Talk:Sex–gender distinction/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

RfC on Article Lede

Lede does not summarize article properly and is tautologous. Please help to improve it.

Tewdar (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Anyone think they can do better? Then throw your two pence /cents / whatever into the suggestions section below, preceded by a # for maximum clarity. Perhaps CycoMa, Crossroads, Equivamp, Mathglot, or Firefangledfeathers might like to join the festivities.

Here is the lede as it currently stands:

The distinction between sex and gender differentiates a person's sex from that person's gender, which can refer to either social roles based on the sex of the person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity).[1][2][3][4] In some circumstances, an individual's assigned sex and gender do not align, and the person may be transgender.[1] In other cases, an individual may have sex characteristics that complicate sex assignment, and the person may be intersex.

And here's an example of how the professionals at https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756384/obo-9780199756384-0153.xml handle it:

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, a conceptual distinction between “sex” and “gender” arose in the clinical literature on human psychosexual development. Sex came to signify the biological or bodily component of difference, that is, male and female. Gender, on the other hand, came to signify the social or cultural component of difference, that is, masculine and feminine.

Suggestions Section

1. The sex and gender distinction is a concept in gender studies, feminist theory and politics which distinguishes between a person's sex and that person's gender. Tewdar (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Tewdar, that's a bit short, but it gives us a bit of relevant background information. Still sounds a bit redundant though... Tewdar (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
@Tewdar - thanks for the feedback. Tewdar (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

2. The sex and gender distinction refers to the conceptual differentiation of a person's sex - usually based on biological traits such as their sex cells, chromosomes, gonads, or hormones, and which is assigned at birth as male or female - from that person's gender - generally denoted by sociological or psychological factors such as that person's social role, behaviour or identity, and may be male, female, or non-binary. Tewdar (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi there Tewdar, ooh, "conceptual differentiation", well, I suppose it is really. A bit too much detail though: why not just say "biological traits" vs "sociological, psychological, or cultural factors"? Tewdar (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

3. In medicine and social sciences, a distinction is made between a person's sex and that person's gender expression. Tewdar (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Yo, Tewdar, that looks like a pretty reasonable compromise, why not just put it up as the article lede until someone comes up with a better suggestion? Tewdar (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
@Tewdar - No can do I'm afraid. You clearly don't grasp the Zeitgeist of the project. Tewdar (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion Section

  • Sex is a trait that defines an individual's reproductive role as either male or female, and is determined by genetics and anatomy; gender refers to the cultural and social manifestations that are generally perceived by individuals within a culture as being external or public presentations or projections of biological sex, or the qualities that are socially defined as pertaining to one or the other sexes.
  • The lede should define sex in the narrowest of terms (more in depth discussion of exceptions etc can go later in the article). If it doesn't, the explanation is likely to go over readers' heads, and it isn't the goal to sow confusion. (also there should not be any doublespeak jargon here - sex is only "assigned at birth" in the relatively uncommon cases when anatomy is ambiguous. Using that terminology for all cases makes it meaningless in the intersex case and misleads lay readers, as it sounds like you're saying that sex is chosen at birth - i.e., "doctor, I would like this child to be a boy; please assign it as such accordingly." "Certainly, Madame.")
  • Contrariwise, gender should be defined in the broadest possible terms. Don't go into any specifics at all regarding gender in the lede sentence. This is because genderal manifestations vary significantly from culture to culture and there is almost no universal features across cultures that relate to gender. Like, seriously, none. So leave all further specifics and discussion for later in the article.

Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Is the above in bold being presented as a candidate for the lede? If so, could you move it to the "Suggestions Section" above? Tewdar (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • It's good that the RfC notice was taken down; this is far too open ended to be a successful RfC. Those only really work as a decision between discrete choices. It seems that just having a parenthetical after "sex" mitigates the issue here. So why not do that? Something like: "(the physical trait of being male or female)". Crossroads -talk- 05:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I suspect that without the RfC notice, it would have been just me, you, and CycoMa here, just like the last discussion... Tewdar (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, that is pretty much what we had already, until a few months ago when it was unilaterally decided that such a parenthetical was "not needed".Tewdar (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe Tewdar intended to ping me and the other users listed above, but that the notifications didn't generate because it only works when you add the user links in a new line edit with a new signature at the end. Courtesy pings for @CycoMa, Equivamp, and Mathglot: Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: editors may be interested in this archived discussion. I would be fine (at least as a rough starting point) with Crossroad's recent suggestion above or either Crossroad's or Mathglot's suggestions from the prior discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh my, that’s a lot. I have two ideas we could do.
Maybe we could combine all that in the lead and give clarification to all that.
Or we could mention the various interpretations regarding this topic.CycoMa (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we should be aiming for something more like the Oxford Bibliographies example above ie summarizing the history of this concept and contemporary discussion of it. Tewdar (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • One thing I think we most certainly need to avoid, is something like "biologists define sex as X, sociologists define gender as Y, therefore by the powers of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, the sex-gender distinction is the difference between X and Y, problem solved, you're welcome..." Tewdar (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Should I assume that one or both of my lede suggestions above are so brilliant that nobody can see any way of improving upon either of them? Perhaps we should have left the RfC notice up... Tewdar (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Okay, after the huge number of quality entrants into the new lede suggestions contest lasting several days now, perhaps we should have a quick non-binding straw poll to see if there's any kind of consensus as to which suggestion is the least terrible. Let the voting commence! Inviting:

@CycoMa, Equivamp, Mathglot, Crossroads, Firefangledfeathers, Firejuggler86, and Newimpartial:Tewdar (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Commenting here due to my input being requested twice. I don't like either of the options currently in the Suggestions section. I think most attempts to include the verbatim phrase "sex and gender distinction" will sound awkward, and it isn't necessary to phrase it that way. I don't have time right now to actually contribute much to this discussion, and don't know when I will have time (hopefully before the RfC concludes) so I won't comment further for now. --Equivamp - talk 17:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, sorry for pestering you. I will try to integrate your comment into my suggestion. Tewdar (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Definitely not pestering, and I appreciate three consideration that I might want to comment on this issue. More voices here world definitely be helpful. Just didn't want anyone waiting around for input that might never come! --Equivamp - talk 17:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • No version that describes the distinction as a concept in gender studies, feminist theory, and politics should even be considered, since the sex-gender distinction is now mainstream in medicine and in the social sciences, including demography, psychology, sociology, and legal studies. Newimpartial (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Sweet. Please, put your suggestion(s) in the Suggestions Section above. Also, the discussion section is above. Please move your comment up. Thanks. Tewdar (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
So how about "... a concept in social sciences, including demography, psychology, sociology, and legal studies", then? Tewdar (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Any better? I'm moving this all to the discussion section, hope you don't mind. Tewdar (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose #1, "gender studies, feminist theory and politics" is an unnecessary and overly restrictive list, and the rest is still pretty tautological. Prefer both #2 and #3, though #2 is a bit long, it at least gets into defining what we mean by each, and #3 also has an unnecessary and restrictive list, but at least it's short. --GRuban (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Any objections? @Mathglot and Newimpartial:Tewdar (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah; you can't conduct a valid straw poll when the options are constantly changing; it is a good thing this isn't an RfC.
Also, while "distinguishes" is better than "differentiates", Option 3 is still WEASEL; in particular, a vague gesture to psychological factors is no replacement for gender identity, which is referenced in the status quo. Newimpartial (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. Let's face it, there is only one suggestion. Tewdar (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
FFS; now you have erased gender roles, which are also part of the status quo. You would be better off expanding to include gender expression rather than removing what is already demonstrably part of the concept of gender. Newimpartial (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
As far as I know, "gender roles" was not removed from my suggestion by my last edit. It is not clear what you are suggesting. Tewdar (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, I do not find "FFS" to be particularly civil. Please aim for a more academic tone. Tewdar (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
"Gender roles" is in the status quo. When you inserted "gender identity", you removed all the relevant disciplines from the list in your previous draft, including the ones that use roles rather than identity to define gender. I suggest that you stop mucking around with numbered options, and maybe let someone draft something more coherent than you seem able to manage.
Also, FFS is an expression of frustration I mostly hear from academics. If you don't want to hear such expressions of frustration, perhaps stop frustrating your interlocutors. Newimpartial (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, I have never prevented anyone from drafting something more coherent than I seem able to manage. FFS... Tewdar (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
To be fair, you do seem currenrly to be consuming most of the oxygen in the "room". Newimpartial (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
To be even more fair, despite this section being up for several days, nobody could be bothered to add any suggestions except me. Tewdar (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

And you don't see that - and the explicit !votes to the same effect - as an endorsement of the status quo? I find your lack of faith disturbing. Newimpartial (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

