may be synonymous with another definition of another word. That doesn't mean that the two words always mean the same thing. What this article is dealing with is the definition of gender as an identity.Skberry889 (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Skberry889. I'm confused by your "unproven truth claims (which yes, would include stating that there are only two sexes, since it is not backed up by literally thousands of pages of documentation)" text. That there are two sexes is widely supported by "thousands of pages of documentation." That stated, some researchers, especially social scientists, are defining biological sex more broadly, so that intersex people may be considered a third sex. To state that there only two sex sexes conflicts with that view and with the view of those who consider third gender and third sex to be the same thing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, you are right. I meant to say two genders, not two sexes. My mistake.Skberry889 (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC) The documentation to which I was referring is that supporting the notion of gender fluidity, which is voluminous. The notion that sex and gender are identical is the one being advocated (quite aggressively) by the IP. That there are 3+ sexes is something reasonable people can disagree about. That there are 3+ genders (including someone in the middle of gender fluidity) is not, and neither is the notion that sex and gender are identical. Sorry about the mixup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skberry889 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC) The above comments begining with "Flyer22, you are right" to this point are my comments, and I forgot to sign it, so here I go.Skberry889 (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Non-binary genders

Isn't there ANYTHING at all scientific about non-binary genders? Why can't I find much research? Are they different in any conclusive, objective, measurable way?

Is non-binary a preference? Is it something someone is born as?

Why isn't there much of a mention of it here? Isn't this non-binary erasure? Also, the Venus and Mars symbols on this page constitute erasure, don't they? 71.161.251.19 (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The Gender article addresses non-binary gender in the the lead (the hijra of India and Pakistan mention), and in the Social categories section. The Gender identity article also addresses the topic of non-binary gender, and we also have the Genderqueer article. Non-binary gender is not yet given much attention in the Gender article because no one has gotten around to doing that, understandably so since the vast majority of the world and literature on gender adhere to the gender binary. Also, the Genderqueer article is the main article for the topic of non-binary gender. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Also see the Sociology of gender article. Since masculinity and femininity, and blending between that, are socially constructed (depending on the aspects that are not directly based on the biology of males and females), stating that people are born with gender preferences is understandably highly debated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

History of the distinction between 'gender' and 'sex'

The article says "The modern academic sense of the word, in the context of social roles of men and women, dates from the work of John Money (1955)". However, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the distinction appeared in print somewhat earlier:

  • 1945 Amer. Jrnl. Psychol. 58 228 In the grade-school years, too, gender (which is the socialized obverse of sex) is a fixed line of demarkation, the qualifying terms being ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’.
  • 1950 Amer. Jrnl. Psychol. 63 312 It [sc. Margaret Mead's Male and Female] informs the reader upon ‘gender’ as well as upon ‘sex’, upon masculine and feminine rôles as well as upon male and female and their reproductive functions.

The 1945 article is by Madison Bentley. The quoted sentence appears without crediting any prior source, implying that either it's Bentley's idea or it's a well-known and accepted one. The 1950 item is a brief review of Mead's book Male and Female, signed "M.B." I wonder if Bentley learned the distinction from Mead, either from an earlier publication than the book or from personal contact. Linguistatlunch (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Gender and Social Media

Hey Alex and Steve! I really like what you have for this article! You guys put a lot of good thought into this, and you hit a lot of good points that I think are very important to this topic. I guess I really only have a few things that I would suggest to change. First of all, your study that you mention about facebook users is from 2010, which is a little out of date, especially for social media. This is a super powerful statistic, and I think it would be even more powerful if you could find something from a little bit more recent of a time frame.

"Teens as a demographic group are avid internet and social media users in the United States. A recent survey found that almost all U.S. teens (95%) aged 12 through 17 are online, compared to only 78% of adults. Of these teens, 80% have profiles on social media sites, as compared to only 64% of the online population aged 30 and older. According to a study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 11-to-18 year olds spend on average over one and a half hours a day using a computer and 27 minutes per day visiting social network sites, more than one fourth of their daily computer use" This is a little long to quote word for word. I would try to paraphrase part of it and quote part of it. You guys did really well, so you can definitely be proud of this article! (Annieee95 (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC))

File:Combotrans.svg

Why not alter this so they look linked? The way it is now, one is in front of the other.

