This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The article's introduction contradicts itself. It first explains what a woman is, in scientific terms, but the last paragraph says "some women are trans (those who have a male sex assignment)". Assuming that "having a male sex assignment" is a euphemism for being biologically male, the sentence could be simplified to "some women are male" which is a direct contradiction of the prior definition. Suggestion: keep such clearly ideological formulations out of Wikipedia and make the mention of trans women more objective and neutral, such as: "Some male people who are transgender identify as women, in which case they are called a trans woman. There are differing positions regarding whether trans women are women, on the basis of gender identity or having underwent medical procedures to alter their body." The main body of the article could go into detail on the various positions. According to my past interactions with some politically active and highly ideological transgender people, I suppose that they might be unhappy with neutral and objective language being used to describe them, but that's what Wikipedia's goal is, right? Surely Wikipedia doesn't validate any ideological belief as a fact just because its proponents are otherwise offended? Ragstexas (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Before discussion really starts on this issue, could the poster please go through the archive of this Talk page and see how it turned out, say, the last three times it was discussed? It might save us all some time, before the poster wastes any energy promoting their ideological beliefs as fact. Newimpartial (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I do not agree with Newimpartial's characterization of Ragstexas's post. Ragstexas position is reflective of mine and what is plain sense. WP will keep running into people noticing this plain contradiction and keep commenting on in here until it resembles something that makes sense.Maneesh (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Have you read the last three talk page discussions of this, Maneesh? I'll wait. Newimpartial (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Ragstexas and Maneesh, I made this edit, stating, Per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and the latest round of complaints on the Talk page. None of the "last three pages" of discussion I am aware of commented on the exact wording of this sentence. "Some women are trans" reads confusingly because "trans" in isolation from "man" or "woman" is not really used as a word outside of casual LGBT discourse - typically "trans-" is a prefix. This wording does not change the meaning - trans women are still mentioned here, with the word "women". Let's see if this is preferred. If there is a specific past discussion that found a consensus against this, then point it out specifically. Crossroads-talk- 03:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the edit addresses what Ragstexas is saying, the contradiction appears simply to have buried under a layer of language. "Trans women are those whose sex assignment at birth was male" is dodgy language, any reader who understands biology knows that that sentence implies that trans women are male since biological sex is immutable. It also avoids making it clear just how this class of males can be considered adult females and doesn't let the reader know about the controversy behind that implicit claim. Indeed what is such a controversial claim doing in the lead? The cite doesn't support it either (the quote is about "gender identity"). Maneesh (talk) 06:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The contradiction is totally evident and obvious to any reader. It's not a problem of "possible different definitions": that's practicaly literally true for every single word in any language. The point is that, whatever definitions you prefer, there's no possible honest definition according to which "*female*" is "*male*": that's a logical self-contradiction whatever definition you use and the article, now, says precisely that so I think it needs to be fixed. Bardoligneo (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
It's not that clear at all. Which one of those 2 definitions (sex OR gender identity) you say it is using in the very first phrase ("Woman is a female human being")? Bardoligneo (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The reliable sources say that "A woman is a female human being" either in terms of sex or in terms of gender - or both - depending on the context. That isn't complicated, either. Newimpartial (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
If it read: "A woman is a female human being, either in terms of sex or in terms of gender (self-identification)" or something like that, it wouldn't be complicated as you say and at least unambiguous. It doesn't read like that, though and so it remains at best obfuscated and ambiguos and, at worst and at a plain read, self-contradictory: I support fixing it. Bardoligneo (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I have nothing against clarifying the Lede, a progress to which Crossroads recently contributed. My aim here is to dissuade editors from "clarifying" the text away from what the RS say, which has been e.g the approach shown by Maneesh up to now, including previous times this has been discussed. Newimpartial (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Bardoligneo, as seen at Talk:Woman/Archive 10#Wording, the wording about trans and intersex women was eventually changed to "There are also trans women (those who have a male sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity), and intersex women (those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female." A year later (in 2019), as noted at Talk:Woman/Archive 14#Exact working of sentence regarding Trans Woman, Bilorv changed it to "Some women are trans (those who have a male sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity), or intersex (those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female)." Because of this latest (2020) section on the matter, Crossroads changed it to "Trans women are those whose sex assignment at birth was male, while intersex women are those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female.", which was wording already found in the Terminology section. I don't see how the wording Crossroads used has not resolved what you consider a contradiction. I mean, regarding the latest wording used for trans women in the lead, it seems that you take issue with the word woman in trans woman, but that (aside from simply being called women when no distinction is made) is what they are called. The lead no longer outright refers to trans women as women, except for the word women in trans women. So I'm not seeing what else you want us to do. As seen at Talk:Woman/Archive 14, consensus is for keeping the lead (first) sentence focused on the biological aspect per WP:Due weight; the discussions seen in that archive are also clear that consensus is against removing any mention of trans women from the lead (or the article by extension). You might also be interested in reviewing this discussion at Talk:Trans woman. Because of this RfC, we currently state "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth." in the lead of the Trans woman article. So what you consider a contradiction remains regardless of what we do with the lead of the Woman article on the matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I noticed only now that the contradiction I was speaking about has been mitigated by Crossroads last edit on 28th June: "Trans women are ..." instead of "Some women are trans". This way at least the reader is notified, in a way, that the article is introducing a special case (Trans women ...) and it's not automatic to read the "female human beings" part into it, i.e. the contradiction females have male sex... . As for what I want to do, as you asked, I think Ragstexas proposals at the start were good, so I support those or at least keeping CrossRoads's phrasing of 28th June edit: trans women are... . Bardoligneo (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, Crossroads phrasing too, even if mitigated keeps the contradiction (Trans women are those [women=female etc.]). Even worse it would include every men (male sex assignment) into the trans-women category. So I suggest at least saying "Trans women are people who have a male sex assignment at birth but self-identify as women."(find some source), if not Ragstexas proposals. Bardoligneo (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Bardoligneo, I changed it to state "Trans women are those whose male sex assignment at birth does not align with their gender identity." Your point about mentioning gender identity (like we previously did) is a good point. But stating "identifies as" (or "self-identify as") is a contentious route to take, per the Talk:Trans woman RfC I pointed to. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think "identifies as" should be controversial since the cited source itself says "individual's personal sense of identity ". And it remains contradictory: the only clean and clear solution remains Ragstexas proposal, making clear that we are talking of a specific definition that applies to male people. I.E. at least "Trans woman are people whose male sex [assignment at birth (seems superfluous)]" etc. Bardoligneo (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
It is controversial because, in this context, "identifies as" often carries the connotation "but are not" among those who bring a certain POV into these discussions; those who do not share this POV have learned to detect dog whistles. And you make the subtext text when you refer to "male people" above, assuming the thing you intend to prove. "Male", like "female", is the label for a gender and a gender identity as well as a sex. And on it goes. Newimpartial (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
"Identifies as" is just the definition according to gender that you said was ammissible: what else is "gender" otherwise if not self-identifying? Anyway I think it could be avoided by saying "trans women are people whose male sex doesn't align with their gender identity", so it doesn't use self-contradictory definitions in the very same context and includes more or less the same wording of the source. Bardoligneo (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be some odd dancing around obvious contradictions. I still don't understand this 'at birth' newspeak. Does the male sex assignment change after birth? If not, why is it described like that? How long before the previous consensus should be reconsidered? When Flyer22 says "The lead no longer outright refers to trans women as women...", it doesn't do it outright but there is an obvious interpretation by which it does ("trans women are those [women] who..."). As for WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, the lede and article sentences are identical, it's odd to say the lede follows teh body when the lede is identical with the body. The claim about intersex is absolutely incorrect ("intersex women" are not "those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female", they are almost all women with LOCAH (WP:PROPORTION). If you want to look at things clinically and ignore Fausto-Sterling's 'tongue in cheek' ideas of intersex, they are Triple X syndromeTurner syndrome or Müllerian agenesis. These intersex women have mostly typical female characteristics and atypical characteristics that are exclusively seen in females. Maneesh (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY doesn't mean that different wording needs to be used. The lead of the Intersex article currently states, "Intersex people are individuals born with any of several variations in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones or genitals that, according to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 'do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies'." It is not the only source to define intersex in such a way. For the Woman article, the intersex text for the lead (and lower part of the article) could be changed from "that do not fit typical notions of male or female" to "do not fit typical notions of female biology" (or "do not fit typical notions of a female body or [...]") or something like that. I know that you want mention of intersex women out of the lead, but the consensus is to retain mention of intersex women in the lead; this is per the 2019 RfC that took place on this talk page. And since consensus is for retaining mention of intersex women in the lead, how would you reword the piece about intersex women? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I support "typical notions of female biology". No need to mention "male"; "body" should be avoided because most women who (according to some authors) fall under the intersex umbrella have female bodies. Crossroads-talk- 04:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY says "update the lead to summarize the body"...I somehow don't think repeating the single sentence about a specific topic in the body identically in the lead qualifies as "summarize". You can see the problematic nature of the intersex definitions you cite if you go through the prevalence table and understand some of those conditions. Unsurprisingly the intersex advocacy organization, Interact, does a much better job that accurately describes the set of intersex conditions: "Intersex is an umbrella term for differences in sex traits or reproductive anatomy.", note how the writing there doesn't refer to female/male. "sex traits" is key there and the definition does not inappropriately generalize to "bodies" as some of the definitions you cited do. When understood from this angle, you can see how it is difficult to reason that intersex women ought to be mentioned in the lead, they are generally just women who happen to have certain atypical traits that are closely associated with sex (as opposed to other biological traits like number of fingers, height, tongue size etc.). The narrow case of intersex individuals who are clinically described with the refined "genetic male" or "phenotypic female" are very small, perhaps interesting enough (I think) to be described in the body but you can see how tiny this population is in intersex, and really doesn't need to be mentioned in the lead. Maneesh (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
The "Biology and sex" section also mentions intersex women, and the piece there could be expanded. As for definitions, I think it's clear that the source (I only cited one) is not defining "bodies" to only refer to the external. Otherwise, chromosomes and sex hormones wouldn't be mentioned in their definition. Either way, I'm not looking to debate you on the definition of intersex. I'm also not going to agree to remove mention of intersex women from the lead solely because of your viewpoint, when the aforementioned RfC that took place at this talk page just last year shows that current consensus is for its inclusion. So instead of focusing on removing that piece, I offered you a compromise. If you're not interested in compromising by proposing alternative wording for the intersex bit (at least for a start), I don't see what else to state to you on the matter. Well, except for suggesting that you start a new RfC -- one that specifically focuses on mentioning intersex women in the lead. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that you refuse to look carefully into what intersex actually means. Look at the conditions that fall under the intersex umbrella. Almost all intersex people are plainly male or female, the conditions they have are almost all *sex specific*. The consensus is contrary to elementary fact.Maneesh (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I know what intersex means. I'm not going to repeat myself on what I stated in my "04:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)" post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
But Maneesh, the reason "this narrow case" is mentioned in the lede has nothing to do with the extent of its prevalence and everything to do with its definitional impact. For this reason, it is absolutely DUE for inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
No it is not. The class of "intersex" is made up of almost entirely of plain old males and females and is a gross over-generalization here. If one wants to mention the class of "true intersex" (genetic males, phenotypic females etc.) then those are the specific classes that should be mentioned (which are a tiny fraction of "intersex")...even a little bit of research will show you that summarizing the positions of genetic males and phenotypic females etc. as "women" is difficult to summarize. Some do identify as women, some as men, some as neither. The juxtaposition of intersex and trans is muddling matters here, they are entirely distinct cases. "True" intersex is borderline case which needs to be articulated very carefully and linked in the body probably, I think it is very difficult to summarize in the lead accurately. The way the lead is written now is wrong for the reasons I've already stated. Maneesh (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Newimpartial's reasoning above seems like religious belief (WP:RNPOV). Being in the female sex category and having a "female gender identity" are not the same thing. The common use of of "woman" to mean "actually being an adult human in the female sex category" is much more important (WP:WEIGHT) than the psychoanalytic construct of gender identity. There should be a separate page that explores this religious belief and describes its adherents and opponents (there is a great deal of material out there that describes the positions of these two groups). Maneesh (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Maneesh, this article is not limited to sourcing from biologists and physiologists; it also includes sources such as psychologists, sociologists, legal scholars and demographers, all of whom use the concept of gender. Please do not attempt to deduce my religious beliefs and make arguments on that basis; you are likely to be wrong, and any such discussion is a profound breach of WP:CIVIL in any case.
Also, I never suggested that "female gender" and "female sex" were the same thing, which would defeat the point of having the concepts of sex and gender. The point is that "woman" means female sex and/or female gender depending on the context, according to the sources used in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Is anatomical sex "biological", Maneesh? If not, what is it? Newimpartial (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
You'll have to be precise about what you mean by "anatomical sex" for me to answer. That term just redirects to plain old sex on WP. Maneesh (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, Maneesh. What I was (perhaps obliquely) pointing to is that if "biological sex" - the term you used - is intended to include anatomy and hormones, it is certainly not "immutable". Newimpartial (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Not only is it known that biological sex (to distinguish it from any other odd form of "sex" that anyone would propose, e.g. "legal sex") is immutable along with other related facts like every cell has a sex, this is common knowledge amongst biologists. I will not participate further in the discussion of the sky being blue. EDIT: I've added quotes from Marinov should any reader not be able to access the paper or be inclined to give any credit to the responses below:
"...the objective truth is that sex in humans is strictly binary and immutable, for fundamental reasons that are common knowledge to all biologists taking the findings of their discipline seriously. Denying that sex in humans is binary attacks the very foundations of the biological sciences. This needs to be properly summarized and openly articulated."
So anatomy and hormone levels are not, for you, attributes of "biological sex". Thanks for letting me know. Newimpartial (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, there's no reason anatomy or hormones are any less "biological" in nature than chromosomes. It is "biological male" that is the euphemism, for "classified by me as male because of my political beliefs". There is no contradiction in the lead. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 20:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
And as far as Marinov is concerned, that paper was not published in a journal belonging to a relevant field, does not appear to be peer reviewed, and seems to be by an unemployed researcher post-doctoral scholar without relevant publications. It seems to meet WP:ABOUTSELF requirements only. Newimpartial (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I see instructions to nominate or exclude potential reviewers, but I don't actually see a peer review process anywhere that works apply to all submissions. Do you see something I don't? And all his publications AFAICT are about chromosomes, which aren't really the topic of this article. Newimpartial (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I can see that you don't have much familiarity with scholarly publishing, read the journal page more carefully, it is clear that it is a peer reviewed journal and the submission instructions are entirely standard. As for your claim about Marinov's publications being about "chromosomes", that suggests you don't have much familiarity with biology. His expertise on population genetics (the perspective he writes the paper from) is self-evident, his publications make it clear he is quite qualified. All of this long winded thread has been about sex being immutable, and how that affects the interpretation of Crossroads's edit. It is you you tried to make the nonsense claim of sex not being immutable i humans, it is immutable in and Marinov's paper explains why very nicely (while lamenting that this common knowledge amongst biologists). Maneesh (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
If this was an important message about biology, why was the paper published in a journal dedicated to "protecting academic freedom" and studying "issues that arise from the interplay politics, ideology, scholarship, and teaching"? I know something about those topics and the literatures associated with them - which this preprint(Edit: article published this month) doesn't really engage with in a meaningful way. Which is why I asked (1) why it was published in what doesn't seem to be a relevant journal given Marinov's "expertise", and (2) whether it had been peer reviewed (and I still don't know, in spite of your assurances; there is no clear statement on any of the journal'#s pages assuring comprehensive peer review or specifying the number of reviewers, etc.).
