WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 5 / Society and social sciences C‑class
WikiProject iconGender role has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do.Vital articlesWikipedia:WikiProject Vital articlesTemplate:Vital articlevital articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Former featured articleGender role is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 17, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 19, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
May 18, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Avil.M18 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Berenice Mondragon.

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at UCSB supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2014 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from ((WAP assignment)) on 15:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Removing "sex" from lead[edit]

See discussion at Talk:Gender#Gender role article dicussion regarding recent edits. [1] Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concur. Mathglot (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source recently added [2] by Crossroads as support for the use of the sex article appears to be contradicted by the source. This use of the source does not appear to account for what the source states in context and how it provides support for the use of gender instead of sex.
This source helps show how the use of the term "sex" by a source should not automatically be assumed to support a link to the sex article in the way that this article currently links to it. The current sources and the OED source I attempted to add to this article seem to add further support for the use of the gender article. This also relates to the "problems of terminology" further discussed at the discussion noted above. Beccaynr (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source I added literally says "sex" and is very much aware of the difference between sex and gender, discussing that exact matter. Right after that it states, Gender roles, therefore, are the expected attitudes and behaviors a society associates with each sex. It could not possibly be any more specific. Defining gender roles in terms of gender is circular and meaningless. You appear to be reading WP:Original research into that source. As for the OED, I have no idea what this supposed to prove; it does not support your definition and its many-decades-old quotes clearly carry less weight than much newer sources in any case. As for the pre-existing sources, one of them defines it as The social roles, behaviors, attitudes, and psychological characteristics that are more common, more expected, or more accepted for one sex or the other. Crossroads -talk- 00:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At page 4 of the source, it states, "Gender can be viewed on a continuum of characteristics demonstrated by a person regardless of the person's biological sex." At page 5: "When the sociological concept of role is combined with the biological concept of sex, there is often misunderstanding about what content areas are subsumed under the resultant sex role label. Usage has become standardized, however, and most sociologists now employ gender role rather than sex role in their writing."
The OED also appears to make a distinction in its example of usages of "gender role", which includes "...even if it runs counter to the physical sex of the subject."
One of the sources currently used in the gender role article after the line in the lead with the link to sex defines gender role as "patterns of behavior, attitudes, and personality attributes that are traditionally considered in a particular culture to be feminine or masculine." The other source for that sentence provides a capsule definition without accessible context to support the link to the sex article, particularly in the context of other sources and especially the contents of the gender role article.
I also think it is important to assess the article as a whole and how the article itself does not support linking to a general article about biology for an article about this sociological concept.
It also does not appear to be circular to explain gender role with reference to gender, because gender roles are a part of gender. It also seems to be an unrepresentative reflection of the sources and the article as well as potentially confusing to send readers to a biology article, contrary to how sources are discussing gender and gender roles. Beccaynr (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The page 4 quote is about individual persons, not the concept as a whole. The page 5 quote is about the term "sex role", which is a separate matter. None of this negates the source's clear explicit statements. The OED quote demonstrating usage is from 1963 and is obviously outdated, claiming that "gender role" is "learned by the age of two years [and] is for most individuals almost irreversible". This tells us nothing about modern usage; see WP:RS AGE.
That other source in the lead is just one among several and does not contradict that such constructs are based ultimately on roles/attributes intended for particular sexes. Humans are both biological and social beings and as such, it is not surprising that social roles were built on top of pre-existing biological differences rather than arbitrarily.
Circularity is still an issue because you opposed mentioning sex in defining gender as well, which currently relies on gender roles in its definition. NPOV has to do with RS, and they very clearly do define it this way. Crossroads -talk- 02:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not think it is particularly helpful for us to have essentially the same discussion at two articles. Nevertheless, the book is about the concept, and "gender" is discussed as a concept by the book, including at pp. 4-5, and I have highlighted that section because it speaks to the terminology confusion that can exist and appears to exist when the lead doesn't reflect the body of an article. In both gender role and woman, there appear to be similar WP:NPOV issues related to the use of the sex-related articles that do not appear supported by the contents of the article and sources, contrary to MOS:LEAD.
And if you are going to represent things I have previously said, as always, please cite a diff so I can directly respond. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Crossroads, re: your removal of sources supporting the clarification to the lead [3] - I would appreciate it if you would restore this - I did attempt to clarify the preponderance of sources with the addition of sources and content about why 'gender roles' refers to 'gender' and not the wikilinked sex article, e.g. [4]. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This bit about "gender role" vs. "sex role" doesn't tell us how to define the topic. The existing sources support "sex"; adding a source that supports "gender" isn't enough to replace the former with the latter. It needs to be based on the due weight of the body of sources. Crossroads -talk- 02:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a sociological/sociocultural concept, and the sociological source speaks to the 'confusion' in the terminology - and it seems apparent, including based on the other sources I added from the WHO and the book that was removed, that the wikilinked sex article is not supported. Basically, just because the word 'sex' may be used by a source, it does not translate into clear support for the sex wikilink. We have discussed these concepts and sources for awhile across various articles, including Gender, and the recent consensus update to Gender seems to help further clarify how this is the most apprpriate article to link to. And as background to how this change happened - I had seen a change made to the lead, reverted, and then went ahead with adding sources to help support a clarification; my hope now is that after the extensive discussions, the sources I attempted to add, the clarifying text added to this article, and the revision to the lead of the gender article, that the link to gender is more clearly supported. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your edit is not a clarification; it's an NPOV violation. The WHO source doesn't even mention gender roles. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The WHO source refers to roles in its discussion of gender. And I am concerned that not accounting for sources explain how this sociological concept is understood to be related to gender, not sex, is an WP:NPOV problem - that is what I am trying to address. Beccaynr (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This 'sex doesn't mean sex' argument IIRC was made above and did not gain consensus. Crossroads -talk- 02:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added the sources and adjusted the article to make the terminology more clear, and I think the article should reflect this, with the RS I added restored. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You've repeatedly referred to previous discussions; can you link to them? I searched extensively and could find no discussion of Lindsey at all. While it is possible I may have missed something, I do not believe there is an affirmative consensus for "sex" in the sentence in question, and am asking that you avoid asserting so until / unless you can point to the specific discussion where that consensus was reached in order to avoid inadvertently misrepresenting the current consensus. Certainly it looks, to me, to be weakly-sourced (a single source whose use in this context has clear issues I detail below), so I'm skeptical that it could have obtained a strong consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Extended quote; emphasis mine