At this point in the "discussion", I would be prepared to accept "In medicine and social sciences, a distinction is made between a person's sex and that person's gender, which can refer to... (current lede continues)", just to avoid the awful tautological violation of MOS:LEAD.Tewdar (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Or even, "A distinction is made in various academic disciplines between a person's sex and that person's gender, which can refer to... (current lede continues)" Tewdar (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
First of all, that is ridiculous, because the distinction between sex and gender is not only a part of medicine and the social sciences, or even "some academic disciplines"; it is equally a part of biology, law, human rights, and ordinary lived reality. It is also used by governments, corporations, and practitioners in many domains, not simply by "academics" - that is a fundamental error. And I haven't seen any support on this Talk page for your proposal to limit the scope of the distinction.
Second, what part of the MOS:LEAD guideline do you find to be violated in the current lede? I'm talking about actual guideline text - if you can identify that, perhaps we can actually get somewhere helpful. Newimpartial (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
MOS:REDUNDANCY - Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence. Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article.
Current lede: "The distinction between sex and gender differentiates a person's sex from that person's gender..."
FFS Tewdar (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Even this would be an improvement, perhaps: "A distinction is made between a person's sex and that person's gender, which can refer to... (current lede continues)" Tewdar (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
It might be best to offer a linguistic frame: "In English-speaking contexts, a person's sex is distinct from their gender: the latter may refer to..." (and possibly tag gender expression along as a third element of the sentence). That, at least, is the most MOS:REDUNDANCY-compliant suggestion I have seen today, and the latter part of the lede makes reference to languages in which the distinction is not so clearly labelled. Newimpartial (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Fine, fine, fantastic, I agree, hallelujah, shall I edit the page or do you want to do it? Brilliant, only took eight years but finally we have a solution, my faith in Wikipedia pages and their associated talk pages is restored, hurrah, hurrah... Tewdar (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Since you suggested it, I added it. It changes very little except to remove redundancy, so I don't see how anyone could object...Tewdar (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose all three. Option 1 is too restrictive (it is not limited to those fields) and strangely-worded besides (what is "politics" in this context? What on earth does that mean?) Option 2 is excessively verbose ("conceptual differentiation", massively long definitions while still having to hedge with "usually" and "generally"), and lists out genders at the end in a restrictive manner as if there's a canonical universally-accepted list of exactly three genders, which is both inaccurate and unnecessary; we don't need to go into that depth in the first sentence. The third one runs into the same problem as the first in that it starts with an overly-verbose list of places where the distinction is relevant, yet it still fails to capture all usages even in the article. I don't think it makes sense to try and shoehorn "this distinction is used in these fields" into the first sentence of the lead when the usage is so broad. The use of extended parentheticals is not great, either. We are not going to perfectly and exhaustively define sex and gender in a single lead sentence, and trying to do so is either going to get us inaccuracies or an overly-verbose lead sentence (or both.) I would honestly suggest just taking the current lead and adding "physical" before sex - yes, of course that's incomplete, since it's just a quick lead sentence, but it's a phrasing that is reasonably common in this context in the literature as a quick summary, and it won't mislead the reader; it gives the general sense of what's being talked about without being misleading. Later, more detailed definitions in the article won't contradict it. There are probably a few other small tweaks and improvements that could be made to the current lead sentence but I don't think it requires massive overhauls. --Aquillion (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Briefly, for the record, I don't think adding "physical" to sex would be an improvement - to me that raises more issues than it would solve. Newimpartial (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose all 3. 1 and 3 inappropriately limit the definition to certain fields, which is not correct. They all remove the explanation of how gender can mean gender roles or gender identity in the sentence, which were beneficial because some uses of the distinction are mainly about one and not the other. Prioritizing "gender expression" as the main meaning of gender, like 3 does, is highly misleading. 2 inaccurately defines sex.
    Suggestion: Per MOS:AVOIDBOLD, as noted by Mathglot above, we should remove the unnatural redundancy in the beginning of the sentence. It could look like this: "A person's sex ([definition]) may be distinguished from that person's gender, which can refer...". Then, for the definition of sex, we can use what I suggested earlier, which received no objections: "(the physical trait of being male or female)". Seems straightforward and to satisfy the complaints given so far. Let's keep it simple, not waste a month on a massive RfC, and go with it. Crossroads -talk- 01:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Only the most skeletal and uninformative of ledes will raise no objections. So why not try "A person's sex (NO DEFINITION!!!) may be distinguished from that person's gender, which can refer...", I would be happy with anything that doesn't approximate "The sex and gender distinction is the distinction between sex and gender" at this point. FFS... Tewdar (talk) 07:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Of course now, there will be an objection to "may be..." Tewdar (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Summary

After participating in this discussion, I feel I have a much firmer grasp of the Zeitgeist of the project. Tewdar (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar:, just a procedural note: if you're not familiar with WP:REDACT, please have a look. It makes it almost impossible to interpret the comments in a discussion when early versions of a proposal are changed later on while the discussion is still going on, and after some opinions have already been registered. (This is basically the same point Newimpartial was making here.) If you think better of one point in an early proposal and want to modify it, use strikeout and underline (but this will invalidate or render inscrutable any responses to that point); if you want to abandon an old point in favor of a new one, just strike the old one, and add a new one below (with a new number, if they're numbered, without renumbering any of the old ones). Mathglot (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
@Mathglot - Thanks, this advice has added to my understanding of the Zeitgeist here. Tewdar (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of the distinction

I want to add this:

Mikkola[63] states that "[m]ost people ordinarily seem to think that sex and gender are coextensive: women are human females, men are human males. Tomás Bogardus points out that, according to this perspective, there is no sex/gender distinction. Describing this as the "traditional view", he notes that it is widely rejected by most contemporary feminist philosophy, which generally asserts that gender categories are not defined in terms of biological sex. He concludes that the view that there exists a sex/gender distinction is "more often assumed and asserted than argued for" and that "the enthusiasm with which this doctrine is asserted is all out of proportion to the strength of the arguments in its favor."[64]


There is almost zero criticism of the distinction in the article, and not much philosophy. Tewdar (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

There is plenty of criticism of the distinction in the article; I don't see any significant body of scholarship or opinion that this source would represent. Also, the idea that there is no sex/gender distinction seems quite self-evidently WP:FRINGE. Newimpartial (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

"We knew all along!"

So what? Tewdar (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hurry up, I'm eating soon! Tewdar (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I’m on currently on vacation with my family. At the moment I can’t so you are gonna need to wait until I get to my hotel room.CycoMa (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"...is distinct..."

To whom is sex distinct from gender?

  • Canadian Statistics Collection Agencies - Definitely.
  • Feminist theorists - The dominant orthodox view, although there are quite a few dissenters.
  • Psychologists - Erm. We're a bit confused really. Bit of a grey area. Can't we just, sort of, combine the two? There, that's better!
  • Biologists - Gender? You mean sex, right? Right?
  • Philosophers - The table I am writing this paper on may or may not exist. Same goes for the sex/gender distinction.
  • Ordinary folk - Isn't gender something to do with "der, die, das" in German?

So, isn't the opening statement, "a person's sex is distinct from their gender" a bit strong? Even the Wikipedia article disagrees with its own lede! Tewdar (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know who your "ordinary folks" are, but the (middle-brow, at best) CBC in Canada maintains a consistent distinction between sex and gender, as do other media of record. In fact, I can't think of any that don't. Where I live, this distinction is clear all the way from constitutional law (where sex and gender identity are each, distinctly, constitutionally protected against discrimination) to everyday language. You would really have to show that some English-speaking community somewhere does not make the distinction - which all the "gender critical" denialists actually do. They typically recognize the distinction conceptually and then insist that one side of it - gender identity - isn't "real" or shouldn't be recognized. You would need to find actual, non-esoteric sources that don't make the distinction at all, or insist that sex and gender are the same thing, and I haven't seen any such sources. Certainly all of mainstream psychology and psychiatry over the last 15 years does make the distinction.
And if you see any part of this article denying in Wikivoice (or as a non-FRINGE opinion) that the distinction exists, please let me know so we can edit that out. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Quite common to refer to "sex/gender" or "gender/sex" in psychology. Philosophers are fairly skeptical too. As are the "ordinary folks" - hewers of wood and drawers of water...at least, where I live... Tewdar (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Biologists, if they use "gender" at all, usually mean "sex". Tewdar (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
According to the sources I see in biology and medicine over the last 15 years (e.g., [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]) the distinction between sex and gender is pretty well-recognized in those fields. And the main authorities in Psychology (in the US, Australia, Canada and the UK, at least) seem clear on the distinction as well. But if you want to argue that many professional philosophers are confused about sex and gender, I won't be the one to stop you. Newimpartial (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I do indeed want to argue that the sex and gender distinction is contested in philosophy, psychology (those weren't "authorities" on this subject!), and much ordinary discourse. I could give you a *lot* of contemporary biology sources, human or otherwise, where the terms are conflated, and even feminist theory has a few dissidents. "Is distinguished" is my compromise solution ("is often distinguished" would be more accurate, but...)
Does this mean you are giving your approval to "... is distinguished..."? Tewdar (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
No, I am not acceding to "is distinguished". If all relevant authorities make a distinction between two things, those things are distinct, not distinguished.
And WP:MEDRS - specifically WP:MEDORG, tells us to pay particular attention to Guidelines and position statements provided by major medical and scientific organizations, such as the ones I linked to in psychology. By policy, we do indeed treat them as authorities on WP, within their respective domains. Newimpartial (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Social science is purer than physics then, or so it would appear from this article's lede. No room for dispute here, it seems. Tewdar (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why you say that about the lede. From Speed of light: The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. I'm sure you could find hewers of wood and drawers of water who don't grasp that concept, either, but WP doesn't do any hemming and hawing in that case, nor in most IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
The sex and gender distinction is not a universal physical constant...
How about "is disrinct..." :-) Tewdar (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Do you think you could master your colon key? Either that, or install a gadget to indent your Talk page contributions. And, well, no.
And no, it isn't a universal physical constant - it is a distinction, in the English language. It identifies two distinct things. Newimpartial (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I didn't think the colon key worked on mobile view mode, sorry... Tewdar (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Yep, I was right. Tewdar (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

See, I have to either click "view as Wikipage" *every time I comment*, or switch to Desktop view permanently, which is not nice on a phone. Blame the devs, not poor ol' Tewdar... Tewdar (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, hang on... it works after a few minutes...? Tewdar (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Aaah... it does work! Tewdar (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Blue Sky Compendium of Instances of Sex and Gender Used Interchangeably

Ridiculously, I have been asked to provide citations for the claim that the terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably. Here they are: Tewdar (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  • "In social discourse and for purposes of some official documentation, the words “sex” and “gender” are often used interchangeably, the latter sometimes being a genteel euphemism when mention of sex might cause social discomfort or seem provocative." - https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijgo.12573

Obviously if these terms are "often used interchangeably", they may not always be distinguished. Tewdar (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Tewdar, sources that say, essentially, that there is a distinction between sex and gender, but that other sources ignore or misuse that distinction, cannot be used as support for your contention that there is no such distinction. You would need reliable sources that actually deny that the distinction exists. I see nada. Newimpartial (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Newimpartial said: "So if you want to say, "people often use sex and gender indiscriminately in everyday life" please offer sources to support that"
Now you want something else apparently. Tewdar (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
"Support for your contention that there is no such distinction" - I have claimed no such thing. Tewdar (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the colons. Now, per WP:LISTGAP, please stop adding gratuitous hard returns.
Anyway, here you are quoting a comment I made on my Talk page, which is what I like to call an "example". What I said on this Talk page, and which you have failed to respond to this far, is You would need to find actual, non-esoteric sources that don't make the distinction at all, or insist that sex and gender are the same thing, and I haven't seen any such sources. That is, you would have to do so if you wish to make an argument that sex and gender are distinct is somehow too strong a statement for the sources to support, which is what you have argued repeatedly, right here. If all authorities in the topic agree that they are distinct, then they are distinct, even if other authorities note that everyday language does not always maintain the distinction. As you have pointed out, the article reflects the latter as well, but that doesn't affect the validity of the first sentence of the lede.Newimpartial (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Judith Butler

I have an issue with a certain sentence

“ Judith Butler also criticizes the sex/gender distinction. Discussing sex as biological fact causes sex to appear natural and politically neutral. However, she argues that "the ostensibly natural facts of sex [are] discursively produced in the service of other political and social interests." Butler concludes, "If the immutable character of sex is contested, perhaps this construct called 'sex' is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps it was always already gender, with the consequence that the distinction between sex and gender turns out to be no distinction at all."[76]”

Why is this article treating Judith Butler like she’s some kind expert on the biology of sex. She is merely a philosopher and gender theorist, she has no expertise in an form of biology. Wikipedia shouldn’t treat individuals who have no expertise on a topic as experts.CycoMa (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

That also goes for this.

“ Rather than viewing sex as a biological construct, there are feminists who accept both sex and gender as a social construct. According to the Intersex Society of North America, "nature doesn't decide where the category of 'male' ends and the category of 'intersex' begins, or where the category of 'intersex' ends and the category of 'female' begins. Humans decide. Humans (today, typically doctors) decide how small a penis has to be, or how unusual a combination of parts has to be, before it counts as intersex."[72]”

