body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

Template:Vital article

Intersex section

Within the intersex section, it says a "typical female gender identity". There is no such thing as a typical gender identity. Gender is a social construct nothing typical about it. Identifying as a typical gender is not a typical thing to do. Gender identity is a very controversial subject and should not be included here as if it was not. *a cis woman growing a philosopher's beard MichelleGDyason 10:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is very confused and it is not clear what your argument actually is. Is it that we need to make it a bit clearer what is meant by "typical" in some places? If so, I think I agree.
Looking at that section more generally, I think the first paragraph is absolutely fine. The second one is somewhat confusing and, while I am not sure that it is saying anything incorrect, it is open to misinterpretation as it can be read as saying "These intersex conditions make you trans and these ones don't", which is incorrect and I'm pretty sure that that was not what was intended when it was written.
I don't know how to improve that paragraph to fix the framing and I'm very aware that it would be easy to unintentionally make it worse. Instead I'll make two specific suggestions:
  1. I'd like the term "LGBT" to be replaced here because we are only talking about gender, not sexuality, in this section. We should not bring sexuality into it in passing. If we need to cover sexuality in this section then we should cover it properly but I don't think that we do. We have a whole other article in which to discuss all aspects of intersex related topics and that coverage belongs there.
  2. Maybe it would be more correct to reword "show typical female gender identity" to "show typical rates of female gender identity", which is what I think the author intended to say in the first place.
I'm not sure how best to implement #1 but I think #2 is a simple minor improvement so I'm going to do that now. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gender identity as a subject may attract controversy among editors on Wikipedia. However, I don't believe that independent reliable sources support the idea that the existence of gender identity itself is particularly controversial. Hist9600 (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it's not a matter of what you believe. i can show reliable sources that say it is controversial.
gender identity is not something that everyone has nor does everyone agree gender identity can be something other than another social construct. Many people do not ascribe to the notion of gender identity being anything other than gender being reified into something essential, and gender is imposed, not chosen. to say someone shows typical gender identity is an oxymoron. *a cis woman growing a philosopher's beard MichelleGDyason 17:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am somewhat bemused by the idea that Wikipedia should simply decline to cover controversial topics, not least because pretty much everything is controversial to somebody and we would look pretty silly as an encyclopaedia if we didn't have any articles. Controversial topics have to be handled with care but they are not censored from coverage on Wikipedia.
The rest of the objections above are very unclear and even seem self-contradictory. I am not sure what relevance invoking the tiny (but valid) proportion of the population who have no gender identity (i.e. agender people) has here. Certainly there is nothing in the Intersex women section which seeks to impose a gender on them. In fact, they are not even mentioned in the Intersex women section at all because that is not what the Intersex women section is about.
I have already made an edit which resolves the specific ambiguous phrase complained about at the start of this thread and I'm not sure what else is being requested. I see no clear proposal and no WP:RS sources.
My advice is as follows. First, please take a look at WP:NOTFORUM to see what this Talk page is for and put away the soapbox. Think about whether there is a specific concrete proposal that you want to make. Then look at WP:RS to see what sorts of sources can and can not be used. See if there are valid sources that support the change that you want to make. If you believe that there are, then please propose the change as clearly and concisely as possible. The best way to do this is in a format saying "I propose that we change X to Y" so that we can understand exactly what you are proposing. Please provide any sources that you propose to use to support the new content and, optionally, a brief explanation of why you think the change would be an improvement. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second the call for a specific concrete proposal.
I suggest also learning more about Social constructionism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i fail to understand your point. how am i evincing i do not understand social constructionism? i propose it is you who does not understand, but that might be because the Wikipedia page is in bad shape. *a cis woman growing a philosopher's beard MichelleGDyason 09:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For example, you say that there is "nothing typical about" social construction. This is completely false. The process of social construction is the process of society deciding what is typical. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read "typical" as meaning, "statistically the most common", with no judgment applied. I second the questioning of the objections as being unclear. Finally, yes, yes, ,yes to Daniel R's suggestion. Feel free to use template ((Textdiff)), if it makes the before–after display easier for you to apply. (It often makes it easier for readers to understand what it is you are proposing.) Mathglot (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok, ok, and thank you. i will follow your very sound advice and propose my point more thoroughly and as clear as possible. but it will take me some time as i'm very busy with other things presently. Thanks for your patience *a cis woman growing a philosopher's beard MichelleGDyason 08:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed first paragraph again

@A Socialist Trans Girl proposed above that we consider a new paragraph for the lead:

Definitions of woman vary over time, between cultures, and within cultures,[1][2] mostly stemming from whether or not Sex (Such as Female) and Gender (such as Woman) are distinct (i.e, inherently deterministic of gender). Most contemporary social scientists,[3][4][5] behavioral scientists and biologists,[6] many legal systems and government bodies,[7] and intergovernmental agencies such as the WHO[8] make a distinction between gender and sex, the distinction first being introduced in 1955.[9] Prior to this, the two terms have historically been used synonymously.[10] A viewpoint that does not distinguish between sex and gender and holds sex as inherently deterministic of gender continues to exist as a minority perspective today.[citation needed]

  1. ^ "Gender in culture". European Institute for Gender Equality. 26 January 2017. Archived from the original on 15 June 2023. Retrieved 23 August 2023.
  2. ^ "Gender". United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Archived from the original on 11 March 2023. Retrieved 23 August 2023.
  3. ^ Kimmel, Michael S. (2017). The gendered society (Sixth ed.). New York. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-19-026031-6. OCLC 949553050.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  4. ^ "GENDER". Social Science Dictionary. Archived from the original on 2 February 2011. Retrieved 20 March 2015.
  5. ^ Lindsey, Linda L. (2010). "Ch. 1. The Sociology of gender" (PDF). Gender Roles: A Sociological Perspective. Pearson. ISBN 978-0-13-244830-7. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 April 2015.
  6. ^ Paludi, Michele Antoinette (2008). The Psychology of Women at Work: Challenges and Solutions for Our Female Workforce. ABC-CLIO. p. 153. ISBN 978-0-275-99677-2. Archived from the original on 2021-10-20. Retrieved 2021-09-06.
  7. ^ O'Halloran, Kerry (2020). Sexual orientation, gender identity and international human rights law: common law perspectives. London. pp. 22–28, 328–329. ISBN 978-0-429-44265-0. OCLC 1110674742.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  8. ^ "Gender: definitions". www.euro.who.int. Archived from the original on 2021-09-25. Retrieved 2021-08-22.
  9. ^ MONEY J. Hermaphroditism, gender and precocity in hyperadrenocorticism: psychologic findings. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp. 1955 Jun;96(6):253-64. PMID 14378807.
  10. ^ Haig, David (2000). "Of sex and gender". Nature Genetics. 25 (4): 373. doi:10.1038/78033. PMID 10932174. S2CID 5127617. Retrieved 2022-11-26.

I don't think it's quite as clear as you intended. First,

may not technically be true. Definitions vary over time, but the concept of the SGD has existed for less than a century, so that wouldn't really explain variations that predate the concept. For example, was Hatshepsut still "a woman", even though she wore a ceremonial false beard as monarch of Egypt? They didn't think of her behavior as gender, and they wouldn't have called the king's mother trans. (Also, the "i.e." is probably wrong and is probably a misplaced modifier or something, since it's not clear from the grammar what it is that is inherently deterministic of gender.)

The sources you cite say things like "roles of women and men are culturally determined, and differ in time and place" and "Gender roles are learned, may change over time, and vary within and between cultures", but women's roles ≠ women. Consequently, it will be trivial for any objector to get the first half of that sentence removed as a case of ((failed verification)), and the second half (the part making the potentially contentious claim that it is "mostly" about whether they are distinct, as opposed to which one matters more) isn't sourced, so it can be immediately WP:CHALLENGED and removed.

The second sentence might be okay, but the 2011 archived copy of http://www.socialsciencedictionary.com/GENDER doesn't WP:Directly support the claim, and this makes me wonder if the others do (I didn't check any of the others).

The third sentence:

is a bit dubious. Assuming our article at Gender is reasonably accurate, then relative to the history of the English language, there was only a brief, recent blip during which the word gender was commonly used, mostly so that S-E-X didn't have to be mentioned in polite company and/or around impressionable young children and/or those who might ask embarrassing questions (like "What's sex, Great Aunt Matilda? Mommy, why did Great Aunt Matilda just faint?"). Also, that sentence is all about the wording, which may present a Wikipedia:REFERS problem, since the article is about Woman and not about Language used to talk about women. It might be better off in a separate section.

The last, unsourced sentence:

is mostly missing the point. The "anti-trans" POV isn't that sex and gender aren't distinct; the POV is that biology is destiny.

Consider this imperfect but perhaps illustrative (and hopefully funny) analogy:

A department store typically sells a variety of merchandise that is suitable for wearing on human bodies. We're going to call that "apparel". Within the category of "apparel", there is a major distinction made between "clothing" and "shoes". Everyone agrees that "clothing" and "shoes" are both apparel. None of the sales staff or customers have any trouble communicating which kind of apparel they want to buy. The people who are seeking new shoes are shown shoes to buy, and the ones seeking new clothes are shown clothes. Nobody says "Oh? You want shoes? Well, it's all apparel; there's no distinction between clothes and shoes. Here, have a shirt. You can wrap it around your foot."

However, one group says that shoes are more important, and that all outfits should be designed around the shoes. The other group says that clothes are more important, and shoes should be chosen to match the clothes. If a customer wearing a mismatched outfit comes into the department store and asks for help, the first group says "Let me help you find some clothes that will go with your wonderful shoes." The second group says "Let me help you find some shoes that will go with your wonderful clothes."

The two groups are not disagreeing over whether shoes and clothes (or sex and gender identity) are distinct. They're disagreeing about which is the more important category.

Thus it is with the POVs here: none of them are saying that there's no difference between getting pregnant and feeling like you belong to the group that has historically been associated with childbirth. One side is saying that the emotional side is more important than the physical side, and the other side is saying that the physical side is more important than emotions, and – this is where that spectrum that we talked about earlier comes in – a lot of people fall in the middle. A lot of people think that the physical side is more important in some contexts (e.g., childbirth) but the emotional side is more important in other contexts (e.g., what you should do if a complete stranger says her name is Jennifer). See https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2022/07/20/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights for one example of the complex and nuanced approach that many people hold. "Very few Britons took a blanket view of trans issues across our survey", they write, noting that only 5 out of 1751 (0.3%) survey respondents took the extreme position (identity-only or sex-only) on every question.

