Home	Talk	Contributions	Sandbox	Editcount	Email me	Guestbook	Logs	Notes	Gallery

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them They should not be given alerts for those areas.

It is approximately 02:20 where this user lives.

Welcome to my talk page! Please feel free to bring discussions here from other pages, but please use a diff or quote. Please use diffs when talking about edits. This page is archived by User:ClueBot III. If you leave me a message on my talk page, I will reply on my talk page, so you may want to watch this page. I will not continue to watch a talk page if the discussion has migrated. I don't check my watchlist regularly. I don't always add talk pages to my watchlist if I comment on them, unless it's a user talk page or I started an important discussion. Thank you.

Women in Red | April 2024, Volume 10, Issue 4, Numbers 293, 294, 302, 303, 304 Online events: New: Alphabet run S & T | Gender studies | Health Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements The second round of "One biography a week" begins in April as part of #1day1woman. Tip of the month: If you run into technical problems, you might find help on our Tools and technical support page Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 19:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Just wanted to explain why I reverted what you had done on Santhi Soundarajan.

• First of all, your mass find and replace had changed the headline titles within the cites. No matter whether they are saying, you can't mis-represent what the source itself is titled.
• The article should also reflect what the sources say. If they call it a gender test, then that's what the article should reflect. If you do not like how the sources term it, then please get better sources.

Thanks. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Escape Orbit: I was just going to correct those changes. Since biological sex and gender are completely different things, the article has to be consistent in use of the terms "sex test" and "gender test". The article should use either the former or the latter.

The article uses a few instances of "sex test", which redirects to sex verification in sports.

The sources that say "gender test" assume that "gender = biological sex" even though that's false. What the sources say about "gender test" directly pertains to anatomical inspection and karyotyping, and not what gender means.

WP:HOWCITE says In general, the citation information should be cited as it appears in the original source. That is, in general. Information from sources does not always have to be exactly the same as it is mentioned in the sources as long as the intended meaning and intended contexts are retained. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 17:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, however, I am always wary of anyone deciding that sources do not know what they are saying, and they know what they really meant. Some better sources, referencing Soundarajan, that use what you say is the correct term would be good. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Escape Orbit: And the sources do know what they really meant. What the sources do not know are the large differences between biological sex and gender, as mentioned in sex and gender distinction.

But then again, since Wikipedia's policies also don't appropriately differentiate between biological sex and gender, the problem is more about Wikipedia than the sources. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 17:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]