We shouldn’t be treating these individuals like they are experts on the topic when they clearly aren’t. This is fields like giving fringe ideas due weight.CycoMa (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Think about the title of this article, which defines what it is about. You could no more distance Butler, who is one of the premier theoreticians of gender, from this article, than you could one of the top biologists or sexologists from the article because "they have no expertise in gender". In fact, Butler writes extensively on the distinction of sex and gender, and is known internationally for it, and so it would be expected that she would be amply referred to here, or quoted. Mathglot (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Mathglot she may be an expert on the gender aspect but, she clearly isn’t on the sex aspect.
I mean just because you know there is a difference between A and B doesn’t mean you are an expert on B.
I mean you wouldn’t cite a technician for an article on physics.CycoMa (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Butler's quote is not discussing the biological aspects of sex. The existence of non-biological aspects of sex is not a fringe idea, and Butler is well-qualified to discuss and critique the sex-gender distinction. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers that’s fair.CycoMa (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers non-biological aspects. What do you mean by that exactly? Do you have any examples, because I was always told gender and sex were two distinct things. Sex being the biological while gender is the sociological.CycoMa (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Sex (in humans specifically) has aspects covered by medicine, law, athletics, history, philosophy, and more. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay sure, I guess sex in a way does vary depending on context.
Biologists might say sex in humans determined by sex chromosomes, doctors might say your sex is assigned to you at birth, and sociologists might say sex is determined by society.
My overall issue is that it appears she is interpreting a biological concept like it’s some political thing or it is something created by society.
(Or maybe I’m misreading it).CycoMa (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Actually - since this has come up again in my discussion with Tewdar - Butler is in fact arguing that the biological concept of sex is socially constructed. This is a fairly standard, "philosophy of knowledge" position and is correctly reflected in this article as an attributed viewpoint. It deserves to be in the article, and Butler is perhaps its most prominent representative when it comes to "sex", but it is not the consensus view to be presented in Wikivoice. Newimpartial (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Newimpartial that sounds similar to the arguments anti-evolutionists make. Fun fact are you aware social constructionism is criticized for the fact that it misuses or ignores facts by the biological and physical sciences about certain topics.CycoMa (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I said as an attributed viewpoint and I meant it. I am well aware of the diversity of epistimologies prevalent within Science and Technology studies; there is no need to rehash them here. (I myself am a philosophical realist, more or less.) But if the sociology of knowledge folks sound to you like anti-evolutionists, then I'm afraid you aren't reading for content. Newimpartial (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Just to make things clear I said that it was fine to include her views on the subject.CycoMa (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Overemphasis on "biological" sex as defined by biologists

The gamete size definition of sex so beloved of biologists does not find a lot of use in the literature from sociology, feminist theory, gender studies, psychology, or philosophy, all of which usually define sex much more broadly, where the use generally seems to approximate "physical or anatomical traits". I suggest the "biologists" section be reduced and /or moved to its rightful place on the "Sex" article. Tewdar (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Good luck with that one. Newimpartial (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
What do you mean? You had trouble with this before? Tewdar (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Sure. Notably on Sex and on Woman. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Tewdar there is a reason that. Because the difference in gamete size is the first sex difference which (supposedly) all sex differences originate from. Also it’s a definition you can apply to all plants and animals.CycoMa (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for enlightening little ol' me. The thing is, most social scientists, psychologists, philosophers, etc. *aren't talking about gamete size* when they talk about "sex" *in the context of* "the sex and gender distinction" which is a very well-known topic with a lot of history that very rarely mentions gamete size. Please familiarize yourself with the relevant literature. Tewdar (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Also I don’t think the biologists section should be moved out of here.CycoMa (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, the contents of this article should be based on the sources for the topic of this article, not the things you happen to know to be true. Newimpartial (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Newimpartial by the way I’m not one who included the gamete size thing in here. That was here way before I joined Wikipedia.
Also what’s wrong with including biologists definition of sex in general?CycoMa (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I am not attributing its addition to you or saying whether or not it should be there. I am merely pointing out that it should only be included if it is DUE in relation to the sources on the topic of this article, and also pointing out that the reason you offered above is based on what you happen to know to be true - which is not a policy-relevant consideration. Newimpartial (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Newimpartial you aren’t making since. You keep saying what “I know to be true” is that a nice way of saying “you CycoMa you are a POV pusher”. The sources in that area in general are reliable, I mean are gonna call people like Richard Dawkins unreliable?CycoMa (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Actually sorry about. But out seriously I honestly don’t know what you mean by that.CycoMa (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
If you are asking me whether I think "selfish gene" theory is intellectually cogent or whether it has stood up to the last 25 years of criticism and scientific advance, of course I do not think so, but that is off-topic for this page.
And Cyco, I am not saying any such thing about you or your POV. What I am saying, quite simply, is that the text of this article needs to be based on the sources on the topic of this article - WP:NOTTRUTH might also be worth you looking at, as you decide what may or not be relevant factors to present as we make these content decisions. Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial technically they are relevant to the article. The article has been discussing the difference between sex and gender.(aka biological sex and gender) Plus this article has been discussing various views on the topic from feminists, doctors, government organizations, and etc.CycoMa (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, "sex from perspective of biology" is not what this article is *about*. Please read the relevant literature. Tewdar (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Um I just said this article has discussed the matter from various views.CycoMa (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying the stuff about gamete size shouldn't be there at all. Just that it has marginal relevance to the article. It should be okay now if the stuff under it (phenotypes, sexually dimorphic traits) is reworked a bit. Tewdar (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure maybe it does need some rework. Maybe it should explain itself a bit more.CycoMa (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I see no such overemphasis. Regarding "most social scientists, psychologists, philosophers, etc. *aren't talking about gamete size* when they talk about "sex"", well, neither are biologists. In all cases what is being talked about is a whole phenotype, in biological parlance. It's true that sometimes treatment in non-biology fields differs a bit, and this is already noted in the article. One field that was not mentioned above is medicine, and their treatment of the topic tends to align with biology, as here. Medicine and biology are vastly larger fields than "sociology, feminist theory, gender studies, psychology, or philosophy". Additionally, sex is ultimately a biological entity, and hence biology is the most authoritative field on the topic. The philosophy of, say, climate change, or the sociology of climate research or adaptation, may be of interest, but carries less weight on the topic of climate science itself. Crossroads -talk- 03:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
The "Sex:Biologists" section is almost entirely focused on anisogamy, which most biologists consider to be the "essence" of biological sex. And they're right! But the "sex and gender distinction" is not primarily a discussion about biology, just like the "mind-body problem" is not primarily a discussion about biology. "Sex" in this context usually means something like phenotypes or sex-derived traits, as you state. Tewdar (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Tewdar I’ll just say this one could argue that the biological sciences are more objective than the sociology, gender studies, philosophy, or feminist theory. Also one could argue three of the forms of academia I just mentioned are political and bias in nature.CycoMa (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iatl/study/ugmodules/humananimalstudies/lectures/32/nagel_bat.pdf "What is it like to be a bat?"
"Bats are mammals of the order Chiroptera. With their forelimbs adapted as wings, they are the only mammals capable of true and sustained flight. Bats are more manoeuvrable than birds, flying with their very long spread-out digits covered with a thin membrane or patagium." Tewdar (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Back to the topic, this article concerns the distinction between sex and gender. What any one editor believes to be more objective scholarly disciplines - or whether objective scholarship is a good thing, what objectivity means and whether it is even possible - are topics in scope for other articles, but not really for this one. Newimpartial (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
https://xkcd.com/435/ Tewdar (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Newimpartial what editors believe is more objective is irrelevant. I didn’t say I think it’s more objective I said others may argue it is more objective.
Also here on Wikipedia we are supposed to represent the majority view. Which is what has been done in that section.CycoMa (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Cyco, if you meant others may argue then you should have said "others may argue". What you actualy said was one could argue, which does not mean the same thing, at least not in English. If you don't mean to indicate that you believe these disciplines to be political and bias in nature, or you don't mean to raise issues of bias that are somehow relevant to this article, then I would ask you to say what you mean (and only that). Newimpartial (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Newimpartial I have seen scholars argue that one is more objective than the other, I have read sources from scholars saying the social sciences are subjective. Also I’m pretty sure you aware things like gender studies have been called out for being biased and political by scholars.CycoMa (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
So what? I'm pretty sure WP:NOTFORUM applies to article Talk pages. Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Blue Sky Compendium Volume II - Cloudy Skies

Tewdar (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Sociology
"I would say finally that I believe that the sex/gender problematic is also wrong in its apparent assumption that a straightforward distinction may be made between these two terms. To do so reproduces the old dualities between nature and culture. But the world may not be parcelled up in this way."
https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-954X.1996.tb02960.x
  • Psychology
"Gender/sex is an umbrella term for both gender (socialization) and sex (biology, evolution) and reflects social locations or identities where gender and sex cannot be easily or at all disentangled. Gender/sex is useful in describing people and features,as both can involve phenomena that are not easily sorted into gender or sex."
https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10508-015-0490-8
  • Philosophy
."As Mikkola (2017) puts it elsewhere, “Most people ordinarily seem to think that sex and gender are coextensive: women are human females, men are human males.” On this view, there is no sex/gender distinction...[i]t’s widely believed in contemporary feminist philosophy that there is a sex/gender distinction...[t]his view is more often assumed and asserted than argued for...the enthusiasm with which this doctrine is asserted is all out of proportion to the strength of the arguments in its favor."
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-019-00157-6
  • Biology
"...the use of gender has tended to expand to encompass the biological, and a sex/gender distinction is now only fitfully observed."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15146141/

Can't see the sky - much as I would like to agree with the first author, taking essentially the Judith Butler position, that the sex/gender problematic is wrong to assume biological differences are naturally given and that sex cannot operate as a natural base in a theory of difference, the position that the sex/gender distinction isn't viable because sex differences are just as socially constructed as gender differences is clearly WP:FRINGE in the context of overall scholarship on the distinction.