.

Finally, there's the main problem: This proposal does not say what a woman is. Per MOS:FIRST, "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English." This does not tell any readers what the subject of this article is. It tells them that definitions of the subject are disputed, but does not tell them what the subject is.

I would love to have this article say that there are multiple (valid) definitions of woman. I think that is probably better suited for a ==Definitions== section than for the first paragraph, but I'd love to see that content added. However, using this paragraph as the first one would IMO be a step backwards, because we'd go from (IMO) over-focusing on one definition to having zero definitions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'd like to say that I really appreciate all of the discussion and feedback on the lede paragraph proposal. I'll go over each part.
  • That's true, the phrasing is mainly focused on the modern variance. I think it would be more accurate to say "..., with variance in the modern era mostly stemming from whether.." instead.
  • I did notice the i.e being ambiguous after publishing the edit with it, so trying to addressing those I got "Definitions of woman vary over time, between cultures, and within cultures, with variance in the modern era mostly stemming from whether or not Sex (Such as Female) is distinct (i.e, inherently deterministic of) Gender (such as Woman)."
  • With the issue of it not saying what the article (Woman) is about, with it still being a varied definition, I think the solution is to use the incredibly useful tactic of using it as a proper noun to refer to the idea of the gender itself, and the broad scope of that[a]. So, I've came up with "Woman is a Socially constructed gender, i.e, a set of social expectations, characteristics, and behavior that is typically associated with certain sex traits.[1][2] Those social roles vary over time, between cultures, and within cultures.[3][4] There is disagreement over whether Sex (Such as Female) is distinct (i.e, inherently deterministic of) Gender (such as Woman)..." to solve that issue, which I believe addresses that issue well.
  • The socialsciencedictionary one was excerpt from Sex-gender distinction, so if it doesn't say that it can be removed.
  • With having the several definitions in a separate section, we could do that, after all, my initial proposal of this included 'that we can either have the definitions be in the lede paragraph, or the first section'. So we do we just move "There is disagreement over whether Sex (such as..." and onward into a new section?
  • "is mostly missing the point. The "anti-trans" POV isn't that sex and gender aren't distinct; the POV is that biology is destiny." Well, the position moreso is that sex is inherently deterministic of one's gender, (still within the purview of the SGD) so we could just say that, and have "A viewpoint that holds sex as inherently deterministic of gender continues to exist as a minority perspective today." however, there's the thing with it not having a citation; what should we do with that? Should we not have it unless we find a DUE RS? Or something else?
  • Also, I think it's not really which is more important, but rather if sex is deterministic of gender. Also, keep in mind that the relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered, so polling should not be used to establish DUE weight.
Thoughts? A Socialist Trans Girl 07:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC) A Socialist Trans Girl 07:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:REFERS and MOS:FIRST are compelling reasons to not go with such a change, I'd add WP:STICKTOSOURCE (i.e. reliable sources which are actually defining woman). The relevance of sources about the sex-gender distinction to the definition (let alone the second sentence of a completely different article) is not trivially shown here and feels WP:synthy and WP:undue. We absolutely should not begin an encyclopedia article with "no one fully agrees on what exactly the subject of this article is" unless authoritative sources also feel obliged to asterisk that subject with the same caveat (for example, articles about nebulous buzzwords like web3 and dogwhistles like gender ideology with no agreed-upon meaning). In addition to being poor style it reads like teaching the controversy. All dictionary definitions are inherently non-exact, so we have the remainder of the article to expound on necessary terminological and lexicographical nuances, something I think Woman § Terminology does admirably.
If we're gonna discuss changing "adult female human" for the fifty-thousandth time, I'd personally prefer amending it with a footnote following the first sentence, solidifying the (currently only transitive across articles) implication that:

Female can refer to either a woman's biological sex or social gender[5] (gender identity, gender role, etc.), as the two may diverge (in the case of transgender and intersex people) or be treated as distinct concepts.