This relatively simple distinction masks a number of problems associated with its usage. It implies that all people can be conveniently placed into unambiguous either-or categories. Certainly the ascribed status of sex is less likely to be altered than the achieved status of gender. Some people believe, however, that they were born with the "wrong" body and are willing to undergo major surgery to make their gender identity consistent with their biological sex.

...

These issues will be addressed fully in Chapters 2 and 3, but are mentioned here to highlight the problems of terminology. From a sociological perspective, this text is concerned with gender and how it is learned, how it changes over time, and how it varies between and within cultures. Gender can be viewed on a continuum of characteristics demonstrated by a person regardless of the person's biological sex. Adding the concept of role to either sex or gender may increase confusion in terminology. When the sociological concept of role is combined with the biological concept of sex, there is often misunderstanding about what content areas are subsumed under the resultant sex role label. Usage has become standardized, however, and most sociologists now employ gender role rather than sex role in their writing. Gender roles, therefore, are the expected attitudes and behaviors a society associates with each sex. This definition places gender squarely in the sociocultural context.

By my reading this means she is saying that gender roles subsume both sex and gender (and that when she says "sex", she means an attribute which she notes can be changed by surgery; in 2023, that isn't necessarily how all readers will interpret the sex / gender divide, which makes it a misuse of the source if it's used in a way that will lead readers to that misinterpretation.) This vital context is occluded in the current lead. While she uses the word "sex", yes, the larger context makes it clear she's talking about someone's presentation. And seems to me to be particularly bizarre to rely on Lindsey (who notes that the terminology is complex) to justify an excessively simplistic usage of terminology that completely ignores Lavigne (a source that was removed with no valid justification that I can see? Even if there was a prior consensus - which I see no evidence of - it would not preclude adding new sources and updating the text to reflect them.) Lavigne unambiguously says that gender roles are about gender; the thing to do when we have sources that disagree is to parse them carefully to be sure we understand what they're saying, to determine which is best and to figure out a wording that accurately reflects all of them. If there is a disagreement between them, then we need to represent it properly. (As a note, Lindsey's "usage has become standardized" aside also makes me suspect that the way she uses sex / gender terminology is not mainstream, ie. she's basically saying that everyone else should use the terms like X while bemoaning the fact that they use them like Y - which is essentially saying that her views are a minority. Minority views can still be represented, but that makes it inappropriate to rely on her to the exclusion of sources that contradict her usage.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This whole multi-month discussion is kinda ridiculous. Sex is correct here and whether it's being used in the prescriptive sense à la West and Zimmerman or the common sex-gender indistinct, it doesn't really matter. It would be incumbent on Becca to show gender is the predominant term when describing sex roles/gender roles (which it's not). EvergreenFir (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EvergreenFir, I have been reviewing scholarly literature related to this complex topic for months, and have linked various examples in my comment below - I have approached this topic area as a learner and with guidance from WP:NPOV policy. From my view, there appears to be a theme in scholarly sources, and today another example of how some aspects of what has classically been referred to as 'sex' seems to now be more clearly understood as 'gender' was brought to my attention by a NYT Opinion article: Ancient Judaism Recognized a Range of Genders. It’s Time We Did, Too. (Elliot Kukla, Mar. 18, 2023), which led me to this: Gender and Jewish Studies.
My sense is there likely is a way to add content about the nuance in the terminology (e.g. "The terms sex roles and gender roles often are used interchangeably..." in "Sex Roles and Gender Roles" Encyclopedia of Adolescence, 2014, Roger J. R. Levesque, pp 2622–2623); e.g. "Gender Identity and Sex Roles" Handbook of Social Development, 1992, Marion O’Brien, p. 325 "A gender role or sex role is a set of attitudes and a behavioral repertoire associated by cultural convention with being male or female. Here the categories become blurred. ..."; e.g. a 1983 source by Anne R. Edwards: "Sex Roles: a Problem for Sociology and for Women" Journal of Sociology, 19(3) fn1: "A distinction between sex (biology) and gender (culture) has become widely accepted as a useful analytical one. Roles may therefore be based on sex or gender and women's roles described accordingly as 'female' or 'feminine' respectively. However, many writers on 'sex roles' ignore this categorisation and persist in using 'sex' to denote the social roles of men and women even where such roles are unmistakeably gender-based."; e.g. Gender Roles and Society Amy M. Blackstone, 2003, Human Ecology: An Encyclopedia of Children, Families, Communities, and Environments, edited by Julia R. Miller, Richard M. Lerner, and Lawrence B. Schiamberg. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. ISBN I-57607-852-3, p. 335: "Understanding the term "gender roles" requires an understanding of the term "gender." "Gender" is a social term that is often confused with the term "sex" [...]. Gender [...] refers to the meanings, values, and characteristics that people ascribe to different sexes") but as I note below, my capacity to continue engaging in the type of discussion that has occurred across multiple related articles (and AfDs, e.g. 1, 2) is limited for the foreseeable future.
I have tried to discuss sources in detail, and encouraged in-depth review - these are contentious terms, so it seems helpful to focus on academic sources and to be wary of a superficial use of the terminology, in part because of where the term 'sex' links on Wikipedia - without (from my view) apparent substantial support in sources that also use the term. As a potentially-related note, an attempt to add a distinction in the sex article, e.g. [5] was reverted by Crossroads [6], the female article has a clarification about human gender, and there is somewhat-related discussion on that article's Talk page. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, another source removed by Crossroads is Worthy, L D; Lavigne, T; Romero, F (July 27, 2020). "Stereotypes and Gender Roles". Culture and Psychology. MMOER. Retrieved 6 March 2023. Gender roles refer to the role or behaviors learned by a person as appropriate to their gender and are determined by the dominant cultural norms.. In any event, I am mostly on wikibreak for a bit due to health issues, so I am not going to have much energy or focus for the type of discussions that have previously happened at Talk:Gender, Talk:Woman, or Draft talk:Female (gender). All I can really do for now is offer my research from the past months in this complex topic area. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sources state that gender roles are defined based on expectations related to sex. I cited these in this discussion: [7] Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is horrendously biased[edit]

Gender roles refer to social conflicts, and everything that involves social is always a subjective matter because any type of theory is never 100% right or 100% wrong, it's always in the middle.

When you have a theory about social issues, the theory will work in some people but not in others, which ends up making it subjective to the situation. As people usually say, there is not really a "normal" person in the world, because the definition of normal is focused in a very objective shape that is usually unobtainable.

Yet this page does not try to account for this as a social theory, but as an undisputed fact. There is no "the theory defines this, the theory states that", it is written in a way that implies its right with no doubt.

Trees being green is right, and even then trees being green is wrong when autumn comes. If nature itself does not define reality in an abstract matter, imagine a bunch of primates in 2000 earth transitions discussing some issue that happened some transitions ago. Reality is not an abstract and consistent concept, reality always change.

So, please, not only on this, but on many more. Do not become factual, because none of us ever is. We're not gods, we're mortals. We don't hold the truth in our hands, all we can say is "at this point, we believe this is the right thing". But no matter the time, it never is.

Just leaving the suggestion to state that this is a theory that speculates a repetitive behavior in the world, and not that this is the undeniable truth. And it DOES indirectly state that it's the undeniable truth, by being spoken in an authoritarian way. "babies will learn their gender at age 3" instead of "the theory states that babies will do this x thing". 186.143.202.100 (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may be interested in this essay. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Useight (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Opening paragraph[edit]

The opening paragraph says that gender roles are a cultural thing. This can be understood that they have nothing to do with a biological difference. However later in the article it stated that the difference is also biological however not in the assumed extent. So it seems like the opening definition is not an accurate description of what this is Rashba (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Culture[edit]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 18 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jenjmo, Misshelene97 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jeyoungx (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories