This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Template:Vital article LGBT studies B‑class This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Gender studies B‑class Top‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Domestic violence in lesbian relationships · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Sociology B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Social and political philosophy Template:WP1.0

	Gender was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 12, 2006 Good article nominee Listed July 7, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

The rise of criticism against the WID approach led to the emergence of a new theory, that of Women and Development (WAD).^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhum.group2 (talk • contribs) 17 May 2019 (UTC)

In contemporary times, most literature and institutions that are concerned with women's role in development incorporate a GAD perspective, with the United Nations taking the lead of mainstreaming the GAD approach through its system and development policies. ^[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhum.group2 (talk • contribs) 17 May 2019 (UTC)

CactiStaccingCrane, can you please elaborate on this downgrade to class C? You gave as the reason, downgrade to C-Class due to lack of citations, see also: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#Reassessment_of_Vital_articles [linked discussion now in Archive 22].) This article has 205 citations, which at a size of 147 kb works out to 1 citation per 717 bytes. I checked another article in the gender space, Female genital mutilation, which has 257 citations in 177 kb, or 1 per 690 bytes, so roughly the same as this one. Yet, FGM is a featured article, so it would seem that this number of citations could be appropriate for a FA for other articles as well. So, at a minimum, I don't see that as a valid argument for a downgrade below FA, and since this one started out at 'B', I think it should be restored to 'B'. Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot I agree with your reasoning. I should've been more through with my assessment. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assessment review, and for your comments. (Needless to say, it could be subject to reassessment based on other factors, and as assessing editor shouldn't shy from that if applicable.) Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I propose changing the lead sentence to something like:

• Gender is "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with" the male or female sex in humans. Merriam-Webster[1][2]

This is consistent with the current source (Palan, K. (2001)): "[G]ender is the cultural definition of behavior defined as appropriate to the sexes in a given society at a given time."[3] Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. If you check M-W's definition of gender role, you'll see that they don't have one. (But note that they do have gender identity.) So, I think they are adding the definition of gender role to gender, because they don't have another place for it. In fact, the definition you quoted, is pretty close to what I think of as a definition of gender role, and I don't think your proposed definition should be used here. Notice that it is only the 2b definition; why pick that one and not, say, the 2a definition, which it equates to the sex 1a definition? (Rhetorical question; definitely don't do that!) The point here being, a (good) dictionary lists *all* meanings of a term (not only the primary one) including less frequent usages. Here, they are listing *all* the ways that the word gender can be used, and it's true that it sometimes it is used to mean "sex" (as in 2a), and sometimes it is used to mean "gender role" (as in 2b). But in no way is 2b the primary definition of it, and we shouldn't cherrypick that version and imply that it is. Mathglot (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the subject of this article not the 2b meaning? If not, which dictionary definition of gender are we discussing here? Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. As to the questions, I think I'll bow out, and let more major contributors jump in. Not that I'm avoiding things—I may pop in later—but I'm a bit gendered out at WP articles for the moment, and need to lurk or play a more minor role here for a bit. But I will subscribe, and watch with interest, and rejoin, perhaps, at a later time. Thanks again! Mathglot (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed lead/definition is crappy, poorly sourced, and does not summarize the content of this article or its sources. Let's not do that. Newimpartial (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed sentence is consistent with Merriam-Webster, the OED, and several other cited sources on this talk page and in the article. The concept of gender is based on the characteristics societies associate with the sexes. A person who was assigned female at birth but has the gender identity of a man is said to be trans because their gender does not align with society's typical expectations for the female sex. If the concept of gender wasn't based on associations with sex, then there could be no such thing as trans. Our articles do not articulate gender's association with sex. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A formulation is not DUE for this arricle's lede just because it is present in a handful of dictionaries and other sources - some of which are not recent, and none of which are needed for the actual content of this article.

In saying this I am not making the counterfactual alternative argument that "gender" and "sex" are entirely unrelated. But any overly specific formulation of and terminology for this - such as your initial one or your subsequent one - essentially cherry-picks among the sources to impose a particular conceptual logic, which is not in line with the bulk of the sources on this article's topic. Newimpartial (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have shown that my proposal is supported by arguably the most reliable dictionaries. What definition and sources do you believe are superior? Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about the sources the rest of the article actually uses? Cherrypicking a dictionary definition and then insisting that that specific definition is what other sources on the topic "actually" mean is classic WP:OR. Newimpartial (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the two dictionaries I cited, I cited a source in the article in my 01:06, 17 December 2022 comment above. You've argued that my preferred definition and sources are wrong, but you haven't told me what you think is correct. I cannot argue your position for you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That one isn't a recent WP:RS. And I think LEADFOLLOWSBODY is correct - a viewpoint that doesn't require either you or me to argue in its defense. Newimpartial (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't tell me what sources in the article you've seen support the current lead sentence, assuming that's the definition you support. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The OED definition [4] is actually cited in the body, and that's current. The WHO definition [5] is actually cited in the lead. I believe it supports my proposal. It's using the words men and women to define sex as well as gender, so I don't think it's OR to assume this nonacademic source is consistent with the OED and M-W definitions. But seeing as the fourth paragraph is about gender as sex, Mathglot is right that my proposed definition isn't appropriate as the lead sentence because it is limited to the meaning of social gender.

The definition used in Gender role is consistent with what I was trying to propose, and it is presumably supported by the body of that article. I would like to include this definition or its summary somewhere in the lead of Gender. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A better definition may include gender roles:

• Gender is "the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for" humans of a particular sex.[6][7][8]

The article Gender roles may need to be merged here, or this article should be shortened to encompass just an overview of all of the concepts of gender. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or

• Gender is the roles and behavioral, social, cultural, and psychological characteristics that a society typically associates with humans of a particular sex.[9]

"Socially constructed" is implied by "a given society typically associates with". I'm trying to simplify this to something like what Clicriffhard and Tewdar had discussed at Draft:Female (gender).Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited for the above suggestion states In biosocial terms, gender is not the same as sex at p. 33 and the above suggestion does not appear to be a quote.[10] There is the artice sex and gender distinction, as well as the sources and the developing lead in Draft:Female (gender) that seem relevant to consider - there does not appear to be support for a definition of gender that is as strictly tied to "a particular sex". I think precision in terminology will be helpful, given the occasional overlap in informal uses of the words. Beccaynr (talk) 05:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, The Merriam-Webster source cited above includes a section titled "Are gender and sex the same? Usage Guide", which includes, Among those who study gender and sexuality, a clear delineation between sex and gender is typically prescribed, with sex as the preferred term for biological forms, and gender limited to its meanings involving behavioral, cultural, and psychological traits. In this dichotomy, the terms male and female relate only to biological forms (sex), while the terms masculine/masculinity, feminine/femininity, woman/girl, and man/boy relate only to psychological and sociocultural traits (gender).

The 2004 Encyclopedia of Women’s Health abstract cited after Merriam-Webster's above includes The definition of gender emphasizes psychological and cultural traits, whereas the definition of sex emphasizes structural and functional traits. Both definitions, however, include behavioral aspects.

The Palan, K. (2001) source cited above states: Sex refers to the individual's biological sex, that is, the biological one is born with. Gender, on the other hand, is more malleable. It refers to an individual's "psychological sex" which may be socially and culturally constructed. It quotes two sources for the quote cited above, for which the meaning seems more clear with the context provided by Palan.

In the 2007 Gender Differences in Determinants and Consequences of Health and Illness source cited above, it states: Gender refers to “the array of socially constructed roles and relationships, personality traits, attitudes, behaviours, values, relative power and influence that society ascribes to the two sexes on a differential basis. Gender is relational—gender roles and characteristics do not exist in isolation, but are defined in relation to one another and through the relationships between women and men, girls and boys” (1). Simply put, sex refers to biological differences, whereas gender refers to social differences. (citing Health Canada. Ottawa: Health Canada's gender-based analysis policy; 2000. p. 14.)

In the Oxford English Dictionary source cited above, it states: b. Psychology and Sociology (originally U.S.). The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones; the collective attributes or traits associated with a particular sex, or determined as a result of one's sex. Also: a (male or female) group characterized in this way.