I recall some-such such a proposal coming up in a previous discussion (maybe on Man?) but not gaining much traction. I'm also not deadset on this particular language. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 07:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC) –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 07:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, oppose change. These are useful comments, as are the comments from WhatamIdoing. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like most of those concerns I have addressed, with the rephrasing, added sentence(s), and moving of some to a new first section, would you agree?
Also, with I'd add WP:STICKTOSOURCE (i.e. reliable sources which are actually defining woman), the issue is that reliable source's aren't defining woman, because there's no real (non-ID) definition of woman that is accurate, and you bring up that All dictionary definitions are inherently non-exact, though woman is uniquely so in that it's a social category which is present in many different time periods and culture with different meanings in many, so there's really not any accurate single definition.
With your proposed footnote, the main issue with that is it doesn't specify which meaning 'female' has in the definition, and it also begs the question; what is the definition of the gender of 'female'? And also, with the interpretation there left open, it also allows for trans-exclusionary interpretations.
Also, where do you believe that it is 'teaching the controversy'? I want to avoid any UNDUE weight. A Socialist Trans Girl 08:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really true that reliable source's aren't defining woman, because there's no real (non-ID) definition of woman that is accurate, or would it be more accurate to say that reliable sources define woman, but you/some people don't accept any of the non-(self-)identity-based definitions as being accurate?
When I look in a dictionary and find an entry that begins with "woman, n.", followed by some text about what that noun means, I generally think that they're "defining woman". Don't you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing No, I'd say the former is more accurate, and I'm not arguing for a definitive prescriptive definition of woman with it merely being the self ID one; but rather acknowledging the true nature of language as that which is descriptive, and there being no universal definition; the reason that those prescriptive deterministic definitions are not accurate is because they exclude people who are women (such as intersex women, postmenopausal women, GNC women, etc) and can include people who are not.
Dictionaries in this circumstance are not WP:RS and what is RS in this instance rather is academic/IO sources, of which do not provide a definition, because of several reasons which I believe have already been explained. Do you have further feedback on my new one which I believe addresses your concerns? A Socialist Trans Girl 04:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"There's no universal definition" is not at all the same thing as "No reliable source in the entire world provide even one definition for the word woman".
Dictionaries are reliable sources in this circumstance. Modern dictionaries provide definitions based on how people actually use the world. This means that the dictionary definitions are descriptive.
  • Here is an example of a prescriptive definition: "You are a woman if you personally hold that self-identity. There is no other proper use of the word woman."
  • Here is an example of a descriptive definition: "A lot of people use woman to describe an adult whose gender expression is typical for the half of humanity who are at risk of becoming pregnant at some point during their lives. Of course, your guess about whether their gender expression is typical might not align with other people's, especially when you're describing people from a different culture, but that's one of the common ways people use this word."
WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing That's one of the main reasons why dictionaries aren't RS here, because, once again, The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered. Also, what I mean be 'descriptive' and 'prescriptive' here is in reference to RS, not the general population. A Socialist Trans Girl 03:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionaries are neither "Wikipedia editors" nor "the general public". When the question is "What does this word mean?", then the relative prominence of meanings as reported in published, reliable sources, including (but not limited to) dictionaries is absolutely a factor we should consider.
You appear to be arguing that we should reject all reliable sources that take a descriptive approach to the definition (e.g., modern dictionaries) and accept only reliable sources that take a prescriptive approach (e.g., a scholarly book that says something like "for the purpose of this discussion, a woman is defined as..."). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you read WP:SCIRS. Dictionaries aren't really RS here, and certainly do not override the sources provided.
I'm arguing for it being descriptive of the RS with due weight; we're meant to be descriptive of the RS, not RS descriptive of the general population. A Socialist Trans Girl 13:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd support just the first line of that in a footnote on the first sentence, to keep things short and simple; extended discussion is more for the article itself. The first line is more just for what a dictionary would say, i.e.:

A woman is an adult female human.[a]

a.^ Female can refer to either a woman's biological sex or social gender.[6] The plural women is sometimes used in certain phrases such as "women's rights" to denote female humans regardless of age.

That women are adult humans is the obvious, easy part -- "adult female human" is perfectly good and correct, but kicks the can down the road to the word "female", which I think we probably need to explain. Endwise (talk) 08:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue with that is it doesn't specify which meaning 'female' has in the definition, and it also begs the question; what is the definition of the gender of 'female'? And also, with the interpretation there left open, it also allows for trans-exclusionary interpretations. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, there was an RfC on Man on the footnote idea that was never formally closed but pretty clearly did not have a consensus for the change: [1] Crossroads -talk- 05:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing Thanks to the feedback, I've been able to make several improvements. Here is the new version, which I believe addresses the feedback:

Woman is a Socially constructed gender, i.e, a set of social expectations, characteristics, and behavior that is typically associated with certain sex traits.[7][8] Those social roles vary over time, between cultures, and within cultures.[9][10]

[First section] Relationship to Sex

There is disagreement over whether Sex (Such as Female) is distinct (i.e, inherently deterministic of) Gender (such as Woman). Most contemporary social scientists,[11][12] behavioral scientists and biologists,[13] many legal systems and government bodies,[14] and intergovernmental agencies such as the WHO[15] make a distinction between gender and sex, the distinction first being introduced in 1955.[16] Prior to this, the two terms have historically been used synonymously.[17] A viewpoint that holds sex as inherently deterministic of gender continues to exist as a minority perspective today.[citation needed]