Oh, and for the record, population biologists studying humans are literally the worst. :p Newimpartial (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
If fibs weren't already enough, "this preprint doesn't really engage" is another. This peer reviewed paper is ostensibly not a preprint. I can't take much of what you've written above seriously. Maneesh (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I saw preprint, which at least was an excuse on the part of the journal. I now doubt the peer review process even further: if I find that some "academic freedom" specialists actually approved this for publication, it will make me sad. Newimpartial (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The heck does population biologists studying humans are literally the worst. :p mean? Care to elaborate on that?
And to be clear, I know what the emoticon means, and I have my suspicions for the rest. But I thought the right thing to do would be to ask. Crossroads-talk- 03:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The emoji implies that the statement preceding it is teasing, and that the word "literally" is in fact not to be taken literally. Newimpartial (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I got that. But why do you dislike population biologists who study humans? Crossroads-talk- 04:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I was asked to explain the associations underlying a teasing statement. I did so. There was nothing "bad faith" about it, nor did I intend for the original tease to be treated as an argument in the discussion. It does not in any way take the place of a critique of population genetics in terms of its origins and current practices. Newimpartial (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the "origins" of population genetics, eugenics, and so-called race realism, keep in mind the fallacy of origins. Crossroads-talk- 03:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I beg that the argument of the meaning of "sex" and its various operationalizations cease. Insisting on a favored version (whether it is common knowledge, immutable, academic, etc. ) as correct does not benefit this page. This discussion is, de facto, using this page as a forum. Please stop. EvergreenFir(talk) 05:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Why would you post this? 'female' is a fundamental part of the definition of woman and is a sex category. When there are misinterpretations of sex, they need to be put against verified sources that describe what sex is what what sex categories are. Maneesh (talk) 06:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Because it's turned into a pointless debate about the sex category and yet another rehash of intersex and trans women. We've had a dozen of them and we don't need another. EvergreenFir(talk) 06:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Maneesh, already in this short section you have begged the question you are answering by assuming that this article is only about a "sex category" (it demonstrably isn't, and this has been pointed out to you already). Please drop the STICK. Newimpartial (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
This will keep happening by new users until the article addresses clear contradictions. The female sex category is a fundamental part of this article, your own inaccurate understanding of what "sex' demonstrates that these types of misconceptions need to be addressed. Maneesh (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Just because I don't share your chromosomal-supremacist conception doesn't mean my understanding of sex is "inaccurate" Maneesh. I may be subject to plenty of zones of painful ignorance, but sexual biology is not one of them. Newimpartial (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
This may be futile given how quickly the previous attempt at this degenerated, but I do think we ought to resolve the contradiction between the ledes of Trans woman, Woman, and Female if we can. By my personal intuition, I broadly agree with Newimpartial that the core of the problem is the definition given on Female, and that "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth" does not inherently contradict "A woman is a female human being": having been male doesn't inherently preclude being female right now. This also aligns with the fact that the definition on Female is by far the least well sourced and the least discussed of the three. But I think any sourcing for that definition will go some distance towards clearing up the dispute one way or another. Loki (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
This has already been addressed at this discussion at the Trans woman article. To quote Flyer22 Frozen, It's that way because it's standard practice for our WP:Anatomy, WP:Biology and WP:Med articles to focus on biology and/or medical aspects, with little, if any, cultural content or any cultural bent. For example, as seen at WP:MEDSECTIONS, we may have a "Society and culture" section. But the Female article should not become another Woman article, just like the Sex article should not become another Gender article. And: In our articles (not just our biology, anatomy, and medical articles), we usually begin with the typical/most common definition or aspect (as relayed in the overall literature). We note exceptions or atypical facets, such as intersex aspects, after that. That is per WP:Due. Exceptions do not make the rule. We know, for example, that while humans typically have five digits, this is not always the case, which is why the Hand article states that humans normally have five digits. Furthermore, the Female article is not just about humans; it's also about non-human animals. And the topic of gender is firmly within the realm of humans (regardless of some who assign gender to non-human animals in some way). If the sources on different topics implicitly contradict one another, then we can't fix that; that's the experts' problem, not ours. Also, humans are but one of countless sexually reproducing species. We are not going to make the "female" article's lead anthropocentric by talking about gender identity, which is strictly a human matter. Crossroads-talk- 05:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A few sources I've found in the last several minutes:
GLMA claims that as of an interim meeting in 2018, "the AMA affirms that an individual’s genotypic sex, phenotypic sex, sexual orientation, gender and gender identity are not always aligned or indicative of the other, and that gender for many individuals may differ from the sex assigned at birth". The corresponding AMA press release mentions a policy to this general effect but not the specific language; I'd like to see the specific language straight from them if possible. They do, however, quote a board member saying "It is essential to acknowledge that an individual’s gender identity may not align with the sex assigned to them at birth. A narrow limit on the definition of sex would have public health consequences for the transgender population and individuals born with differences in sexual differentiation, also known as intersex traits."