The 2005 book Gender Roles cited above says in its preface Gender encompasses biological sex but extends beyond it to the socially prescribed roles deemed appropriate for each sex by the culture in which we live. The gender roles we each carry out are highly individualistic, built on our biological and physical traits, appearance and personality, life experiences such as childhood, career and education, and history of sexual and romantic interactions.

Beccaynr (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:INAPPNOTE, to help avoid the appearance of Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions, everyone involved in the discussion referred to above should probably be notified. Beccaynr (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Becca, what was your point with all those quoted definitions? I'm not seeing inconsistency between my suggestion and those citations. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above that says there does not appear to be support for a definition of gender that is as strictly tied to "a particular sex". I think precision in terminology will be helpful, given the occasional overlap in informal uses of the words is about the suggestions, based on the sources cited here, and at the article and draft also linked in that comment. I think it would be helpful to incorporate sources more clearly and proportionately. Beccaynr (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal does not state "strictly tied to a particular sex", so I am not aware that we are in disagreement. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestions use the biological term "sex" to define gender even though the sources state this terminology should not be used. Instead, sources state, e.g. that gender is not the same as sex, so more precision in language to avoid misrepresenting sources appears necessary. Beccaynr (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like strawmanning and misrepresenting the nuances of the sources. If you are unwilling or unable to specifically and concisely cite language in my proposal which contradicts specific language in the sources then I don't think we can continue this discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The way that the word "sex" is used in suggested summarized definitions of "gender" appears to not clearly represent the content and meaning of the sources used to support the summary in the context of this topic.

When I refer to incorporating sources more clearly and proportionately, this also refers to WP:NPOV policy, which from my view, includes incorporating the context of sources.

I am not sure what you mean by "strawmanning", but as we have previously discussed, a focus on the content seems best for discussions about content. It appears that every source cited above does not support the broad use of the term "sex" to define "gender", because these terms have precise meanings in the context of this topic and according to various sources. It further appears we also need to consider the article contents, per MOS:LEAD. Beccaynr (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To straw man: "To falsely attribute an insubstantial argument (a straw man argument) to another through direct declaration or indirect implication".[11] I must point out that the content of your statements is inaccurate. You continue to make generalized statements without actually quoting language from my suggestions against quotes from the sources, so you have shown no inconsistencies. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm pretty checked out of Wikipedia editing at the moment and happy to stay out of this discussion. Hope you're all well in any case. Clicriffhard (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather go down to the local pub in disguise and announce that I've recently purchased a second home in the village while effecting a Liverpudlian accent than become involved in this discussion, but thanks for asking.  Tewdar  19:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is comparably crappy and poorly sourced as the original proposal; the intention seems to be to insert a (presumably well-intentioned) logic and specious clarity that is not supported by the vast majority of the recent, reliable sources. Again, let's not do that. Newimpartial (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In comments above, I added specific quotes from sources that differentiate between gender and sex, and explained several times that the specific uses of the term "sex" in the suggested summary definitions do not appear to adequately reflect (i.e. are inconsistent with) the sources used as support for those suggested definitions.

In the context of this topic and these sources, this seems to be a specific and well-established distinction that should be incorporated into any summary, including per WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD. Beccaynr (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You made no, and continue to make no, direct comparison by accurately quoting my suggestion against a quote from the sources. Are you willing to concisely compare a quote from my suggestion against a quote from one source? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have by quoting the sources, because none of them appear to support the suggested summaries. I also began with a comparison of a suggestion and a quote of one source [12]. But this appears to be an issue related to incorporating multiple sources, none of which appear to support the way "sex" is used in the suggestions to introduce the concept of gender.

Per WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS, it appears more appropriate for you to explain how sources making a distinction between gender and sex can support a summary that does not appear to make this distinction. Or in the alternative, we could discuss summaries that are more clearly supported by the contents of the article and sources per WP:NPOV and WP:MOS:LEAD. Beccaynr (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You keep falsely representing my suggestion as somehow refuting the sex and gender distinction, but you are unwilling to articulate, with quotes and concision, why. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I do not think it is reasonable to continue asking me to re-explain what has already been clearly explained with sources and policies. Please either identify support in sources for the use of the term "sex" or let's move on to a discussion focused on developing alternatives. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to put this, but the source 7 does not support the assertiong made, that "Most scholars agree that gender is a central characteristic for social organization." 78.121.108.56 (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please either identify support in sources for the use of the term "sex". My proposal may not be suitable as a single lead sentence, but it is consistent with the lead of Gender role, which also uses "sex", and much of this article is about social gender (role). Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gender role article dicussion

Hi Kolya Butternut, I attempted to correct what appears to be mis-use of sources, and to add a clarifying source in the Gender role article, but you have repeatedly removed the reliable source and source-based correction [13], [14], while apparently not taking into account the full scope of the source used to help clarify the lead and main article.

It would be appreciated if you would review the sources to confirm how the sources do not support the use of the wikilinked sex and are in fact referring to what is commonly understood as gender, which is not circular when we are discussing gender roles. Further discussion can be found at Gender Roles: A Sociological Perspective, which discusses "problems of terminology" at pp. 4-5. It appears we need to be very careful with how we use terminology, and to review sources carefully so we use them in the context intended by the source. Many sources use "sex" informally, while specifically disclaiming support for the use of the sex wikilink, and this article, as well as the gender role article, appear to support making this distinction much more clear. Beccaynr (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reject your characterizations. Please continue this discussion at the appropriate talk page: Talk:Gender role. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources and discussion appear to be relevant here, because you referenced the Gender role article as support for suggestions, and then repeatedly reverted the Gender role article after attempts to clarify terminology according to the article sources and an additional source added to help clarify the terminology.

I have offered sources and reasoning here to try to help this discussion move forward, because there may be an issue related to how terminology is used, and it seems helpful to locate this discussion here, at least for now. Beccaynr (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've split this discussion into a new section. I don't agree with your characterizations of what you've done, what I've done, or what the sources state, so you'll have to provide direct quotes, concisely. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, Beccaynr, the very source you link here on pages 4 and 5 first defines sex as biological characteristics distinguishing male and female, and then - here's the point - defines gender as traits linked to males and females. It also states, Gender roles, therefore, are the expected attitudes and behaviors a society associates with each sex. Yet, you repeatedly removed "sex" from the definition of "gender role" and replaced it with "gender", generating circularity, and ironically now complain about "mis-use of sources" while citing a source that contradicts your contention. As for "when sources use sex", if they are academic sources from a relevant academic field and have clearly not overlooked the sex and gender distinction, then it is WP:OR for Wikipedians to conclude that when they say "sex" they actually mean "gender". Crossroads ^-talk- 23:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[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. Beccaynr (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[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. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads, 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. Beccaynr (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stay focused on the use of the word sex in the lead definition of Gender role. Source 2 and 4:

• Gender roles, therefore, are the expected attitudes and behaviors a society associates with each sex.[15]
• The social roles, behaviors, attitudes, and psychological characteristics that are more common, more expected, or more accepted for one sex or the other.[16]

Yet Becca stated above (regarding Gender): Your suggestions use the biological term "sex" to define gender even though the sources state this terminology should not be used. That statement misleads. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya Butternut, please include a diff if you quote me, so context is available and I can directly respond. Your assumption of my good faith would also be appreciated. Also, I have tried to discuss challenges with the terminology with reference to sources and the article contents, per WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD, and I apologize if I have not made this clear. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is on this very talk page above at 15:43, 18 December 2022,[17] or you can use Control+F to find your quoted comment.