The second source provided doesn't actually challenge the sex/gender distinction at all, only its usefulness in certain circumstances.

The third source, apparently Tewdar's favorite philosopher, is clearly part of a vanishingly small minority within their own discipline - as their own article acknowledges. So no, I am not seeing any non-esoteric reliable sources challenging the distinction. No there, there. Newimpartial (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

As to the biology source, it is 17 years old and fairly crappy. Comment added by Newimpartial (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2021

Cited by 294 on Google Scholar...Tewdar (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I rest my case. Newimpartial (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@Newimpartial - It's almost twice as many as the 153 (combined!) citations for Laura Palazzani's "Gender in Philosophy and Law" and L. Gordon's "On difference" in Genders (1991) which are used to justify the statement "Female can refer to either sex or gender" on the "Female" page!Tewdar (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
My Compendium isn't complete yet, I'm just a bit busy right now! :-) Tewdar (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, I'm not convinced it is FRINGE. Perhaps it's more like "alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community" which "are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective." Perhaps SWIY (with relevant knowledge, obvs) could come along and help us decide. Tewdar (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm always glad to hear that my own personal views are not considered FRINGE but regardless, the view that sex like gender is socially constructed is clearly the view of a small minority, mostly of sociologists and philosophers. This by the way is a completely different perspective from that of Mikkola.
And for the record, I did expect that you intended to add further obscurity to the section, when you had time. Newimpartial (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
In a way saying sex is socially constructed is sort of fringe. Most scholars don't think that.CycoMa (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
As noted above, I understand why you would say that. Newimpartial (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Just to make sure there isn’t any miscommunication going on here you said this, the view that sex like gender is socially constructed is clearly the view of a small minority, mostly of sociologists and philosophers.CycoMa (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Yup. My belonging to this minority doesn't make it appreciably less small. Newimpartial (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Well I guess it’s only fringe if it’s a really small view.CycoMa (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
If you want to argue with Tewdar about how small a minority it is, go for it. I'm staying out of that one. Newimpartial (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Source [6] too broad

Source [6] is too board. Put a tag on it.CycoMa (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Why did you remove the tag? I won't revert your tag again, or report you through the pathetic Wikibureaucracy system...what's your solution, since that page range is basically the range of legal systems alluded to? Your approach, like that of many of those involved in this group of articles, is utterly baffling. Tewdar (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
In transparency, I asked CycoMa to self-revert. I am AGF that the current page range is relevant to the claim; I can't access that source. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I mean, those chapters are covering how various juristictions distinguish and recognize sex and gender in law. I could just cite the pages that state exactly how they are distinguished. Is it really unreasonable to cite relevant sections from a book? Tewdar (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
i don't think so. FYI, the tag template guidance says "circumstances may warrant a larger range, such as a whole chapter". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I switched it to cite the shorter summary chapters from the beginning (which summarizes the broad medical and legal background) and a bit of the summary from the end (which summarizes key points of the more detailed legal discussion in the block above) that covers the relevant parts, though as I said this is more of a summary sentence, whose citations are better-found in the body where we can go into more detail on each point. --Aquillion (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Given the breadth of the sentence in question I think it falls under the sort of lead-summary sentence that does not necessarily require a citation anyway; what we should worry about, instead, is making sure that the relevant material is in the body, where it can be discussed in more depth with more specific citations (for "social and behavioral scientists", "many legal systems" and "government bodies"; we might be able to find a single easy source that covers all three at once, but since it is a summary sentence in the lead it is not necessary to do so as long as the body covers each.) At a glance the body does appear to cover those parts in depth? Or if there's a part you feel isn't sufficiently covered, which aspect is it? --Aquillion (talk) 07:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Wow wait to ignore everything I just said. Thank you very much for that.CycoMa (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Source number [6] cites pages 109-316 that’s like over 200 pages. There is literally a template for ( right here)

It’s unreasonable to expect readers to read through over 200 pages just to verify a claim.CycoMa (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It's fixed now. Why not try and tone down the hyperbole a bit, hmm? It's not good for you or anyone editing the same page as you. Tewdar (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
The source was only put there because unreasonable persons keep requesting that sources be put in unreasonable places in the article, despite the claims being simply a summary of the body of the article. Tewdar (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sex–gender_distinction/Archive_3&oldid=1143559107"