The APA has a useful report listing all the ways they've defined "sex" in various documents. While they're not entirely consistent, they all broadly agree that it's based on multiple factors.
Dictionarydefinitions tend to align with the "sex that produces ovum" definition, but these aren't biological dictionaries or written by biologists.
The WHO doesn't define "female" directly, but it does define "sex" as "those characteristics of women and men that are ... biologically determined". It also goes on to say both that "The X and Y chromosomes determine a person’s sex." but also "Clearly, there are not only females who are XX and males who are XY, but rather, there is a range of chromosome complements, hormone balances, and phenotypic variations that determine sex."
The reason most of these are about "sex" rather than about "female" is that it's been pretty difficult finding information about "female" specifically. Also, all of these are primarily about human anatomy, which the page on female is not exclusive to. But nevertheless I think these sources are relevant and so I'm putting them here. Loki (talk) 05:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Differentiating between gender and sex in lead
With pleasure am I making my case, after being asked to and being reverted, that woman is a gender and female a sex, and that this simple differentiation should be used in the lead. Otherwise we can rename tge article "Female human". The difference between gender and sex is apperent otherwise biology would use gender for sex, vice versa, basic biology. Nsae Comp (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Here my proposed and reverted version:
"Woman is a gender, associated with adult female humans. The word woman is usually reserved for an adult; girl is the usual term for a female child or adolescent. The plural women is also sometimes used for female humans, regardless of age, as in phrases such as "women's rights".
While gender and sex are not the same the female sex has two X chromosomes..." Nsae Comp (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
This is not original research, thats like saying its original research that Earth is a planet and a planet an object. And I do not know what you talking about "right great wrongs", I am not advocating anything other than being more specific. Nsae Comp (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Your provided references do not contradict gender and sex. Nsae Comp (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Your proposed definition, and going on here about gender vs. sex, is original research. Crossroads-talk- 03:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
What defines original research? Nsae Comp (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Here a basic reference the UK National Statics Office citing the WHO:"Sex and gender are terms that are often used interchangeably but they are in fact two different concepts, even though for many people their sex and gender are the same." etc., etc. Lol "There is more where that came from" ... [5]Nsae Comp (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
This article is not about defining sex or gender, or for talking about the sex-gender distinction. We go by the reliable sources. Any perceived inconsistencies in those are theirs to work out, not ours. Crossroads-talk- 03:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I guess you have played this with many before, and I guess thats the problem and why I will be able to throw as many sources as I want at you, its just going to be not enough. But still, if the sources are contradicting then this should not be resolved by us, but it should be reflected in the article. And it does not do that, it enters with some definition that is pre-school level. And I am not discussing gender-sex distinction, that IS done in other articles, BUT I am applying it. Nsae Comp (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I think User:Nsae Comp could very likely find reliable sources that support their proposed lead. Nevertheless I don't support it, for a very simple reason: "woman" is not a gender, "woman" is a member of a gender. This is an article about women, as in people, not "woman" an abstract concept. (And for what it's worth: in my estimation the gender and the sex are both called the same thing, which is "female". Gender-sex distinction being a real thing doesn't mean that "woman" is a gender and "female" is a sex.) Loki (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for joining in the discussion. I cant see what you mean by saying "woman is a member of a gender", because if it would say that in the lead that would do with other words what I am proposing. I am not against solutions that approach the issue from a different angle, I just see the need to bring it in on a basic level. Nsae Comp (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Besides if woman and female are the same thing then it is circular to describe a woman as a female. There needs to be a difference in the words, and that should be made clear. Nsae Comp (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
No it's not. A woman is a member of the female gender. Perfectly straightforward sentence. Loki (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I like the sentance, I did reply that it would be good to have something like that. So how about puting it in like that? Nsae Comp (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I think everything that needs to be said has been said by Crossroads and Loki. I agree with them. However, I will reiterate that the definition of a woman is "an adult human female". That's widely used and the one put up by medical sources as well. Also, Nsae Comp DID in fact engage in original research. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. Regarding original research, what is original about it? Nsae Comp (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Read WP:ORIGINAL. It seems like a long read but it states what original research is in the beginning of the article. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Nsae Comp, it seems that you are stating that "woman" is a gender category. If so, you are correct. This 2016 "Introducing the New Sexuality Studies: 3rd Edition" source, from Routledge, states that "some people find the gender categories woman and man too limiting and instead identify as genderqueer [...]." This 2013 "Language and Gender" source, from Cambridge University Press, page 193, states, "Gender categories like those labeled by man and woman, girl and boy play a prominent role in the social practices that sustain a gender order in which male/female is seen as a sharp dichotomy separating two fundamental different kinds of humans beings and in which gender categorization is viewed as always relevant." This 2011 "Conversation and Gender" source, from Cambridge University Press, page 85, states, "This chapter examines how speakers make and repair consecutive references to third parties using the gender categories 'girl', 'woman' and 'lady', within the context of debates about when and how gender is relevant in talk." This 2019 Healthline laysource states, "Also known as gender binarism, this term refers to gender classification systems — whether cultural, legal, structural, or social — that organize gender or sex into two mutually exclusive categories such as male/female, man/woman, or masculine/feminine."
All that considered, "woman" is not usually defined by stating that it is a gender or gender category. Yes, it also refers to gender identity. But I mean that the definition for "woman" is not "Woman: a gender category." And there certainly aren't sources that define it in the way you did here before I reverted you. And while this 2004 "Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women: Global Women's Issues and Knowledge" source (that I have at home) states (on page 1703), "Women's self-esteem is, to a large extent, affected by society's attitudes toward women as members of the female gender.", sources don't define "woman" as "members of the female gender." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the much needed clarification and acknowledgement what I thought need to be implement. In that sense I am applying not original research but just existing research in a wrong way. Well in that case then maybe the article lead should reflect this, that (if I understood you correctly) woman is a term that among others refers to a gender identity, but mainly and in simple terms it means "Woman is an adult female human". Because seeing previous discussions and non-registered-user edits, it very much needs more clarity otherwise people like me will be coming having a problem with the lead and its (non-) dealing of gender as a part of the description of "Woman". Thanks alot again, Wikipedia is too often a clashing/crashing in the noise of editing. Looking forward to anything to be added/corrected by everyone. Nsae Comp (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
PS: some of you seem to have followed the discussion longer, more thoroughly, have knowledge and appropriate sources. Maybe as an alternative a summary with quotes of and links to the dedicated discussions of why the lead is at its current would maybe help (without opening a new discussion)? Nsae Comp (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
These false dichotomy stances need to stop. Woman as a word in English has multiple senses. The most common is biological, and means "adult human female", but there are others, including a not-yet-common-but-increasingly-close-to-common modern legal meaning which is based on gender identity rather than biology. The same is also somewhat increasing in occurrence (sometimes with great controversy) in extra-legal fields, such as sports divisions. The article should cover all this neutrally, instead of being used as a WP:BATTLEGROUND by activists (of any stripe). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@User:SMcCandlish are you answering in general to the discussion point or to a specific comment? Nsae Comp (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion in general, in this thread and others like it, where the argument keeps seeming to devolve to "say woman is a biological label" vs. "say it is a social/identity label". — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree to what you said. Nsae Comp (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Something that I don't think has been necessarily taken into account in the discussion above: the current 'neutral' wording "adult human female" in the lede is itself politically charged. --81.103.238.198 (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2020
This edit request to Woman has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I want the page "women" to be written again so that it can go in congruency with the page "men" as, this page contains information thats either should not be there or should also be there in the page "men", like;
1.religion
2. culture
3. family life
4. gender roles
5. education
6. clothing , dress codes, fashion
All these headers are present in the page "women" but not in "men" , I would like to request to kindly rethink upon this as it is a sensitive content . 43.247.41.215 (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2020 (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. JTP(talk • contribs) 18:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Reopening discussion about lead image
I suggested the following image and was reverted because of a previous discussion which had in 2019 the last entry and did not sound like consensus, but was archived. So I want to reopen the discussion with a simple argument: the previous discussion had one or more images proposed. I cant agree with any selection, but what I can agree on and want to advocate is that a collage of image is in any case better, because: mainly to depict diversity and doesnt leave it to one image, even if the single images are changed again and again, the value of the collage goes beyond the single images for that it allways, no matter wich selection depicts a range of people.
(I am not the author of the image)
Looking forward to your input. Nsae Comp (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
This is against MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. Don't let the shortcut fool you; the guideline does not apply only to ethnic groups. With pertinent emphasis added: Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images of group members; see this and this thread for the most recent consensus discussion on the topic. I see no way in which this article is improved by a huge montage of tiny pictures of various women (and paintings, and a prehistoric artifact). Flyer22 Frozen pointed out that this matter was discussed in archives 11-13. That was in 2019; I see no good reason to waste a vast amount of editor time on rehashing all that again. Crossroads-talk- 03:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the links, if that is unchangeable Wikipedia law, and I do understand the arguments that any selection will cause (eternal) discussion, but I dont see a problem with that, I would introduce the reverse rule: that it allways needs to be a collage, that way people who want to argue can, but the hint that people are diverse remains in any selection. ... But back to a practical solutions, since its Wikipedia law, I would now propose to use no picture at all for the lead. Nsae Comp (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
The picture we have is good. There's no "my way or the highway" here. I'd think that since you want 20 pictures, you'd prefer one picture to none at all. Crossroads-talk- 03:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I dont care about "my way"/"your way", what I do care about that Wikipedia is a quality place. So what are the arguments why this image is better than none? Nsae Comp (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Because it's a picture of a woman? It illustrates the topic. There's no need for a picture to show every woman to illustrate the concept of "woman". Loki (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
A potential argument could be made that the current lead image is perhaps not the best, especially because it was determined by a rather hostile discussion between a handful of editors that didn't seem to reach a clear consensus. But it is still much more desirable than the giant collage that is being proposed by Nsae Comp. TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 05:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Correction I am not proposing the collage anymore, I am proposing now as an alternative to both ways to have no image. Nsae Comp (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, I would strongly disagree with that also. For articles such as this one it is much better to have an image than to not have one. However, I would be in favor of possibly reconsidering the current lead image. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
"For an article such as this"? What makes this article in need for an image? Nsae Comp (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
The status quo is the image we have, so it is your burden to explain why no image is better than this one. Crossroads-talk- 15:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
What of my elaboration why I find no image better than any, if not a collage, isnt clear yet. Another alternative would be a symbol like the venus symbol like the "Fenale" article has. Nsae Comp (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
No. Having a venus symbol is not good enough. This article needs an image of an adult human female. Because that's what a woman is. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
The plan was to have an RfC for the lead image, but it's nearly impossible to find plain photos of women. It would be easier for an editor to upload photos they've taken. I'd prefer if she wasn't smiling, but this is my preferred photo so far: Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
What's wrong with her smiling? The current lead image for the "Man" article is a Man with a very slight grin. Also, there are plenty of other WP articles with lead images that have people displaying emotion. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 07:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I just cant see how any single picture will ever be satisfactory. Because if Woman is an adult female human then it should satisfy this definition and focus on adult+female+human, with female the most difficult part to depict without reducing women to for example body parts. For what its worth in my opinion that person could also be a man.Nsae Comp (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Again, I disagree. A single image can be satisfactory. It does not need to represent every single woman that exists or has ever existed. That would be impossible. It needs to show (in my opinion) how women are different from men, a woman in typical clothing for women, and with an overall normal but bonny appearance. Also, I am not opposed to art or public figures being used. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Well if art is ok, how about then for example the Mona Lisa, its eurocentric, but its easily recognizable. Or anything like that. Or just the sanitation room symbol for woman? Nsae Comp (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Other editors may not want art. I would prefer a photo of a woman, but I will not outright dismiss art. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
On the other hand I think Ill settle now with the current one, because it is not terrible. Sorry for stiring you all up. But it seemed to be random and not saying much, but maybe thats the benefit of it, given the other arguments. Nsae Comp (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
The current photo illustrates a mechanic more than it illustrates a woman. Please see this discussion which was originally meant to narrow down photos for an RfC. We should choose an image similar to how we would choose the image for Apple or Monkey; it's not meant to represent all of them; it's simply meant to illustrate what they are. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, but the average woman isn't a young, pretty, blonde, White lady. We need a more diverse pic. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
The picture I suggested above is a middle-aged mixed-race woman with dyed-blonde gray afro-textured hair. I think it's fine to show an example of a woman with dyed hair. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
And if I can't tell any of that from the default image size, neither can most other readers. It's pseudo-diverse to include an allegedly mixed-race person who just illustrates White American looks as a "norm". PS: I'm saying this as a white guy who is a centrist, and who finds "political correction" tedious. Nevertheless this image makes me go thumbs-down on it. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 03:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Just find a picture that is not a photomontage but which has 3+ women in it of different ages and ethnic backgrounds. There are probably plenty of them on Commons (try pics from NOW events, etc.). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
The article is not "Women", and I don't think we should attempt to show diversity, or else where will it end? We need an example that represents the subject, not a representation of all women. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
The current lead image does not depict the "average woman" either. The average woman is not a car mechanic who wears plaid. Finding the "average woman" when it comes to physical appearance (race, hair) or age is a never ending process that will lead us into the weeds from which we will never be able to get out of. We do not need to go out of our way to use multiple women in a image for diversity purposes either. I agree with Kolya Butternut. Again, it's never ending. There would be nothing wrong with a woman in the lead image being young, blonde, or white. And absolutely nothing wrong with her being pretty/attractive. That goes for the lead image of the "Man" article as well. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 07:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Speaking from a completely objective standpoint - the current mechanic image shows next to no distinguishing features of the topic of this article, and so fails MOS:LEADIMAGE and MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. -- Netoholic@ 21:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I agree with that. I wasn't trying to make an argument in favor of the current lead image at all. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Repeat: Just find a picture that is not a photomontage but which has 3+ women in it of different ages and ethnic backgrounds. End of problem. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 03:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