Regardless of good or bad faith, the content of your comments is misleading. If you will not express understanding of this, then it is fair to assume bad faith. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the scope of the term "gender" as used in this article is considerably broader than the same term as used in Gender role, so it would be inappropriate simply to port content between the two articles, especially their lead sections. Newimpartial (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page section is just about the lead of the other article, as I made clear at 21:22, 19 December 2022 above. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But in this diff you stated that you intend to retroject material from Gender role into the lead of this arricle. Where would you prefer for me to raise the grounds I just mentioned, as an objection to what you are proposing? I'll do so wherever you like. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"pertaining to masculinity and femininity"

Can we remove or move the first sentence, is the range of characteristics pertaining to femininity and masculinity and differentiating between them? It seems undue. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have some general thoughts on revisions, but it is a major holiday, so I do not plan to immediately make an in-depth reply that reviews the structure and contents of the article as well as reliable sources in support of a proposed revision. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's essentially nothing in that sentence that I find valuable, but I won't support a change unless something has been presented here on talk that promises not to be worse. Newimpartial (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fyi, this draft includes sources in the article and on the Talk page that may be helpful for expanding this article, including the lead. There is a related discussion at Talk:Woman#WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD with sources that may also be of interest to editors. Beccaynr (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to be about Gender broadly, meaning that it covers grammatical gender, social gender, and sex. However, last August after this discussion, "biological sex" was removed from the lead sentence, perhaps this was the final removal. Making things more confusing, Gender role or gender identity, depending on the source, may be synonyms for social gender:

• [G]ender gained a meaning referring to the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex, as in "gender roles." "Gender", Merriam-Webster [18]
• One's identity as female or male or as neither entirely female nor entirely male. "Gender" American Heritage Dictionary [19]

It is unclear to me what the scope of this article and the other gender articles should be. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion that may help answer this question at Draft talk:Female (gender)#Nature of this page, particularly the sources cited and discussed. Beccaynr (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that doesn't help. Your draft is about social gender, but Gender is currently not limited to that. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That particular discussion on the draft Talk page discusses how the draft addresses more than social aspects of gender; the draft also currently includes a Biological section in addition to other aspects, including Legal. And I think there are a wide range of sources that may be helpful for editors generally interested in this article and the lead. Beccaynr (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see how that draft is limited to "social gender", as opposed to gender identity, say, or cultural engendering/engenderment (the cultural construction of femininity). What excess do you believe you have identified at "Gender" that does not apply, say, to Female (gender), Male (gender) and Nonbinary gender? Is it the terminological discussion (usage of the term gender) that this article contains? Newimpartial (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my imprecision. I would like to focus on this article. I would like to continue this discussion with my comment below with the same timestamp. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your list, grammatical gender, social gender, and sex, does not strike me as particularly helpful, since it does not include gender identity, which is distinct from all of the above. Your list also seems to posit (as did some prior versions of this article's lead) that "sex" (or "biological sex") can be straightforwardly distinguished from gender, or that a relationship between the two can be simply delineated, while I don't believe that either of these assumptions is widely shared within the relevant literature. Newimpartial (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article currently is about grammatical gender, social gender, and sex (all species), at least. Regardless of the nuances of the sex and gender distinction, this article is not just about social or psychological gender. My question is, what should it cover? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think gender identity - a major aspect of gender in the 21st century - can be paraphrased as psychological gender, then I'm not confident that you should be posing content questions about this article, to be completely honest. Newimpartial (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you unwilling to articulate what you think the scope of this article should be? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find the scope of this article to be especially problematic or in need of further definition. If I were to name a problem with the article, it would be the passages that rely on outdated sources. Newimpartial (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rephrase: are you willing to articulate what you think the scope of this article is? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What part of I don't find the scope of this article to be ... in need of further definition seems unclear to you? The article's scope is what it is. Newimpartial (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought by definition you were referring to the clarity the scope in the lead. If by definition you mean articulating the scope in this talk page, "further" implies that you've articulated the scope. Which comments of yours articulated the scope? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article's scope is what it is appears to me to be standard English, and reflects my view. Newimpartial (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the answer will WP:SATISFY you (this particular thread seems like unproductive head-butting), but my interpretation of Newimpartial's remarks here is that the current scope of the articles gender, sex, gender role, and gender identity, and the distinctions between them, are self-evident from the text of the articles themselves, and that (although the concepts may have some overlap, particularly as the term "gender" is used in common parlance) they are already organized and delineated in an acceptable fashion. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 01:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it is at all fair to cite WP:SATISFY which describes making repeated unreasonable demands for re-explanation of that which has already been clearly explained. The scope of this article should be summarized by the lead, but the lead is not clear. The current lead [20] has a Template:Dubious, and the sources I listed in the subsection below do not clearly support the first sentences. And I began this section asking about the scope by questioning the removal of "biological sex" from the lead. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added the dubious template [21] to the first line of the lead: Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to femininity and masculinity and differentiating between them. I think Newimpartial addresses this issue with their comment [22] below discussing "characteristics", and the contents of the article seem helpful to consider as well. Beccaynr (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should perhaps have pointed out previously that the scope of this article does not include sex (all species) (sic.) It includes the use of the term gender to refer to sex in human and nonhuman species, which is not at all the same thing. I'm still really not confident, Kolya, of your competence to formulate questions about the content of this article, based on performance to date. Newimpartial (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead definition sources

We may need to update the sources or the lead definition. Currently there are three sources which state:

• "Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women. ... Some examples of sex characteristics: Women menstruate while men do not. World Health Organization (2017) [23]
• ... I want to give you an integrated theory of gender. Since current usage is so inconsistent, we need a good definition. Gender is the relationship between biological sex and behavior ... Social science explanations of gender depend on three concepts: gender role, socialization, and opportunity structures. ... A gender role is a range of acceptable behavior that differs by sex in a particular behavioral domain (say, parenting) and is supported by gendered norms.. Udry, Richard. "The Nature of Gender". Demography (1994) [24]
• From this beginning, there was a slow but gradual increase in the use of gender through the 1960s by writers, especially in the social sciences and among psychoanalysts, who wished to emphasize the environmental, social, or psychologic determinants of psychologic/behavioral differences between men and women. "The Inexorable Rise of Gender and the Decline of Sex: Social Change in Academic Titles, 1945–2001". Archives of Sexual Behavior (2004) [25]

Are there preferred sources in the article for the lead definition? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Legal definition from the body: The word "gender" has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.^[1] Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WHO definition from the body: The World Health Organization defines gender as the result of socially constructed ideas about the behavior, actions, and roles a particular sex performs.[26] Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be cherrypicking sources that make reference to sex, for some reason. Do you believe that these represent the corpus of sources referenced in this article? I do not believe that they do (and we should not be reaching back to 1994 sources for non-historical purposes, in any case). Newimpartial (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My question was, are there preferred sources in the article for the lead definition? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking for a definition, my starting point would be the WHO's Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed,[27] except that I find "characteristics" to be unnecessarily restrictive. I would prefer, for example, to include gender relations - Gender relations define how people should interact with others and how others relate to them, depending on their attributed gender, and they should be analyzed within the cultural context in which they develop [28] - and similar concepts that cannot be reduced to "characteristics" pertaining to individuals. Newimpartial (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving me information. The US Department of Labor interprets a WHO definition of gender as the: "'socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate' based on sex." [29] Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This feels like one of those marine mammal scenarios where an editor keeps pulling any source or text offered back towards their idée fix (in this case, "sex"). Newimpartial (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeking to clarify how gender relates to sex, so naturally I am analyzing the text and sources to figure out how sex fits in. If you think the US DOL is getting WHO's definition of gender wrong, I think that shows that the average person would be confused by it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an article about how gender relates to sex (the article on that topic being Sex and gender distinction), so I'm not convinced that analyzing the text and sources to figure out how sex fits in is the best contribution you could be making to this article. The US DOL has lots to say about gender, and the specific based on sex formulation that you have pulled out of context isn't especially prominent among its statements, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please strike pulled out of context? Below is the context:

Gender Identity: Key Terminology

What is the difference between sex and gender? Sex (i.e., male, female, or intersex) is assigned at birth based on a combination of a baby's biological characteristics, including chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs, and is originally documented on a person's birth certificate. The World Health Organization defines gender as the "socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate" based on sex.[30]

Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to do what you ask. You have seized upon the one passage on that DOL page that elaborates briefly on gender in relation to sex, as opposed to the vast majority of that page's text that does no such thing. I would direct your attention, for example, to the following, IMO more interesting, passage:

Discrimination based on gender identity or expression can affect anyone. Policies barring these forms of discrimination not only protect those who openly identify as transgender, femme, masc, or non-binary, but they also protect anyone who might express their gender in any way that does not conform to preconceived notions about how people of a particular gender should express themselves.

That passage offers a useful articulation of how discrimination based on gender expression is not reducible to gender identity or to minorities based on gender identity - while still remaining a key aspect of gender. None of this explanation requires reference to "sex" for its interpretation, as is typical of the DOL page as a whole. So "pulled out of context" still applies, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The passage I cited is from a list of definitions which includes separate definitions for gender identity and gender expression. The US DOL is apparently citing WHO's definition: "Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women. [31] It might be argued that this definition is out-of-date or the US DOL is misinterpreting it, but I disagree that it was pulled out of context by me. I think we can agree that the lead is dubious and the current sourcing in the lead is inadequate. I find the WHO definitions confusing. The Sex and gender distinction article's lead states, in part, that gender usually refers to either social roles based on the sex of a person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity). That language sounds clear, but not sufficient for this article. I am curious what other definitions folks find helpful. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this article is quite good.  Tewdar  23:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The authors suggest operationalising gender as consisting of several aspects, which can be divided into the four main facets of: (a) physiological/bodily aspects (sex); (b) gender identity or self-defined gender; (c) legal gender; and (d) social gender in terms of norm-related behaviours and gender expressions (the American Psychological Association refers to this aspect as ‘sex role’; APA, 2015). Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the complicating factors here is the ambiguity about whether the social roles referred to as either "sex roles" or "gender roles" are based on the sex of a person (as Wikipedia states, and as the term "sex role" implies) or are based on gender identity and gender expression (as the term "gender role" implies, and as Lindkvist et al. suggest when writing in their own voice). In reality, these roles can be interpolated based on both or either, but rapid elision to a "based on sex" formulation doesn't do our readers any favours, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lindkvist et al.: (d) social gender ... (the American Psychological Association refers to this aspect as ‘sex role’; APA, 2015) APA: sex role: the behavior and attitudinal patterns characteristically associated with being male or female as defined in a given society. Sex roles thus reflect the interaction between biological heritage and the pressures of socialization, and individuals differ greatly in the extent to which they manifest typical sex-role behavior. [32] Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can read, thanks. But that isn't what Lindkvist et al. continue to discuss as social gender in terms of norm-related behaviours and gender expressions. You can keep going back to the interaction between biological heritage and the pressures of socialization all you want, but that is no longer a typical or uncontested characterization of the concept that can be stated in wikivoice much less in an article lead, as you have repeatedly advocated. Newimpartial (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've advocated for any particular language/idea for nearly two weeks. Part of what I am doing is questioning the dominant POVs here. I don't recall you quoting a single source's definition of gender which you agree with, so it is difficult to collaborate. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think consideration of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY is helpful when discussing the lead, but as to the source identified by Tewdar, "What is gender, anyway: a review of the options for operationalising gender" by Lindqvist et al in 2020, it also states Every researcher should reflect upon why they include gender as a variable, how it is connected to their research question, and what aspect/s of gender that best may serve as predictor(s) for the outcome variables. To aid in that process, we provide a systematic deconstruction of gender into four facets, and discuss how to operationalise each facet. The goal is not to make a best practice recommendation, but to help researchers reflect upon the concept of gender and make informed decisions about measuring gender and later on, Both on a theoretical and a linguistic level, the terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ are conflated. In English, physiological/bodily aspects are often referred to as sex which regards genitalia, chromosomes, and bodily attributes, while social aspects are referred to as gender (Frohard-Dourlent et al., 2017; West & Zimmerman, 1987), including cultural meanings associated with behaviour, personality and expressions conventionally labelled as feminine or masculine (Reisner et al., 2015). Despite this conflation, sex seems to be a poor proxy for gender, because it is incorrect to assume that sex precedes and determines gender (Bittner & Goodyear-Grant, 2017; Butler, 1990; Fausto-Sterling, 2012; Westbrook & Saperstein, 2015). There is also the APA definition of gender that could be considered. Beccaynr (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was earlier claimed that This isn't an article about how gender relates to sex (the article on that topic being Sex and gender distinction). This is a non sequitur. The relation to sex is a major aspect of the topic of gender and should be included. And yes, it plays a part in the definition. Humans have had sexes long before they evolved the ability to create social constructs. Gender should not and cannot be defined solely in a circular fashion in which "gender" is defined in terms of norms, stereotypes, identity, expression, or what have you, each of which is itself defined as related to a particular gender. You can't define A as based on B when B is defined as based on A. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be careful to avoid an appearance of original research or "POV" by carefully working with reliable sources and the structure and contents of the article to help support WP:NPOV. From my view, there are a wide variety of sources discussing gender as a concept, including the above, which notes the conflation of terminology that can happen and states, e.g. sex seems to be a poor proxy for gender, because it is incorrect to assume that sex precedes and determines gender (Bittner & Goodyear-Grant, 2017; Butler, 1990; Fausto-Sterling, 2012; Westbrook & Saperstein, 2015). Beccaynr (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All that's saying is that some people are transgender, which we all know and provides no help in defining this term. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This source is titled "What is gender, anyway: a review of the options for operationalising gender", and from my view, even if all it said was that some people are transgender (which it does not appear to do in the context of the quote), this would be helpful for defining gender, because transgender is part of this topic. This source appears to discuss gender as a broad concept, e.g. the source states: "In this article, we deconstruct the concept ‘gender’ as consisting of several facets, and argue that the researcher needs to identify relevant aspects of gender in relation to their research question." Beccaynr (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are not social scientists conducting a study and are not engaging in operationalization. What your quote is basically saying is that researchers should not assume that someone's sex matches their gender. No one here is disputing that by saying someone's gender should be defined as always matching their biological sex. We are talking about the concept in general. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of this concept generally, there are a variety of sources (discussed further in the Broad concept article approach Talk section below) that appear to add more depth to the discussion, including the medical and scientific challenges related to the use of the term "biological sex" when defining "gender."

It appears this article can present history of the development of the concept of gender, and also present a contemporary WP:NPOV understanding. The source above seems to address a variety of general issues, including the conflation of the terms 'sex' and 'gender', with references to a variety of sources that may be helpful, but also seems clear about not making "a best practice recommendation." Beccaynr (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I delight in the abundance of originality you are offering us, Crossroads. Care to contribute to a source-based discussion?

Also, let me explicitly question your major premise: it is simply no longer a constant among the reliable sources on gender that B is defined based on A. In fact, in the 21st century, the sources that now define B based on A are probably now a minority, excluding the screeds and op-eds. Newimpartial (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Care to contribute to a source-based discussion? Again, have you provided a quote of a definition from a single source that you agree with? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reading this law review, which may be helpful for developing the article: Jessica A. Clarke (Nov. 2022) "Sex Assigned at Birth" Columbia Law Review 122 (7). The introduction is also available here. Beccaynr (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing much on gender, but transgender is frequently defined in terms of identities, roles, behaviors, etc., which differ from what are typically "associated with" one's "sex" or "expected" for or of their "sex". I would expect the same logic for gender in general, but it would be helpful to find sources which actually address our questions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics Canada's definition of gender distinguishes gender from sex at birth without basing one on (or associating one with) the other; I suspect that this is fairly typical of recent operational definitions of the concept. Newimpartial (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[G]ender is a multidimensional concept that is influenced by several additional factors, including cultural and behavioural norms, and self-identity. Norms associated with ...? They're really not making it easy for our readers. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's turtles all the way down. Newimpartial (talk) 10:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Psychology of Sex and Gender (SAGE, 2019, pg 31), the central question surrounding gender is what attributes, tendencies and experiences (traits, interests, roles, attitudes, stereotypes, socialization practices, etc.) are associated with my sex? So perhaps Statistics Canada, which is probably not an optimal source for providing us with an operational definition of gender, is not fairly typical after all. If gender is not 'based on' or 'associated with' sex, what is it based on? What is it associated with? What is it?  Tewdar  10:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ibid, pg 32: we use the term gender to refer to the meanings that people give to the different sex categories.

ibid, pg. 36: Gender identity often (though not always) involves feeling a basic sense of belongingness to a sex category.

etc...  Tewdar  10:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics Canada uses gender operationally in a national census and am ongoing program of large scale national surveys. How exactly does your preferred SAGE paperback use the concept operationally? And by the way, I keep my eyes open, and have get to see a recent, RS operational definition of gender based on sex.

Also, BTW, I have already answered your final question - it is, in this mainstream view, turtles all the way down. You just aren't satisfied with that answer for some reason. Newimpartial (talk) 10:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turtles all the way down - you got a source for that one? Even Statistics Canada would do.  Tewdar  10:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Turtles all the way down" is a traditional rhetorical gesture for "it has to be based on something else"/"no, actually, it doesn't". Many, many sources refuse to base gender on something else (although other sources, like your SAGE, obviously do so). Newimpartial (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, I am familiar with Hindu mythology and Terry Pratchett. Most sources, rather than expanding 'turtles all the way down', just simply don't really bother to provide a definition.  Tewdar  10:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you are disputing that sources offering a definition like Statistics Canada's are "bothering to provide a definition"? If so, you appear to be headed for semantic trench warfare, and I'll be needing to drag out my gas mask soon, I expect. If you're willing to accept only a certain form of definition as a definition, then your goalposts are likely to exclude many RS definitions IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not turtles all the way down. We already know that gender is defined by gender roles, which are defined based on sex, the question was just whether that extra step was needed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who says "gender" is defined by "gender roles"? The APA? That is hardly a neutral or complete definition - gender identity is not typically defined by gender roles at all, for example. Perhaps this is the origin point for your difficulty in understanding the breadth of this arricle's topic. Newimpartial (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who says "gender" is defined by "gender roles"? The WHO, everybody? And as I've said, gender identity leads to the same thing. We wouldn't have the concept of transgender without associations with sex. Transgender: An umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or expression is different from cultural expectations based on the sex they were assigned at birth. [33] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know who your everybody consists of, but it doesn't inclide either Statistics Canada or most of the sources this article actually cites. And the idea that gender identity leads to the same thing because We wouldn't have the concept of transgender without associations with sex - well, that tells me that you aren't really registering "gender roles" as a concept at all - recognizing it as a concept distinct from "gender identity" and "gender expression" within the overall scope of gender - but rather you are simply using it as a convenient intermediate leading to "based on sex". But the way in which gender roles might be "based on sex", which is typically understood as a kind of cultural encoding, is entirely different from the way gender identity operates, as a variable intersecting with sex. Transgender identity is defined by that intersection, but gender identity per se (e.g., male female or nonbinary) is not. Newimpartial (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[M]ost of the sources this article actually cites. You haven't expressed support for a single source in the article as far as I recall on this talk page. [T]hat tells me that you aren't really registering ... but rather you are simply .... I'm really not confident, New, of your competence to empathize with other people's thoughts, based on performance to date. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's try an exercise, then. I have the impression that you believe gender ought to be defined in this article in terms of something outside of gender (even outside of culture), and that the "something" you currently have in mind is "sex". I also have the inpression that the nuances distinguishing gender roles from gender identity and gender identity - and gender identity from gender expression - are less important to you than the priority of defining gender in a "non-circular" way.

Any failures of empathy this far? If you believe my competence in mentalization is already demonstrated as inadequate by this partial reconstruction, could you let me know in some detail why you think that? Then we might actually get somewhere. Newimpartial (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Y]ou believe gender ought to be defined in this article in terms of ... "sex". I have not made that conclusion. I think that if we can appropriately define gender in terms of sex that would clarify the concept. I also have the inpression .... I don't know where this is coming from. This just sounds like a separate issue which isn't my focus, not that it's less important or I don't see the differences between the concepts. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So do you have any other explanation why you keep substituting definitions of gender roles as though they were intended to define "gender" as a general concept, or as though the concept of "gender role" could be interpolated as the basis for that of gender identity? If these distinctions and relationships are not your focus, then why do you keep insisting on proposing changes to the lead of an arricle where they represent a crucial issue? I floated my impression that this is less important to you than offering a definition of gender based on something other than gender, but if that's not it then I'd really like to know what your motivation is. Newimpartial (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're discussing proposals I haven't made for two weeks. [34] Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You repeated the same conceptual error here, about 12 hours ago. No gaslighting, please. Newimpartial (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to discuss my motivation or this misunderstanding, you may invite me to your talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should also have included this diff, where you stated quite emphatically that gender is based on gender roles (which in turn are related to sex). Saying that you haven't made certain proposals for two weeks when you were still re-articulating the mistaken logic of those proposals repeatedly, in the previous 24 hours - well, that kind of behaviour makes collaboration difficult. Newimpartial (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gender is based on gender roles, among other things. Your inability to empathize, lack of self awareness and humility are what make collaboration difficult. This is a discussion for your talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the diff I linked from yesterday, you stated the following: We already know that gender is defined by gender roles, which are defined based on sex - no "among other things" (with without italics). Please stop with the gaslighting and WP:NOTTHEM behaviour. Newimpartial (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued at User talk:Newimpartial#Disruptive editing.

Also, while I'm not a fan of the current opening sentence, the one thing it does achieve by situating gender as a spectrum, rather than a binary, is to allow for it to be something other than ancillary to ("based on" or "associated with") "sex". What sense would it make to say that nonbinary gender, androgynous gender expression, or third gender concepts are "associated with sex" anyway? That seems absurd, and yet such identities are fairly central to 21st-century understandings of gender. Newimpartial (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is still possible to create a lovely gradient from just two colours. 😁👍 Tewdar  10:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I dont think that "shades of grey" approach is the sole, mainstream understanding of gender. And even if it were, why does the gradient have to be "based on" something other than the colours themselves? Newimpartial (talk) 10:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because if gender is not 'based on' something, where does the spectrum end? What's to stop me, for example, saying that 'being old' or whatever is part of my gender identity, rather than part of my age identity? It would be like a gradient that goes from masculine, to red, to hot, to old. The whole concept becomes meaningless and unintelligible with the 'turtles all the way down' approach.  Tewdar  11:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a rehash of every foundationalist response to every social constructivist argument, ever. Gender as a discursive field of identity construction doesn't include age, or attack helicopter status, or for that matter otherkin identity because those are not aspects of gender identity. I'm confident that you would accept that, say, political identities can be defined without recourse to non-political concepts, so I don't see any cogent reason why you won't accept that for gender. Newimpartial (talk) 11:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I most certainly would not accept, would be a 'definition' that sounds like: Political identity refers to an individual's identity as a Communist, Nazi, or National Bolshevik (a person who claims to be a combination of a Communist and a Nazi).

Since you brought up attack helicopters, I thought I'd introduce Nazis. I believe that scrotums usually follow.  Tewdar  11:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see how that comment makes any positive contribution to the discussion of this article's topic (although perhaps you did mean something by selecting a non-representative and extreme set of examples - is that what masculinity and femininity mean to you?).

In any event, it smells of mustard gas. Newimpartial (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I what also certainly would not accept, would be a 'definition' that sounds like: Political identity refers to an individual's identity as a conservative , socialist, or liberal (a person who is sort of in between a conservative and a socialist). Such a crappy definition resembles the equally crappy Statistics Canada definition of gender. That was my only point. I'm pretty sure you knew that.  Tewdar  11:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the Statistics Canada definition doesn't have that problem either. You just don't like it. Newimpartial (talk) 11:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gender refers to an individual's personal and social identity as a man, woman or non-binary person (a person who is not exclusively a man or a woman). - they are 'defining' gender by giving me a list consisting of three examples, and informing me that it's 'personal' and 'social'. So yeah, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You got anything better that I might WP:LIKE? I'm very open to suggestions.  Tewdar  12:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the whole definition they offer, as you really oughta know. Newimpartial (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is their 'definition' of the broad topic of gender, which forms the unfortunate basis for the 'definitions' that follow. I'm not sure what sort of audience this is intended for, but it ain't a very good starting point for an encyclopedia article. Why wouldn't we use proper academic sources for this, instead of unlikely candidates like Statistics Canada, the WHO, etc.?  Tewdar  12:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All I am seeing there is an emotive ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT diatribe, "supported" by the use of scare quotes and contractions and based on by nothing but the force of your own opinion. I can't see a way to respond to that constructively. Newimpartial (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Constructively? What, like cherrypicking, marine mammal, idée fix, I can read, thanks, I delight in the abundance of originality you are offering us, You just aren't satisfied with that answer foe some reason,attack helicopter, and You just don't like it?. I've provided two high quality sources for discussion so far, perhaps you would Care to contribute to a source-based discussion?  Tewdar  14:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to this civility? [35] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this is any less civil, tbh. Newimpartial (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the context of Tewdar's quotes of yours, and let's add word salad to it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balderdash. Newimpartial (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling word salad out of context from my my various comments isn't really taking you anywhere, you reckon? Newimpartial (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gender is a multidimensional construct that links gender identity, which is a core element of a person’s individual identity; gender expression, which is how a person signals their gender to others through their behavior and appearance (such as hair style and clothing); and cultural expectations about social status, characteristics, and behavior that are associated with sex traits.

"Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation", National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a lovely source text, and one that does not support any of your prior proposals for lead text (e.g., this one) - it does not define gender as gender role/sex role, which you have proposed ad nauseam (e.g., [36] [37][38] [39][40]....) Newimpartial (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please strike your comment because it is a strawman. As I stated previously, and as is consistent with your diffs, I haven't advocated for any particular language/idea for nearly two weeks. [41] Consider it an entirely new potential basis for the lead definition. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be doing that. The diffs I included all represent various versions of you arguing that "gender in this article's lead should be defined in relation to sex using sources that define gender roles". If you now recognize that gender also refers to gender identity and gender expression, which cannot be reduced to gender roles - as Mathglot pointed out some time ago, and as I have repeatedly insisted with no acknowledgment from you whatsoever - then all I can say is, thank goddess. Newimpartial (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No acknowledgement? This was addressed two weeks ago [42] and is an irrelevant distraction. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were literally still doing it yesterday, per my diff above. No gaslighting please, and try not to WP:OWN article Talk pages.

Also, labeling the opinions of other editors with which you disagree an irrelevant distraction is not a great way to build consensus for article text. And if you can't see that the reason this quoted text improves on others you've proposed is because it treats the relationship between gender identity, gender expression, and what is essentially gender role more carefully - well, that blind spot won't help us move forward until it is addressed. Newimpartial (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reasonably sure that calling pretty much anyone who presents sources that disagree with your eeday feeks a "cherry picker" and anyone who fails to eff right off after they been told The Truth According to Newimpartial a couple of times a "sealion", is also not a great way to build consensus for article text. Perhaps these and other blind spots could be addressed this year, so that the article talk pages you frequent look more like... well, talk pages, and less like a no-holds-barred football match.  Tewdar  11:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious what idée fixe you might be interpolating to me re: this page, as I'm not aware of having one. Refusing to sloppily reduce gender to gender roles and thereby to something "associated with sex" could scarcely be termed an idée fixe as it represents, more than anything else, a kind of epistemological modesty. (Which makes your comment about The Truth According to Newimpartial seem unintentionally ironic, in addition to the more serious objection of it being inappropriately capitalised.) Newimpartial (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The continual accusations of cherry-picking and sealioning, and never-ending efforts to convert what could probably be fairly reasonable discussions into a Cornish hurling match, are probably more important points to focus on improving this year. I'm sure that many of your criticisms are reasonable and your Chelonian (sic) epistemology exceedingly modest.  Tewdar  14:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Chelonian comment would seemingly apply to my ontology rather than my episteme. :) Newimpartial (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a profile pic, unfortunately this is my mental image of you. Maybe we can try and change that to something a little more fluffy this year? 😊  Tewdar  14:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refusing to sloppily reduce gender to gender roles, more like refusal to stop arguing straw men. Let's get back to the actual source I just provided. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified definition

Would a simplified definition be: Gender is a social construct which encompasses gender roles, gender identity, and gender expression? Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From my view, reliable sources and the article contents do not appear to support framing gender as only a social construct. I am also not sure how helpful it is to continue trying to develop a "definition" of gender. This is a lead for the article, so I think it would be more constructive to review and discuss sources and the article contents, and work to develop a lead per MOS:LEAD. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think identifying those three (non-exclusive) core elements would be a step forward from what the article lead currently contains (the formulation has to be non-exclusive because other aspects of gender, like gender dynamics and gender power dynamics, are not encompassed in those three elements).

I am less convinced by "social construct" , however - employing that term as though it means something, without saying what it means, seems to unnecessarily introduce an empty signifier into the "definition". Newimpartial (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on article contents and sources, MOS:LEAD might support something that includes this: "Gender is a concept that can refer to a grammatical category; the social, psychological, and cultural experience of being a man, woman, or another identity; or a legal status. Gender includes gender identity, gender roles, and gender expression, and is typically considered distinct from sex assigned at birth." Beccaynr (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure we want to be including so much information on grammatical gender in this article? Seems like a bit of a coatrack to me. It has only marginal relevance to the rest of the article, and is very different to gender identity, roles, expression, etc., which, unlike grammatical gender, are usually treated as related concepts by the relevant literature.  Tewdar  15:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a section on grammar is within the issues described in the WP:COATRACK essay. There also appears to be a fair amount of discussion in sources about how the term "gender" is used, and issues related to conflation with the term "sex", so it may be that more attention is needed to help develop this aspect of the article. I also think a focus on the historical development of the concept, as the term moved from grammar to its present understanding by science and academia, is supported by sources and the contents of the article. Beccaynr (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure, we can briefly talk about these things for a bit of historical perspective, but a whole section on grammatical gender, on the intricacies of Nilo-Saharan languages and their gender categories consisting mainly of fruit or whatever (a lot of which was written by me, I think) should probably be shunted over to the grammatical gender article where it belongs, unless we actually want this to be a 'broad concept article' or whatever it's called.  Tewdar  16:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that grammatical gender, as well as the use of "gender" as a polite term for "sex", are essentially out of scope for this article. However, both ought to be mentioned within the article to clarify the scope of the concept "gender" for readers, and presenting them historically may be the best way to do this. Newimpartial (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - quick, where are the checkusers, Newimpartial's account has been compromised! 😂  Tewdar  16:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have been in agreement before, Tewdar, but don't worry - I'm confident this unseemly situation cannot last long. Newimpartial (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about Gender is a category which usually encompasses gender roles, gender identity, and gender expression? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified definition 2

Any thoughts on:

• Gender is a social category which usually encompasses gender roles, gender identity, and gender expression? Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the attempts to construe gender narrowly as "social" has been discussed at length on this Talk page. Beccaynr (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please add suggestions. (Or, let's remove social since my goal is to start the simplest.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to use MOS:LEAD as a guide for developing an introduction to the article, instead of a definition. Some general ideas were discussed in the section above. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic. WP:DICDEF#Good definitions

If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition. MOS:FIRST Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the WP:DICDEF supplement is helpful because it provides guidance on avoiding the dictionary definition trap as well as discussion about handling problems. I think a focus on creating an explanation of the subject of the article is appropriate for this concept and this article, which also seems to track the guidance of MOS:INTRO and MOS:OPEN.

In the MOS:OPEN section, the first line says The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific; a focus on identifying this multifaceted concept with extensive history seems to best serve readers in understanding what the article is about, and seems most appropriate per WP:NPOV due to the breadth and depth of available sources. For this article, I think it would be better to focus on how to introduce this concept and this subject matter, instead of how to define it. Beccaynr (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your draft at Female (gender), I assume you would support the logic: Gender includes the human experience of gender roles, gender identity, and gender expression. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Female (gender) draft is not mine but it is a different article, and perhaps a good opportunity to reaffirm why it is so important to focus on the content, not contributors. But the first line in that draft currently says Female gender includes the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral experience of being a woman or girl, such as gender roles, gender expression, and gender identity, with additional context afterwards; it is also a draft of a spinoff concept that is continuing to be developed. While there are sources, structure, and text that may be helpful to consider for this article, I continue to think it is most helpful to focus on how to introduce this topic in an encyclopedic manner and per WP:NPOV. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Gender is a category" -grammar has 436,000 Google results, [43] about equal to the seemingly more broad "Gender is a concept" -grammar at 438,000. [44] Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how these Google results may relate to developing an introduction, but there has been some discussion of whether and how to include grammar and usage of the term in the subsection above. In the section below, Mathglot has started a discussion that I think offers a constructive foundation for evaluating the article as a whole, which generally relates to developing an introduction. Beccaynr (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that deciding whether, for purposes of this article, "gender" is a category or a concept is about as helpful as determining whether the angels on the head pf the pin are dancing or practicing tai chi - that is, not very helpful. Newimpartial (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. I would like to remove the first sentence discussed at Talk:Gender#"pertaining to masculinity and femininity" and come up with language we can agree on for a first sentence. We might agree that Gender ... gender roles, gender identity, and gender expression, so I was considering what language to use in between. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gender... etc., but perhaps importantly I don't agree with the sentiment expressed earlier, that the sentence to be added should take the form of a "definition". To me there is a non-semantic distinction between "defining the topic" and "providing a definition for the term", and I don't believe that the former can only be accomplished by doing the latter - nor that it should, in this case. To me this affects what should replace the "..." Newimpartial (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why we shouldn't begin with a definition when MOS:FIRST states If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because providing a definition of the term appears to me, from many discussions on this Talk page and others, to be an unnecessarily contentious way of defining the topic. It also runs the non-trivial risk of creating a definition a priori that does not fit the scope of the actual article (which is a concern I've been yammering on about for weeks now). Newimpartial (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand that. Yes, we must identify the topic, but that's separate from the part of the policy that if the subject is definable it should begin with a definition. A definition being contentious does not make it undefinable.

It also runs the non-trivial risk... We don't need to immediately insert a definition once we figure it out. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:OPEN says The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, and for this topic, the 'identify' approach seems best suited, per WP:NPOV, for presenting this broad topic fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The current lead has multiple paragraphs, so per MOS:FIRST, we can use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. I do not think a simplified definition will work well for this complex topic, but I think we can make forward progress on the lead if we consider how to introduce the topic to readers. Beccaynr (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please start by providing a single example of an article on a definable topic which does not begin with a definition to show that this actually represents an existing practice. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriately enough, an epistemologically modest lead sentence that does not attempt a specific or restrictive definition of the title of the article 's topic may be found at Knowledge. Newimpartial (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: A definition being contentious does not make it undefinable - if multiple, conflicting definitions are documented in recent RS, none of which are uncontentious, I think for all practical purposes it does. Newimpartial (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed for this interpretation of policy. Regarding the lead of Knowledge, would you be ok with a lead for Gender which similarly begins with Gender can be defined as? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it presents multiple, non-exhaustive, competing conceptions, as Knowledge does? Sure, if it's done well. But based on the history of this article and Talk page, don't expect me to hold my breath. Newimpartial (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that in the original version of your reply, you were allowing a worked example to stand in for the interpretation of policy, but now you appear to be asking for both. It always seems funny to me when goal posts move like that. Newimpartial (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that..., Let's not go down that rabbit hole. Please focus on content, not contributor. You're inaccurately representing what I was communicating. I was referring back to my 02:42, 6 January comment above. An example will do as a start. Be charitable please.

I don't find Knowledge to be a strong example. That lead was just added last August [45] after a short discussion and the can be defined as language was not a focus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for an example, and then rejecting the example for reasons that have nothing to do with your own original criteria, strikes me as a potential behavioural issue - if this was your idea of the start of a discussion, then let's not start.

I promise that, per WP:SATISFY, I am not going to come up with a series of examples to fit your evolving requirements. That way madness lies, IME. Newimpartial (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, noting that you shifted the goal posts from your original comment - to which my original reply was lost in an edit conflict - to your revised comment, is a comment on your contributions and not on you as a contributor. I am not the one who is inappropriately personalizing the discussion in that instance. By contrast, your Be charitable please crosses te line into WP:ASPERSIONS, IMO (and that is also a comment on the contribution). Newimpartial (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

• This is a suggestion for the first paragraph of the lead, although please note I excluded citations from the article and elsewhere for now to start with a focus on possible language, and consider this a rough sketch of an idea:

Gender is the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral experience of being a man, woman, or other identity. It is distinct from sex classifications assigned at birth. Gender includes gender identity, gender roles, and gender expression. Most cultures use a gender binary, in which gender is divided into boys/men and girls/women, and people may be one or the other, while people outside of the binary may be within a non-binary identity. Some societies have specific genders besides "man" and "woman", such as the hijras of South Asia; these are often referred to as third genders (and fourth genders, etc.). Most scholars agree that gender is a central characteristic for social organization.

Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate reaction is that this formulation unduly restricts gender to the "experience of" gender identity, thereby seeming to exclude aspects of gender like gender roles and gender power dynamics that exist outside of individual experience. (I know the proposed paragraph introduces gender roles later, but only after having apparently ruled out most of what gender roles involve that does not fit a unit of analysis at the level of individual experience). Newimpartial (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking broadly and perhaps similarly about how to clearly incorporate societal aspects of gender, and whether this is adequately reflected in this sketch. My use of the term 'experience' is an attempt to communicate how gender has both internal and external features. For example, people experience sexism when they are subject to biased language or actions. But maybe there is a more clear way to express the breadth of the concept, without making it seem more restrictive than intended. Beccaynr (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following previous discussions on-and-off (mostly off) but I've noticed a certain amount of struggling trying to get to the core of this topic, and also various proposals for lead, definitions, and so on, and I credit everyone participating with good faith. In particular, I noticed the discussion #Article scope and lead above, and the attempts to untie some of the knots there. It seems to me like that discussion (and perhaps others) are somewhat going around in circles, and I was wondering if a new approach might help.

For those not aware, there's a type of Wikipedia article organization called a WP:Broad concept article, or BCA for short. If you're not familiar with it, you can think of it as a turbo-charged disambig page for starters, but actually it is way more than that. BCA's are short pages that introduce a bunch of terms that are interrelated, but have significant differences, that don't make sense to try to cover all of them in detail in one unwieldy, umbrella article. Some good examples are: Particle, Finance minister, and Dead ball. It seems to me that "Gender" as a topic, has a lot in common with those examples.

What made me think of a BCA as a possibility, was something Kolya said above in the first sentence of #Article scope and lead:

This article appears to be about Gender broadly, meaning that it covers grammatical gender, social gender, and sex.

I'm wondering if reorganizing this article as a BCA might be a way to achieve compromise on the discussions taking place here, and in fact allow each point of view to be represented in the appropriate place, respecting NPOV and DUE, and keeping everybody happy (or at least, distributing the discontent and grumbling evenly among everyone ). On the down side, converting this to a BCA would be a radical change to this article, as it would make it a new, parent article to three (or likely more) child articles. If such a change were agreed to, we would have a new organization here, with an intro describing each kind of gender, followed by three (or more) H2/top-level sections detailing each one, with a {{Main}} template pointing to the detail article. I see it looking something like this:

• Gender – this article, vastly pared down (to the size of "Particle" or the other examples), much of the content shipped out to existing articles (where non-redundant), possibly a lot of material spun off to one, new article Social gender. There would be three (or more) major sections (if we follow chrono order, then similar to this):
  • section #Grammatical gender (first, because it was the first use of the term) appearing as the first major section.
  • section #Gender role, a one or two-paragraph description; with {{Main|Gender role}}
  • section #Gender identity ; with {{Main|Gender identity}}
  • section #Sex and gender (or #Sex, or other?) describing some of the conflated terminology; if there isn't just one, solid "Main" target for this, then a multi-valued {{Further}}, e.g., {{Further|Sex|Sex and gender distinction}} etc.
  • A new lead section, introducing and defining "gender" as a term with many interrelated meanings in grammar, social roles, core identity, and additional related meaning. See Particle or any of the examples.

Although this is admittedly a pretty radical change for this article, I think a re-org as a WP:Broad concept article could work well for our readers, resulting in a clear, brief, article covering the various related topics, with prominent links for those who wanted to do a deeper dive. The current article is 148kb, seems to cover various topics, and if we, as Wikipedia editors, can't make a brief, clear statement about "Gender", then I pity our poor readers. There would be a fair amount of work involved in migration to a BCA, especially with respect to figuring out what content to move to the new, Social gender article (or whatever we decide to call it), but it wouldn't have to be done all at once, and in the meantime, a proposed new structure for Gender could be drawn up in a subpage, or at Draft:Gender, and for the proposed new article at Draft:Social gender. I haven't been very active lately, and I greatly respect all the time and effort that the major contributors are putting in. If this approach doesn't help, then so be it; perhaps it might spark other possibilities for finding a good path to improvement of this article. If there does seem to be some support for it, then we should try to get wider buy-in for it before implementing it. (edit conflict) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The pillars of no original research and no point of view, as well as the reliable sources and the contents of the article, do not seem to support what is described as a 'pretty radical change' suggested above. Based on sources and article content, I think we can make a brief, clear statement about "gender", and a developing example appears in Draft:Female (gender), with additional discussion on that draft's Talk page. Beccaynr (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A BCA approach is not about developing any new content that would require new sources, therefore there isn't any question here about POV or OR, as nothing would be added. It's simply a re-org of existing content. It's trivial to show that "Gender" was originally strictly a grammatical term, and then gained a new meaning in 1955, and then another one in the 1960s, and this article already covers all that. Where it falls down, is in trying to come up with one definition that covers all of them, and the unending discussions above, and at Draft:Female (gender), demonstrate that something is wrong with that approach. This is an attempt to solve the logjam. Mathglot (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the discussions indicate an impasse, and from my view, the creation of a "social gender" article as a subset of this article does not appear supported by a wide range of reliable sources that discuss gender as a multi-faceted concept. Beccaynr (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then; just carry on; no worries. Regarding reliable sources for "social gender", here are results #201-250 in Google books for "social gender", and here is page 87 of Scholar results for "social gender", containing results #861-870 at Scholar for "social gender". A google web search claims 612,000 results for "social gender", but that is probably a gross exaggeration. But ignoring web results, it looks like we have around a thousand sources for "social gender" (at least; Google results do not go past result #1000.) Mathglot (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any strong feelings about whether a broad concept article format is used, but I agree that gender is a multi-faceted concept that in practice refers to several different things, such as gender identity, gender roles, gender expression, used as a synonym for sex, etc. Gender is an overloaded term, and however it is treated on Wikipedia should present all facets rather than trying to naively select one "correct" definition, and address only that one definition. Hist9600 (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• In results suggested by Mathglot, there appears to be some discussion of the social construction of sex, and I mention it here because this may help with the presentation of gender as a broad concept.

• In the 2022 law review noted above, there is substantial discussion related to this point at 1855: judges need not be convinced to adopt postmodern theories about the social construction of sex to be persuaded that laws based on biological sex are suspect; explanations of how sex is assigned at birth from mainstream medical experts often suffice. At 1872-1874, there is discussion of the Sex and gender distinction, and the law review includes a critique of what is described in the conclusion at 1897 as the persistence of dualistic thinking about sex as biological and gender as social.
• In Gender (2009) by Raewyn Connell, there is a substantial examination of scientific study related to statements such as at 54 So we cannot think of social gender arrangements as just flowing from the properties of bodies. They also precede bodies, form the conditions in which bodies develop and live and at 66-67 ...we must reject all models of gender that assume social gender differences to be caused by bodily differences producing character differences and at 67, Bodies have agency and bodies are socially constructed. Biological and social analysis cannot be cut apart from one another. But neither can be reduced to the other. While these brief quotes do not capture the breadth of the analysis in the text, I think reliable sources that review the history of science, including social constructions of sex, may help us situate the concept of gender for the purposes of this article.
• In What Gender Is, What Gender Does (2016) by Judith Roof, there is a section titled "The Strange Platonism of Modern Life" that begins The regime of social gender is the familiar version of conventional, normative "gender" that is the subject of sociology, women's studies, popular culture renditions of subjective positioning, psychology, religion, and even science. In the United States, it is imagined to be the apt signifier of biological sex, even though we already know that such an alignment rarely occurs (hence the need for the taxonomic) and goes on to discuss social gender myths [...] that correlate fantasmatically with a binary sexual taxonomy.
• In the The Routledge Handbook of Social Work and Addictive Behaviors (2020), gender is defined as Different from sex assigned at birth. A social and personal construct that is used to categorize people and self as man, woman, or another identity and in a following discussion, states Often, gender is used to describe the sex of an individual (e.g. "it's a boy!"). However, since gender is a socially constructed and personal experience, it is more accurate to refer to the sex of a baby as opposed to its gender, assuming that babies lack awareness of their own gender and then notes the German option as of 2013 on birth certificates for a "blank" sex category. In this source, "social gender" is mentioned as part of the phrase "social gender norms."

These are just a few examples of what appears to be a theme in sources that seem to discourage an attempt to segregate "social gender" as a concept. It may be that the sex article would benefit from further development to account for social constructions of that concept as applied to humans, which may then help clarify the subject matter of this article. Beccaynr (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think any such effort to majorly overhaul the structure here is both (a) unnecessary and (b) exponentially more difficult. Gender is a topic in and of itself. That's not to say that current organization is necessarily perfect, but that it's a separate matter.
  As for the "female (gender)" draft that was mentioned, that such an article should even exist has not been established, so no actions should be taken under the assumption it should be a thing. It survived AfD on the grounds it would be draftified and that proponents could develop their vision before the matter was re-examined. Many of us felt it was a POV fork, inherently. We're also not going to be giving undue weight to admittedly postmodern theories about the social construction of sex and numerically illiterate claims that alignment between sex and gender rarely occurs, in this or any other article.
  The problem in the section above is the WP:STONEWALLING by some that gender cannot be defined in terms making any connection with sex whatsoever, apparently under the misguided belief this somehow denies trans people or something, contrary to numerous excellent reliable sources in the very field of gender studies that do just that and that were presented. No one here is saying that gender is the same as or reducible to sex, but that there is a relation there that is part of why it is defined in terms related to male and female (both, neither, etc.) rather than just meaning any kind of identity like age or career. The contrary view seems to treat the definition as basically ineffable and it was outright said it's "turtles all the way down", which is again contrary to reliable sources and also fundamentally illogical and unhelpful.
  Newimpartial, I'm sorry if I missed it, but how would you write this article's opening sentence? For those of us who favor writing it with a reference to sex, I suggest coming up with a specific proposal based on a pile of sources defining the term and presenting that as a specific proposal, cites, quotes in the ref notes, and all. If we can't get enough agreement on this page it'll have to be an RfC. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Crossroads, I think it would be helpful to keep discussion of the lead sentence in its own section and not continue that discussion here. Also, I mentioned the Female (gender) draft as a general resource, for sources, discussion, and possible wording that may be helpful to consider for this article. And I agree that the concept of gender is related to the concept of sex, but the concept of sex as it relates to humans appears to need additional development in light of medical and scientific understanding of the concept. Also, the source that appears to be quoted as "admittedly postmodern theories about the social construction of sex" actually says judges need not be convinced to adopt postmodern theories about the social construction of sex to be persuaded that laws based on biological sex are suspect; explanations of how sex is assigned at birth from mainstream medical experts often suffice, but maybe I am misunderstanding your reference. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If your response isn't about BCA, please see the next section. Mathglot (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break

Per Beccaynr: agreed; here's a place to just carry on with previous discussions (i.e., lead sentence, and anything else unrelated to a BCA approach). (If it weren't a WP:TPO, I'd place this header just before Crossroads's 19:25, 2 Jan. post, so hopefully responses to that comment will show up here.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, I'm sorry if I missed it, but how would you write this article's opening sentence? - in this edit (August 2021), Newimpartial boldly rewrote the lede thusly (and was reverted by myself):

Gender is the range of identities, roles, and forms of expression that define and represent femininity and masculinity. Depending on the context, such characteristics as biological sex, social structures (e.g., hierarchical gender roles), gender identities and forms of gender presentation are used to demarcate and define gender categories.

Not sure if this would still be on the table, perhaps something involving chelonians would be more appropriate in 2023? 😁  Tewdar  09:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]