New Gender symbol

Would anyone object if I had this done? The each color should go both over and under each the other, so it doesn't look like one is in front and the other behind. Chrisrus (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Chrisrus (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2016

Requesting an update on the articles meta source. Currently if you google the article what comes up is this: "There are only 2 genders. Male and Female. Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gender&oldid=722247975" ..." Screenshot: http://puu.sh/pJ2iR/fb3a4b01c6.png

Please update so the current introduction ("Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between and from masculinity and femininity.") can be seen instead.

Satisfriend (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: 1) This is nothing from our side. It is a search engine issue.

2) I saw something similar on the AN or VP page, there is indeed a weird issue when you Google gender, you get the correct summary, but when you Google "gender wikipedia" you get the one in the screenshot. I am not sure if there's any resolution other than waiting for the search engines to be updated. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I am seeing the same result as the OP when I search Google for gender (I'm searching from California/USA), even without adding the "Wikipedia" search term. I hope the cached content is updated soon. Fortunately this page is now semi-protected for year, so that should cut down on the vandalism. Funcrunch (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gender. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2016

The line "There are only two genders" was taken down from Wikipedia even though that is correct. For the love of righteous education, put that line back and stop making wikipedia, which is supposed to be a neutral site, represent political views of the left (neither the right). Wikipedia is a neutral site so put that line back so when young children and teens use wikipedia to gain knowledge on this issue, they will have the right knowledge.

STOP pandering to the left and STOP worrying about people's sensitivities. If you do not want to edit that line into the wikipedia page then I would be happy to do it for you.

Thank you.


2605:6000:6C47:B900:1DD6:2AB8:91C0:2C5A (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment, it may be perfectly acceptable to talk about gender as a binary conceptualization given that there is significant literature on the subject as such. Generally, it seems to fall into a range of differing classifications, of which a binary construct may be one. But EGF is correct, that this requires reliable sources considering the subject in binary terms. It's more about academic views than political ones. TimothyJosephWood 14:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2016

When googling the term "gender", the Google snippet for this article states "There are only 2 genders. Male and Female.", and it does not show the first lines of the actual article like other Wikipedia articles do. This text that Google shows when you search for the article is not in accordance with the information from the article itself and should be replaced with the first lines of the article, as is the case with any other Wikipedia article. 145.132.185.172 (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be a Google problem and not a Wikipedia problem. TimothyJosephWood 22:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Sigh, I thought this problem was resolved. Google is displaying a May 26, 2016 revision of this page, which was swiftly reverted. (The page is now semi-protected due to a lot of disruptive edits like that one.) Weeks ago I submitted a request to Google to remove that link from their archives. Not long after, the search began correctly returning a snippet from the updated page, but now it appears the problem has returned. I don't know how else to stop Google from displaying this outdated information in their results. Funcrunch (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I've changed "answered" to "no" because I don't consider this matter closed, even if we can't fix it directly by editing the Wikipedia page. I did some research and according to a Google help page, snippets (which is where the incorrect information is currently being displayed) are completely automated, and Google cannot change them manually at their end. I also checked Google's current cache of the page, and it is from August 1, so that at least is up to date. (I did the search and cache check from a browser that was not logged into my Google account, to make sure that didn't influence the results.) I'm concerned about this issue, and wonder if there is a place on Wikipedia I can post to get more answers. Funcrunch (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@Funcrunch: WP:VPT would be the appropriate place to ask about this. I'm not sure anything can be done on this page though at the moment. AFAIK, you just wait for the google spiders to come and cache the page again. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I've posted at the Village Pump at your suggestion. As I mentioned above, Google's cache of the page itself is up to date, so I don't think this is just a matter of waiting for another spider run. Funcrunch (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Funcrunch, no issue with changing "answered" but please read the text in small print about when to change "answered" to "yes". [1] Generally, it's when an answer is posted, not when the matter is closed. --NeilN talk to me 04:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Update: The Google text snippet for Gender is now up to date. I'll be keeping an eye on this search, as this problem was previously resolved and then reoccurred (as I mentioned earlier in this section). Funcrunch (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

As I feared, the problem has resurfaced. I've posted an update at the Village Pump thread. Funcrunch (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Changing the Google summary of the article

When you search on Google "How many genders are there" it insufficiently summarises that "There are only 2 genders. Male and Female" - as well as being socially incorrect, it goes against a lot of what the article discusses regarding sex vs. gender. There are only two sexes, yes. Gender is viewed widely as a social construct[1][2], and whilst I understand Wikipedia is an intellectual source-based site, perhaps some more ambiguity/flexibility is required in this otherwise blunt description. This is a highly topical debate[3] right now, too, and Wikipedia is a leading site for information, so perhaps should follow with updating their media.

JosieWatson (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I AM AWARE THAT THIS HAS BEEN A POSTED TOPIC: however, I didn't know when I first posted and I want to check people are still on this. I saw someone share the snippet today on Facebook spouting a lot of unfortunately bigoted views, and I wanted to express my upset and hope that Wikipedia can rectify this problem despite the apparent fault being through Google and unfortunate vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosieWatson (talk • contribs) 22:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

18/08/2016 JosieWatson

See my most recent comment in the section above. Believe me, I'm as frustrated about this as you are. Someone on Jimbo's talk page seems to have found a temporary solution... Funcrunch (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2016

pls

205.202.215.206 (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Gallagher, Brian. "63 Genders". The Living Rede. Retrieved 18 August 2016.
  2. ^ "Understanding Gender". Gender Spectrum. Retrieved 18 August 2016.
  3. ^ Williams, Rhiannon. "Facebook's 71 gender options come to UK users". The Telegraph. Retrieved 18 August 2016.

Clunky example.

In the very first paragraph introducing the term gender, when introducing gender roles as a concept it includes an example: "Some cultures have specific gender roles that can be considered distinct from male and female, such as the hijra (chhaka) of India and Pakistan." This is incredibly clunky for a first paragraph of a large article, as it is unnecessarily specific for the opening paragraph that is trying to be concise & overarching.

I would suggest removing it (or simply moving it to another section) Noxiyu (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

The link for this PDF is broken.

Udry, J. Richard (November 1994). "The Nature of Gender" (PDF). Demography. 31 (4): 561–573. doi:10.2307/2061790. JSTOR 2061790. PMID 7890091

The following link leads to the cited article.

http://people.virginia.edu/~ser6f/udry.pdf

Please swap out the old link for the PDF for this new link. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.

 Done TimothyJosephWood 14:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2017

There are scientifically, only 2 genders, and because of this all the other "non binary" genders are false. This is true as there are only 2 possible states for the sex chromosomes, XX or XY. THERE ARE NO OTHER SCIENTIFICALLY RECOGNIZED GENDERS. Luxemburgur (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done I'm not entirely sure what change you want to make, and I don't think I'd be making it even if you explained it clearly. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2017

Replace "The modern academic sense of the word, in the context of social roles of men and women, dates from the work of John Money (1955), and was popularized and developed by the feminist movement from the 1970s onwards (see § Feminism theory and gender studies below). "

with "The modern academic sense of the word, in the context of social roles of men and women, dates at least back to 1945,[1] and was popularized and developed by the feminist movement from the 1970s onwards (see § Feminism theory and gender studies below). "

References

  1. ^ "gender, n." Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford English Dictionary. p. Sense 3(b). Retrieved 2017-01-05.
 Done TimothyJosephWood 13:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gender. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

History

Should there be a history section? Benjamin (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Benjamin, the article already addresses history in its respective sections, such as the "Social categories" section. A History section would be redundant if more material was added specifically to create such a section. And if a History section was created from the existing material, it would mean taking material from sections its best served in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I was searching for information about gender in the past, and it was not particularly convenient. Benjamin (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Benjamin, can you be a little more specific? Are you saying the information you were seeking is not in the article at all, or that it is there, but hard to find due to what section it's in? Can you state a bit more precisely what you are looking for? Mathglot (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Specifically, I was looking for information about the third gender in old cultures. The information is there, but I couldn't find it just by looking at the headings. Benjamin (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2017