My suggestion if we have to change the image would be the image of a woman on the Pioneer plaque, on the argument that if it's a good enough picture of a woman to represent our species to aliens, it's good enough for the lead image of a Wikipedia article. Loki (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Most editors in past discussions wanted the image to illustrate a real woman, not an artistic representation. The woman on the Pioneer plaque is also problematic because it is censored[6], and it has not been well received by the public.[7] But, please note that the Pioneer plaque illustrates "woman" with a single woman, not a group of diverse women. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Wait, I thought you had made it clear that you didn't want us to try to use a lead image with multiple women in the name of "diversity" because it would be never ending? -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
That's correct. The only thing I like about the Pioneer illustration is that it is one woman. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
What about using photo of a woman doing real work on an engine? Stock photo of a model pretending to work is bit degrading to women... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.177.173.220 (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Byrne and "adult human female"
From edit summaries, Byrne paper cite was removed since it was WP:OVERCITE and because it was inferred to be low quality since it was single author. I am not aware of any correlation between a source being single author and source quality. Neither existing cite addresses much of the long winded exchanges here, Byrne does very clearly. EDIT: WP:OVERCITE talks about trimming by ensuring the citations are a 'mix'. The two current cites are medical dictionaries, mixing with a rather comprehensive paper that addresses the definition directly seems to be in the right spirit.Maneesh (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep in mind that OVERCITE is an essay, so I am not endorsing everything in it. The problem with your source is that one could find comparable sources saying something else - i.e., another single-author philosophy paper arguing something else. The existing sources are much more authoritative. Crossroads-talk- 21:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Ah so you are only selecting some parts of OVERCITE, it's difficult for me to know which parts you are selecting. There is a comprehensive set of underlying sources in that paper from multiple disciplines that are directly used to address and confirm the claim that women are adult human females. I don't think that this cite should be needed, it's so WP:BLUESKY but a recent edit by Newimpartial made some odd claims about the definition of 'female' in the edit summary. Given that there are edits like that, Byrne addresses that general family of ideas that attempt to suggest that women are somehow not adult human females (or that females are some magic category in some mixed up ideas about sex and gender) quite thoroughly. This cite should be somewhere in this article to address that kind of thing, I think the lede is fine and doesn't constitute OVERCITE (no one need look past this talk page to see that some people find the idea that women are adult human females is controversial). Maneesh (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't quibble with the removal, but in many disciplines including philosophy, single-author papers tend to have higher quality than co-written papers, so the rationale provided in the edit summary was lacking on multiple levels. Newimpartial (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
And Maneesh, the reliable sources - including those cited in this article - state that "woman" is a term that is used sometimes for sex, sometimes for gender, and sometimes without distinguishing which sense is meant. Following that logic, there shouldn't be any confusion about my edit summary, which pointed out that for the first sentence of the lead to be compliant with WP:LEAD, the sense of "female" used in that sentence also should follow the reliable sources, as "female" is a similar term in that it also is sometimes used to designate sex, sometimes to designate gender, and sometimes without distinguishing between them. Therefore I had proposed to move the wikilink for female later in the lede, to the first time it was used specifically for sex, since the lede of female goes on for a long time before grudgingly acknowledging that in the case of humans (adult or otherwise), the term is used for gender as well as sex. A reader following the wikilink where I placed it (and I also added a parallel like for male) would be instantly edified, while (as repeated discussions on Talk:Trans woman have shown) readers following the link from its position in the first sense can be misled not edified. At no point did I attempt to suggest that women are somehow not adult human females (or that females are some magic category in some mixed up ideas about sex and gender). According to reliable sources, "female" usually designates sex but, in the case of humans, sometimes designates gender instead. This is a matter of verifiable fact, and if there is "magical" thinking on this topic it is not being employed by me. Newimpartial (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Anyway, having finally read it, the reason not to cite the Byrne paper is that it is a poorly reasoned paper written outside the author's field of expertise, not because it has only one author. Newimpartial (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
The reasoning seems quite fine. The paper is certainly not outside the author's expertise which is philosophy (a fairly universally accepted tool to understand things). Maneesh (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
The point I believe you were trying to cite from the paper, Maneesh, was its minor premise that "adult human female" is by definition a statement about biology. This claim is not supported by the reliable sources available to Byrne, which suggests that that this author is writing outside of their expertise (as does the rest of the highly tendentious selection of sources in the article). Being a philosopher does not make one an expert on all subjects, and this is doubly true of analytical philosophers (whose expertise extends only to formal logic at the very best of times, in my experience). Newimpartial (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Some would say that it is triply true of many continental philosophers: [8]Crossroads-talk- 03:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps, but Richard Dawkins is not a reliable source for thinking. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
"Culture and gender roles" header should have regional/cultural subheaders
Culture and gender roles differed by society. The way womanhood is characterized under culture and gender roles currently, e.g. "middle class woman being primary caretaker" as an "ideal" is very subjective to particular cultures, and even to individuals. The description that currently exists may be more accurate under a "Western modernity" or "North America/Europe" subheader, while new content is constructed for other regions, e.g. "Historical," "Indigenous North American," "Indonesia," etc., where a different view of an ideal lifestyle for a female is pervasive. There are numerous societies and historical periods where the ideal life of a woman extended past childcare after a certain age in offsprings' development. Both Hypatia (c. 300 BCE) and Agnodice (c. 400 BCE) were early middle-class to upper-class Greek women whose ideals were to pursue science and literary contributions. In early 20th century Japan, Raichō Hiratsuka was a middle-class woman advocated for women's expression. Amongst the Mosuo in modern China, women are artisans while the men of the household help to bring up the children of their sisters and cousins.
I recommend splitting this section so that there are subheaders that differentiate between the Western model of women's gender roles, and have it more fairly characterize how different cultures--even modern ones--have pervasively different standards.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.242.230 (talk) 30 December 2019 (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. JTP (talk • contribs) 18:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