With this, we could do a different title of the first section, and also however, there's the thing with the last sentence not having a citation; what should we do with that? Should we not have it unless we find a DUE RS? Or something else?
Thoughts? A Socialist Trans Girl 03:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC) A Socialist Trans Girl 03:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, woman is no longer a human? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Do you think the new version addressed your original concerns? A Socialist Trans Girl 13:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your version changes the topic from a group of humans (about half the world population, as it turns out) to a social construct. And in general it foregrounds the sex and gender distinction so heavily so as to give it hugely WP:UNDUE weight, basically making the article a retread of that tangential topic. This isn't how RS treat the topic of women. Crossroads -talk- 22:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A Socialist Trans Girl, the current first sentence says that a woman is a human ("A woman is an adult female human"). Your proposed first says that a woman is a gender ("Woman is a Socially constructed gender"). I don't think that improves the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing Woman as a proper noun refers to the concept of the gender, and refers to a person of that gender as an improper noun. I don't think having information on the former category (which being of is the defining characteristic of the ladder) is at all an unimprovement of the article.
Also, with "Your proposed first says that a woman is a gender", that's not correct, it says that Woman is a gender..., not a woman. A Socialist Trans Girl 08:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Woman" isn't a proper noun. Do you mean "Woman, when the word is used as discipline-specific jargon"? Capitalization is one approach used in written documents to indicate that the author is using a common noun to indicate an abnormal meaning. See, e.g., capitalization in some legal documents: "In this document, 'The Company' means the Blue Green Widget Company, Inc. of Smallville".
(The antonym of proper noun is common noun.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While 'Woman' as a proper noun refers to the single concept/idea of the gender, rather than an individual of it, I don't want to do another 8000 word discussion on why you can make words a proper noun even when it's not typically used that wait, so how about this;
Women (/ˈwɪmən/ or /ˈwɪmɪn/; sg.: woman) are people who are members of the gender (a socially constructed set of social expectations, characteristics, and behavior that is typically associated with certain sex traits) typically associated with female sex traits. Those social roles vary over time, between cultures, and within cultures.
We could also do;
A woman (pl.: women; pronounced /ˈwɪmən/ or /ˈwɪmɪn/) is a person of the gender (a socially constructed set of social expectations, characteristics, and behavior that is typically associated with certain sex traits) typically associated with female sex traits. Those social roles vary over time, between cultures, and within cultures.
Thoughts? A Socialist Trans Girl 09:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This represents a change to the article's existing scope. Do you think that you will be able to get consensus for that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing I don't think it does that? The vast majority of the article (i.e, the sections Etymology, Terminology, Intersex women, Health, Maternal mortality, Life expectancy, Reproductive rights and freedom, Culture and gender roles, Violence against women, History, Clothing, fashion and dress codes, Fertility and family life, Religion, Education, Literacy, Women in politics, Science, literature and art, Gender symbol, and Femininity) are within the scope set out by the proposed lede. Eitherway, are you okay with this proposal? If not, what concerns do you have with it? A Socialist Trans Girl 07:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you change the first sentence, you're signalling what should be in the article. So imagine that you make this change (and imagine that it sticks); the next step is someone else to come along and say "Huh, the subject of the article is "a person of the gender", but there's a thousand words here about biology. Well, that doesn't belong in this article. I'll go blank that." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, thats why I want to spinoff the biology section into Draft:Female human. With that, should we do the proposed paragraph? A Socialist Trans Girl 05:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Defining womanhood as entirely socially constructed will be WP:EXTRAORDINARY to a huge number of lay readers. I'm not convinced that this reflects a proper balance of viewpoints in RS, let alone that we should be foregrounding discussions on the social construction of gender here at all (this is an article about human people, not the precise metaphysical boundaries of sex and gender identity). It's not apparent to me if the proposed text is source-based whatsoever. We absolutely should not restructure the article(s) around the POV (which seems to be a minority even among radfems and trans people) that womanhood is only tangentially related to women's bodies (or the socially constructed archetype of a "woman's body" as it exists in the popular consciousness, whatever). An encyclopedia article about women necessarily includes mention of sex characteristics, menstruation, and maternity, things most women experience and which inform the gender roles and societal attitudes that are put upon all of us. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is definitely plenty of very RS supporting gender being a social construct.[18][19][20] Without DUE RS contradicting that provided, it cannot be concluded that it is an improper balance of viewpoints in RS.
The proposal includes 'typically associated with female sex traits.' The prominence of the opinion among radfems and trans people is irrelevant to this discussion.
A POV is not "representing not fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."— What significant views by RS is the proposal failing to represent in that way? (provide the links to the RS as well)
I'm not proposing to remove the maternal mortality section of the article (the section relating to maternity), and as has been stated in all my proposals of the article split; we can have a summary section on biology with the main article.
Here is the proposal with the citations:
A woman (pl.: women; pronounced /ˈwɪmən/ or /ˈwɪmɪn/) is a person of the gender (a socially constructed set of social expectations, characteristics, and behavior that is typically associated with certain sex traits) typically associated with female sex traits.[21][22] Those social roles vary over time, between cultures, and within cultures.[23][24]
If you have any further concerns, feel free to comment further.
Thanks, — A Socialist Trans Girl 10:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC) A Socialist Trans Girl 10:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean specifically reliable sources for the definition of "woman". These four sources define gender as the socially constructed aspects of being a man, woman, or other category, but it's not clear how they relate to the precise definition of those terms, or justify defining those categories themselves social constructs. They don't support narrowing female to mean strictly those sociological aspects, only referencing biological aspects by proxy, nor demonstrate the immediate relevance of the sex/gender semantics debate to this first sentence (which should be a plain English introduction). We cannot synthesize sources on the sex-gender distinction into a definition of man or woman, especially not in contrast to the umpteen available dictionaries which all offer the definition of woman as adult female human. To be clear I do not think Wikipedia should imply anything to the right either (woman as a biological essentialist, trans-exclusionary category, which seems to be your interpretation of the existing text), but the basis for saying anything bolder than just female human or maybe of the female gender is shaky at best. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 05:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Crossroads No, in my version it is a socially constructed category still comprising about ~48-50% of worlds population. Also, the SGD isn't in the lede in my proposal, but rather a separate section on the relationship between woman and female, and whether the ladder is deterministic of the former, which is included in the first sentence of the current version, so the logical conclusion of believing that it is undue weight is that of being more concerned with the current version then the proposal.
Oh, and also, the current article contains the sentence "The social sciences' views on what it means to be a women have changed significantly since the early 20th century as women gained more rights and greater representation in the workforce, with scholarship in the 70's moving toward a focus on the sex-gender distinction and social construction of gender.[15][16]" in the 1st section after etymology, so it can't really be said that having my proposed paragraph on the SGD and relationship of it to sex in the 1st or 2nd section would at all be UNDUE. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence is WP:Due coverage of the issue. It does not need more than that here. Crossroads -talk- 23:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain how including information about a distinction which changes the definition of the word in the 1st or 2nd section is at all UNDUE weight? Other editors have proposed that it should be in the 1st/2nd section rather than the lede paragraph, which I'm okay with as it was an option I stated when first proposing it. You also said that "it foregrounds the sex and gender distinction so heavily so as to give it hugely WP:UNDUE weight, basically making the article a retread of that tangential topic"; I don't see how it does that at all, it's just a paragraph in the 1st/2nd section, that portrayal of it seems to just be extremely hyperbolic. A Socialist Trans Girl 08:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


@WhatamIdoing So, Consensus is marked by addressing editors' legitimate concerns, and we want to achieve consensus. The proposal for the first paragraph is the following:

I believe that there are no legitimate concerns posed to this proposal which have not been addressed; which would mean that we have achieved consensus and that it should be implemented. If there is any further legitimate concerns which have not been addressed, they should be put forth here. I believe that consensus is definitely within reach. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that addressing editors' concerns matters for consensus is because the "other side" is unlikely to "consent" if you don't address their concerns.
Here is my concern: This proposal changes the definition in ways that will result in demands to change the content of the article. That will probably destabilize the sort of détente status here and result in edit warring and bitter disputes. I do not want edit warring and bitter disputes; I want a stable article.
I do not believe you have addressed by concern at all. Have you not addressed it because you do not think it is legitimate for me to worry about edit warring and bitter disputes, or have you not addressed it because you did not realize that I have this concern?
More generally, what evidence do you have that anyone has consented to your proposal? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ "What are Sex & Gender?". Office for Research on Women's Health. Archived from the original on 4 August 2023. Retrieved 30 August 2023.
  2. ^ "Gender and health". World Health Organization. Archived from the original on 15 August 2023. Retrieved 30 August 2023.
  3. ^ "Gender in culture". European Institute for Gender Equality. 26 January 2017. Archived from the original on 15 June 2023. Retrieved 23 August 2023.
  4. ^ "Gender". United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Archived from the original on 11 March 2023. Retrieved 23 August 2023.
  5. ^ "Definition of FEMALE". www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 2023-03-07.
  6. ^ "Definition of FEMALE". www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 2023-03-07.
  7. ^ "What are Sex & Gender?". Office for Research on Women's Health. Archived from the original on 4 August 2023. Retrieved 30 August 2023.
  8. ^ "Gender and health". World Health Organization. Archived from the original on 15 August 2023. Retrieved 30 August 2023.
  9. ^ "Gender in culture". European Institute for Gender Equality. 26 January 2017. Archived from the original on 15 June 2023. Retrieved 23 August 2023.
  10. ^ "Gender". United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Archived from the original on 11 March 2023. Retrieved 23 August 2023.
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference :0 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference pearsonhighered2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference :1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ Cite error: The named reference :2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ Cite error: The named reference :3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^ Cite error: The named reference :4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  17. ^ Cite error: The named reference :5 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  18. ^ "What are Sex & Gender?". Office for Research on Women's Health. Archived from the original on 4 August 2023. Retrieved 30 August 2023.
  19. ^ "Gender and health". World Health Organization. Archived from the original on 15 August 2023. Retrieved 30 August 2023.
  20. ^ "Gender: definitions". www.euro.who.int. Archived from the original on 2021-09-25. Retrieved 2021-08-22.
  21. ^ "What are Sex & Gender?". Office for Research on Women's Health. Archived from the original on 4 August 2023. Retrieved 30 August 2023.
  22. ^ "Gender and health". World Health Organization. Archived from the original on 15 August 2023. Retrieved 30 August 2023.
  23. ^ "Gender in culture". European Institute for Gender Equality. 26 January 2017. Archived from the original on 15 June 2023. Retrieved 23 August 2023.
  24. ^ "Gender". United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Archived from the original on 11 March 2023. Retrieved 23 August 2023.
  25. ^ "What are Sex & Gender?". Office for Research on Women's Health. Archived from the original on 4 August 2023. Retrieved 30 August 2023.
  26. ^ "Gender and health". World Health Organization. Archived from the original on 15 August 2023. Retrieved 30 August 2023.
  27. ^ "Gender in culture". European Institute for Gender Equality. 26 January 2017. Archived from the original on 15 June 2023. Retrieved 23 August 2023.
  28. ^ "Gender". United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Archived from the original on 11 March 2023. Retrieved 23 August 2023.

Lead image

I think the picture should be changed to one of a biological female for the following reasons:

  1. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Many people think that trans women aren't real women, but everyone agrees that biological females who identify as women are.
  2. While this article does acknowledge the existence of trans women, it also talks about biological females. Because of that, I think the picture should represent both.

I also think we should use a full-body picture to represent a woman in full. -- YavBav09 (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YavBav09, you're an experienced user here. What is going on on the internet today to bring so many misguided people here? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly it is being coordinated from somewhere. The weird thing is that the picture hasn't changed for ages so there does not seem to be any actual trigger for this outburst of idiocy. I don't even know who the woman in the current image is or whether she is even trans. Am I failing to recognise somebody famous or is this all just supposition? Anyway, my view is that no one woman can represent the topic of Woman/Women as a whole. An image consisting of a small but diverse group of women, of various ages and ethnicities, would be better. DanielRigal (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to discuss the image it must be done respectfully. Dog-whistle terms like "biological females" must not be used. We are not idiots. We know far-right trolling when we see it. DanielRigal (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what dog whistles and trolling you're talking about. I just used it to refer to people born as female. -- YavBav09 (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't pretend not to know what is going on. I reiterate that we are not idiots. DanielRigal (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that I think of you as idiots?
I just presented arguments against the use of a trans person as the lead image that I think everyone can agree on. -- YavBav09 (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't try to change the subject. You used the dog-whistle phrase "biological females". If you actually want to discuss the image then you can do so civilly by using the correct term "cisgender women". I think you already know this. DanielRigal (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The term "biological female" is not a dog whistle. And you are failing to WP:assume good faith. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's just the term I thought of. I didn't know it was a dog-whistle. -- YavBav09 (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous. Casint (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's ridiculous? Isn't the phrase used to intentionally disparage trans people? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing to suggest that the woman in the current photo (a Malaysian woman named Agnes who is presumably the photographer's spouse) is transgender. The apparent assumption that she is is... deeply questionable to say the least.
Proposals for a MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY were discussed in the prior RfC but generally opposed. I don't personally see a single photo of a group of women to be a substantial improvement unless a very good one exists. @DanielRigal if that is an proposal you want to advance further, it should probably begin as a new thread, and collapse this one, so that discussion doesn't begin on such a sour note. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fair enough. My thought was that a group would show the diversity of women and get away from normative ideas that there is one "correct" way for a woman to be. If that has been discussed and rejected before then I'm not going to push to reopen it. We have had quite enough drama for one day already. ;-) DanielRigal (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason the photo shouldn't be changed. It can be replaced by a full-body photo of a woman to show a woman in full and it won't cause controversy that wastes people's lives anymore. A collage of women would be good, too. -- YavBav09 (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any compelling reason to do so except your personal biases. The RfC (Talk:Woman/Archive 19 § RfC: Lead image) reflects that (at least as of the time of that discussion) the community is basically happy with the current image. I don't understand what the article would gain from switching to a full-body portrait rather than the well-framed bust currently being used. It's a perfectly serviceable closeup and reads well on devices of various sizes. All candidates discussed in the RfC were framed from the torso-up or waist-up, simply due to the fact this is a common and visually appealing way to frame the human body in a portrait photo. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 19:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's controversial. If you look at the edit history, there has been controversy before this.
And some people think that transgender women aren't real women, so if the person in the picture is trans, than that would violate WP:NPOV, no? -- YavBav09 (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the encyclopedia's purposes, the only "controversy" that matters are disagreements among reliable sources, which we describe in due weight. Wikipedia has lots of articles about controversial subjects, such as Homeopathy, Flat earth, and 2020 US Presidential Election, which various people have strong feelings about and are willing to spill megabytes of digital ink on. We do not, as a rule, change content because simply it may provoke disagreement among editors or readers. Instead we rely on WP:policies and guidelines to determine the best article content, and WP:consensus mechanisms such as WP:RfC to determine when an issue like this is "settled" and encourage people to move on, like I'm doing right now.
Whether the photo subject is cisgender (I am personally rather confident that she is) is basically irrelevant. We only care that this photo of her is representative of the article's topic (MOS:LEADIMAGE). It is not possible to determine someone's assigned sex based on their physical appearance. Attempting to do so reveals various racial and misogynistic biases. I strongly encourage you to stop speculating about this. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 19:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess that the articles you gave as controversial had people actually change the information to present something as fact and make them suit to their biases. Changing the picture would not change any of the information of the article and won't make the article biased. There's no good reason not to change it, as it creates needless controversy. -- YavBav09 (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who is to say that any other image we might choose might not also be objected to by somebody? Changing the image will not avoid needless controversy because needless controversy is what a lot of people come here for. We need to be able to deal with it. The best way to deal with it is to accept valid suggestions and rebuff invalid ones. I am not seeing a valid reason to change it. If we change it once for spurious or marginal reasons then we may well find ourselves changing it over and over forever. If the "controversy" is indeed needless then, by definition, we don't need it. Let's just drop it. DanielRigal (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible for articles to have multiple lead images, such as in the football article. And the reason to reopen the question is because the current lead image just isn't a very good image. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming CaptainEek is referring to Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images of group members in their link. What would be a better image? It doesn't seem right when you are saying that the image isn't good while not comparing it to alternatives. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I say that it isn't very good, I mean that it would never pass at WP:Featured pictures. We can definitely do better than the current lead image. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I suppose we can always do better when it comes to subjective judgement. Looking at the criteria: It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation which is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer. It sounds like no image will be able to satisfy being the "best example" of a woman. Again, if you have any alternatives that you believe is better than the current image, feel free to bring them up so we can discuss them. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 23:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, there's only one way we can use a lead image that represents every woman, and obviously that's Chaka Khan. GMGtalk 10:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed for the person in the photo being transgender. And whether or not they are is irrelevant; and the same argument applies to the 2020 US election; "Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Many people think that Joe Biden isn't real president, but everyone agrees that Donald Trump was President." is the same logic as this. And I really don't think that suspecting (without basis) the person in the photo to be transgender is really grounds to change it, or has any basis in Wikipedia Policy. A Socialist Trans Girl 10:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also confused by this. Setting aside the issue of whether it matters in the first place, we seem to be doing the incel thing where everyone is trans other than people who look like Jessica Rabbit. I would maybe prefer an image that has lasting historical significance, but generally to OP, go like...book some plane tickets to somewhere. You've had too much internet. GMGtalk 12:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
""Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Many people think that Joe Biden isn't real president, but everyone agrees that Donald Trump was President.""
If Biden being president is so controversial, why not put a picture of Trump as the president or someone else, then?
"And I really don't think that suspecting (without basis) the person in the photo to be transgender is really grounds to change it, or has any basis in Wikipedia Policy."
I've seen controversy around it before this section in the page. If it's changed then nothing would happen to waste people's time. -- YavBav09 (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are mistaking kvetching for actual controversy. A real controversy is about something substantive and I don't see any substantial reason why this picture is any worse than any other picture of any other individual woman. I also think that it is a mistake to believe that a sort of false compromise, just to appease the noisy, makes problems like this go away. If we accept that a woman vaguely looking like she might be trans (whatever the hell that means) makes for a bad picture of a woman then we are accepting a whole lot of implicit anti-feminist bullshit along with the obvious transphobia. The next demand will be made almost immediately and then the demands will come in thick and fast. Not white enough! Not blonde enough! Not dressed "traditionally" enough! Not pretty enough! Not smiling enough! And even then, after a thousand and one "compromises", somebody will come back and insist that the woman in the new picture "looks trans". There is a weird cult of "transvestigators" who loudly insist that anybody depicted in any type of media is secretly trans. (Yes, this is a real thing and it is every bit as stupid as it sounds! I have seen them posting pictures of Marilyn Monroe with a big arrow pointing to her allegedly "male spine".) There is no way to "compromise" with such insanity! The problem here is that the current image does not match the Platonic ideal form of a woman that exists in some people's heads. Of course it doesn't. No image of any one woman can match all the widely divergent archetypal women in everybody's heads. That's not something we can do anything about and not something we should waste another moment worrying about. Please can we just stop this. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the underlying problem is that a couple of men haven't noticed that women don't all have "oval" faces. There are plenty of cis women with "square" jaws (e.g., Sandra Bullock, Angelina Jolie, Demi Moore).
Of much more relevance to this article, I have suggested an approach to changing the lead image in the future at Talk:Woman/sandbox#Principles for future lead images. Note that I don't think there's anything wrong with this photo; I merely suggest that having a variety of images over the course of years might also be desirable. If you are interested in possibly changing the image in the future, please see my suggested process. (NB: process, not photo.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the WP:RS supports Biden being the incumbent president, and there is no WP:RS supporting Trump being incumbent president.
I've seen controversy around it before this section in the page. If it's changed then nothing would happen to waste people's time. Your reason for proposing that we change the image is seriously "to stop people's time being wasted by people wanting to change the image"??!?!!??!
Please tell; is there any actual Wikipedia policy basis for this proposed change, or is it just based in transphobia against someone which there is no evidence of them being transgender? A Socialist Trans Girl 04:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is going in circles; ironic given the insistent and flimsy "avoid wasting editor time" justification. Any good-faith attempt to improve on the RfC result should include plausible candidates and a compelling policy-based justification, rather than vague grumblings about "controversy" (and worse, WP:BLPVIOs). Can an uninvolved editor please collapse the mess? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 14:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manual archiving

I have manually archived the long (231 comments!) section from the top of the page. The page size was so large that people using smartphones to edit would have had a lot of trouble participating. Please feel free to link to it (start here: Talk:Woman/Archive 25#This article really needs a massive overhaul.) or otherwise refer to any part of it that's useful, if you need to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I support this. Crossroads -talk- 22:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should include the detailed definitional discussion part still, as that section is still ongoing. A Socialist Trans Girl 08:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and done that. A Socialist Trans Girl 08:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted, that was going nowhere and is a pain to scroll past even on desktop. Archiving it was completely correct and it should not be brought back. Crossroads -talk- 21:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or ((efn)) templates on this page, but the references will not show without a ((reflist|group=lower-alpha)) template or ((notelist)) template (see the help page).

Categories