Reference 3 does not lead to working page, I was unable to find the article it refers to. 2001:4648:3A46:0:9510:5129:32BA:B969 (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Done Fixed. Added archive version EvergreenFir (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gender. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

checkY The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Use the tools via the links above to fix any problems you find.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Circularity

The "gender" article uses "femininity" in the term's definition, "femininity", in turn, uses "woman", "woman" uses "gender identity", and "gender identity" uses "gender", making the definition circular and uninformative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.254.109.229 (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for Removal

The line "However, examples of the use of gender to refer to masculinity and femininity as types are found throughout the history of Modern English (from about the 14th century)." is factually erroneous. Modern English wasn't spoken in the 14th Century, Middle English was, and the use of the word 'gendre' is already documented above this line. Having done a search for 'gendre' in all known Middle English texts there are only 3 contexts in which is used; 1) As a synonym for 'begat' or 'engender'; 

 Burdones be bestis gendrid of an hors and femal asse. 
 (Beasts of burden are best fathered by a horse and a female donkey)

  If y schal do and gendre a deede of resonyng..y muste haue þe power of resoun as a foundement.
 (If you would do and engender a deed of reasoning, you must have the power of reason as a foundation)

2) As gendered language (masculine, feminine and neutral) 

 In a neutyr gendyr þe nominatyf, þe accusatyf, & þe vocatyf schal endyn in -a.
 (In a neuter gender, the nominative, the accusative and the vocative shall end in -a)

3) In translations of Latin works as a direct translation of 'genus', where it retains its meaning. This one is rare, but it does happen.

No references were found for gendre to refer to biological sex in any context that I could see, and thus any singular use cannot be taken as a standard interpretation of the word.

Thus, this line stating that usage this way dates back to the 14th century is erroneous and is being cited in discussions as a valid source. ShivaFang (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Removed since it was unsourced and you challenged its validity. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2017

First text requested to be changed (location: introduction of the article): Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955.

Text requested to replace this first text: In 1897 sociologist Émile Durkheim defended the idea that the dualism that separates mankind into two sexes has nothing to do with biology and has a historical origin. In 1955, Sexologist John Money turned the same idea into the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role.


Second text requested to be changed (location: 2.2, Social categories): Sexologist John Money coined the term gender role in 1955.

Text requested to replace this second text: Sociologist Émile Durkheim, who coined the concept of social category, is probably the first to conceptualize the male/female dualism as a social category, owing nothing to biology and having its origins in history. In 1897 he defends that this dualism finds its origins in the supernatural powers attributed to blood, particularly to menstrual blood[1]. In 1955, sexologist John Money coined the term gender role.



Third text requested to be changed (location: 2.5, Social construction of sex hypotheses): Sociologists generally regard gender as a social construct

Text requested to replace this third text: Following Émile Durkheim, sociologists generally regard gender as a social construct


Justification of the requests: The idea of gender was very well known by sociologist Emile Durkheim and his pupils (notably Marcel Mauss), even if they called it "sex" (thinking it had nothing to do with biology). These researchers used the word "genre", french translation of "gender", but in its (very different) biological meaning (the English language kept for this other concept the original latin word "genus"). Margaret Mead (pupil of Raddcliffe-Brown who was very influenced by Durkheim), and later psychiatrists like John Money, put new words on an older idea. Note that american and english anthropologists (who greatly influenced people like Gregory Bateson, then influencial on psychiatrists) could not ignore Durkheim's discovery: Durkheim claims it at the end of the first article of the first issue of his new sociological review, L'Année Sociologique. Furthermore Durkheim was the first to conceptualize the idea of 'social category' (criticizing Kant's idealism), and is the main founder of what has later been called social constructivism.

However, I am not a native english speaker and I am afraid the change I'm claiming could be improved. I really do my best. 85.169.37.127 (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "La prohibition de l'inceste et ses origines". Année sociologique. 1 (1): 1–70, esp. second last paragraph. 1897.
Not done for now: This has been sitting stagnant for several weeks. It is not obvious to me either a) that the request has consensus nor b) that secondary sources reflect the history proposed by IP 85. Izno (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that, at best, this information belongs in the Émile Durkheim article. I have been unable to find any library in the United States that keeps copies of L'Année Sociologique, which poses multiple problems. The most obvious, of course, is one of verifiability. If very few readers can verify the information, it is difficult to include it. The second is that the claim that the entire field of sociology follows Durkheim's conception of gender is difficult to sustain when the primary source of that conception is not apparently carried by any academic institution in the entire U.S. The third is that, even assuming this claim is correct, that would mean that sociology had this concept of gender that remained in use but somehow unpublished between 1897 and 1955, which does not appear credible. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not persuaded that it belongs in either one, and I don't believe it's true, either. The article claims John Money invented the expression "gender role" in 1955, and we have a reference for that. If it can be substantiated with a reliable source that someone else used "gender role" at an earlier point, then we should change the article to reflect that. Otherwise, we shouldn't.
I find the argument for all three changes somewhat confused, and based on original research. For one thing, you don't "coin a concept", and then relegate someone else's attaching new words to that concept as irrelevant. This is about the expression—i.e., the words themselves. If this is a language issue and you believe that you could express your argumentation in a more persuasive way in French, I invite you to do so on my talk page in French.
@Eggishorn:: The source is here. But claiming "pages 1-70" as support for this novel thesis, doesn't make it verifiable, it merely makes it unsubstantiated original research, so your original objection to verifiability still stands, even with the article in hand. Mathglot (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

No convincing historical evidence of -gen being obsolete

The article fails to fully explore the etymology of the base terms in question and instead explores various philosophies and theories that are not properly evidenced. These items are subjective, not empirical. The referenced claim that the meaning of -gen is obsolete is absent of strong evidence.


The etymology of -gen can be found here: [2] Derived terms such as genos are dated as far back as the 11th century, suggesting the original fragment is older than that.

Words that remain in use containing -gen and sourcing their meaning from the original meaning of the fragment: genre, genes, genetics, genealogy, generation, genitals, genitalia, general, genesis, and genus. The meaning of the root word fragment being obsolete is not apparent when considering these terms.


Sex has a Latin origin from about 1520: sex This is a much younger term from a different language and nation.


The article does not refute the historical significance of the gender, rather it reinforces its legitimacy as a scientifically sound means of distinguishing biological differences between hermaphrodites, females, and males. Evidence shows gender and sex have meant the same thing since the origin of the word sex. The use appears to be strictly preferential, making the distinctions drawn by the referenced sexologists fallacious on their part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImAnEinstein (talk • contribs) 09:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2017

Danishzaheer (talk) 05:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/494955

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2017

Hello I am a frequent user of Wikipedia can I please add my gender roles upon this site. 68.57.48.56 (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Hello I am a frequent user of Wikipedia can i please add my gender roles upon this sight.

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gender. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2018

2 genders — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cracksack (talk • contribs) 15:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2018

106.207.170.32 (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sakura CarteletTalk 15:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Experiences and social expectations

I think its important to mentioning the definition that gender is about the collective experiences of a group of people who define themselves alike and the two most important variables in defining an identity group are similarity of A) experience and B) the social expectations put upon them ex: gender roles. Not just what they look like or their body parts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.141.63 (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2018‎ (UTC)

Hello anon. Well, rule number one when suggesting changes to article is to base those changes on sources that meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability. If you have references handy for the content you would like changed, we can certainly look into those and see how they might be used in the article. GMGtalk 14:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2018

Simple edit. "social conformity with expectations for either of the two main sexes;" to "social conformity with expectations for either of the two sexes;". This is due to the fact there are only two genders. Other "genders" are only social constructs that exists only to promote a sense of freedom and power. ElijahKayneSadi (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: Changed "either of the two main sexes" to "males or females", which should be clearer for everyone. feminist (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 Not done for the other part - see Sex and gender distinction - Arjayay (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Shift in meaning of gender role

The article should make it clear that a significant change has occurred in the meaning of Gender role since Money first defined it in 1955. His original definition of "gender role" pertains to a single individual, and what they do to make their gender manifest to others. This is what we would nowadays call "gender expression."

The current meaning of gender role is quite different, and refers to the set of societal standards or expectations (including "expression") for someone of a particular gender, masculine or feminine. Looking at it from a different perspective: in gender expression, the individual is the actor (performer of gender) and society is the audience perceiving a M or F; in gender role, society is the actor (laying down rules/expectations and judging people) and the individual is the object of these expectations and judgments and liable to suffer more or less severe consequences for transgressions from the norm.

In fact, many terms in the area of gender have undergone an evolution in meaning; gender role is only one example. Shifts in the meaning of transsexual, transgender, and transvestite (not to mention queer have been noted elsewhere, as have the rising and falling fortunes of uranian, invert, and homosexual; hermaphrodite and intersex, and so on. Beyond temporal variation, there is also regional variation among English-speaking countries. It might make sense to have a central location somewhere that discussed all this, and the gender article seems like the logical place to do it (perhaps with {{Main}} links to more detailed discussions in other articles). The other approach would be to create a Terminology of gender article (or Evolution of gender terminology, or History of gender terminology), which would easily have enough material to fill a complete, even lengthy, new article. Mathglot (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


Everything in this article is pretty much relevant to the topic addressed. It is a very neutral article, as it should be, and addresses every side of gender that many feel comfortable with. The links I clicked on were good, intelligent sources that provided useful information. The last time this article was edited was January 29th 2018, so the information is fairly recent.However, there are a few binary concerns and requests to edit various parts of the article. It is a level 3 vital article and a delisted good article. It is an interest in many Wikiprojects. The article touches upon several aspects of gender we have discussed in class and not only limiting to just male and female. Paigehutner (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Binary concern

I have a concern about the prevalence and clout that binary construction has on the article, while third sex/intersex/genderqueer notions are an afterthought in the leading paragraph. Does this seem a bit bias? Darksol503 (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Darksol503, considering that the topic of gender is overwhelmingly binary, I don't see the issue. Per WP:Due, the article is mostly about binary aspects of gender, but non-binary and third gender aspects are discussed in more than one section. It's not just the "Legal status" section that discusses them. And intersex is not a gender even though it's addressed in this article because of gendered issues attached to the topic of being intersex. The article satisfies WP:DUE and WP:Summary style as far as the non-binary aspects go (genderqueer, third gender and intersex). There are main articles for those aspects. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
The lead is meant to summarize, but it could do with a little more expansion on non-binary issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I tried to make some improvements on the non-binary content, both in the body and the lead. Kaldari (talk) 07:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The more I look at this article, the more I realize that it's a complete mess. Kaldari (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it could start as this?
Gender is the range of characteristics based around a number of factors, with the most common being female and male.
Otvm (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Otvm, that's too vague, and "masculinity" and "femininity" should be emphasized in that first sentence. The biological sex aspect (male and female) is addressed soon enough in the lead. For your proposal, I also see that you WP:Pipelinked "femininity" under "female" and "masculinity" under "male." That's a bad idea since they don't mean the same thing. See WP:EGG. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I guess I would also add that the "spectrum" of genders is a fairly new phenomenon, and one that is practically non-existent for the majority of ordinary people, especially those who are isolated from academia and particularly progressive social circles. We have substantial coverage of them already on the encyclopedia, but it's not totally clear that this is or will become a central feature when considering the subject of gender over the entire history of our species. GMGtalk 04:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

disambiguation

I come here looking for gender, and do I find? some new, loosely related, sexology concept, which actually belongs in gender studies article. Not at all what I was looking for. this article should be gender (sexology) or gender (sociology) or something like that, just like in articles in different langage it is linked to. How a concept born in 1957, and widespread in the 70s, as per article own's, can be deemed more important than the old gramatical gender is POV. namely : Money's POV. Well, not even Money's, but Money's afficionados run amok. I guess american puritans (and this include "progressives") just cannot use the word sex, and had to colonize another word, gender, instead. But, still, this is supposed to be an english language encyclopedia, not an american puritan's, isn't it ? 2A01:E35:8A8A:FEA0:E41A:AB6C:266F:5676 (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see Sex and gender distinction -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender/Archive_5&oldid=1074331557"