Content deleted Content added
InspectorRex (talk | contribs) |
EvergreenFir (talk | contribs) →Why does this page use extended confirmed protection even though Man uses semi-protection only?: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Skip to talk}} |
{{Skip to talk}} |
||
{{Talk header}} |
{{Talk header}} |
||
{{censor}} |
|||
{{Old AfD multi| date = 1 April 2012 (UTC) | result = '''speedy keep''' | page = Woman }} |
|||
{{Notice|[[File:Woman at Lover's Bridge Tanjung Sepat (cropped).jpg|thumb|upright=.5|Lead image]] |
|||
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="text-align:center;" |
|||
'''Important Note:''' The most appropriate image to use at the top of this article has been a highly controversial issue with many valid viewpoints. The current lead image was chosen by [[Special:Diff/1025147250#RfC:_Lead_image|an RfC]] on 5/26/2021. |
|||
|- |
|||
[[Talk:Woman/sandbox|A '''gallery and discussion''' of potential lead images is also available here]]. New images may be added there.}} |
|||
| width="0px" | |
|||
{{Round in circles |
|||
|| Before complaining about article content, please read: '''[[WP:NOT#CENSOR|Wikipedia is not censored]]'''. |
|||
| [[Talk:Woman/Archive 14#Proposed_edits_to_lede|Wording of lede]] |
|||
|} |
|||
| [[Talk:Woman/Archive 16|Definition of woman]] |
|||
{{Notice|'''Important Note:''' The most appropriate image to use at the top of this article is a highly controversial issue with many valid viewpoints. Polite discussion and negotiation of the viewpoints is welcome below as we continuously strive to find an image which best matches the current '''[[WP:CON|consensus]]'''. |
|||
| [[Talk:Woman/Archive 17#Self-contradiction_in_intro|Self contradiction in lede]] |
|||
|topic= ''Wording of lede'', ''Definition of woman'' and ''Self contradiction in lede'' |
|||
A gallery of potential lead images is available [[Talk:Woman/sandbox|here]]. Please add new images there rather than on this talk page, although the image discussion is welcome here. |
|||
}} |
|||
''Any image which has not shown support here will be removed.''}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|||
{{Vital article|level=3|topic=Life|class=C}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=high}} |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=high}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=Top}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=Top}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Women}} |
||
{{WikiProject Women |
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=top}} |
||
{{WikiProject Women's |
{{WikiProject Women's sport|importance=high}} |
||
}} |
|||
{{WP1.0|coresup=yes|v0.7=pass|class=C|category=Natsci|VA=yes|importance=top}}}} |
|||
{{pp|small=yes}} |
|||
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=pa}} |
|||
{{section sizes}} |
|||
{{page views}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
||
|maxarchivesize = 70K |
|maxarchivesize = 70K |
||
|counter = |
|counter = 28 |
||
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(14d) |
||
|archive = Talk:Woman/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive = Talk:Woman/Archive %(counter)d |
||
}} |
}} |
||
__TOC__ |
|||
== More Diversity Please == |
|||
The article is a bit Eurocentric, especially in its discussion of women in science and contemporary politics, as well as the images it shows. Greater diversity of women represented, as well as discussion of the intersections between ethnicity/class/religion and gender, would be appreciated. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.249.107.125|67.249.107.125]] ([[User talk:67.249.107.125#top|talk]]) 10:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:If you believe you can enhance the article please make changes. [[User:Jgalt87|Jgalt87]] ([[User talk:Jgalt87|talk]]) 15:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC) |
|||
==Ideological changes to this page== |
|||
Adding "and transgender" to the footnote on first periods. Honestly what is happening here? Transgirls do not get a first period because they are biologically male. If they do not have periods it is not caused by an illness in their reproductive system because they belong to the sex that produces sperm, not ova. Is Wikipedia now a mouthpiece for fringe ideologies? Transwomen are male. They are a subset of men. Transsexuals may have surgery that imitates the other sex, but apart from SciFi stories, changing sex is not yet possible. So can we please stick to material reality? Or for the editor who added this, can you please cite a peer-reviewed study that seriously discusses the lack of periods in male to female adolescents as an actual illness and a disorder of their male reproductive system? I know it's only in a footnote (33) but it is no less ludicrous for that.[[User:Small candles|Small candles]] ([[User talk:Small candles|talk]]) 16:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC) |
|||
Also this recent insertion by Georgia guy |
|||
''With regard to gender, a woman may also be a person whose sex assignment does not align with their gender identity,[1] or those who have sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female (intersex).'' |
|||
The linked reference clearly refers to ''an individual's personal sense of identity as [man] or [woman]'' and not to material reality or an even actual sex change from man to woman which as I mentioned above is currently impossible. The citation therefore is not sufficient to include this paragraph in a discussion about biological women. A male to female transsexual or transgender person does not change sex to become a "woman". This person becomes a "trans woman" or "transwoman" (depending on spelling preference). As written, the added paragraph doesn't even make sense because biological women may also be transgender or transsexual and identify as men or both or neither. Keeping that in mind this passage could also be understood as "a woman may also be a man" which is complete nonsense. The reference to gender in connection with intersex is not one intersex organisations agree with or even accept either. |
|||
I would prefer to wait for the editor who made those changes to comment here before making any edits myself as this seems to have become a contentious issue. I find editing wars unedifying anyway and am always open to reasonable arguments. Please note this is not a philosophical "transwomen are women" kind of question. That can be had on the relevant pages. This page is about biological women (hence the discussion about health and reproductive issues, violence against women and girls etc). If no one comments, I will delete this section or edit it in line with my comments within the week.[[User:Small candles|Small candles]] ([[User talk:Small candles|talk]]) 17:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:I didn't add it arbitrarily; I reverted a bad edit that was made by removing it. [[User:Georgia guy|Georgia guy]] ([[User talk:Georgia guy|talk]]) 17:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::Yeah the problem is that what you added is worse than the last thing that created a huge discussion. You're not even saying "Woman may also be used to '''refer to''' transsexual males and other males who identify as trans". You said "a woman may also '''be''' a person [...]". "Refer to" would be perfectly fine, as this is what a minority of people now do and I'd have no problem with that, especially since anyone wanting to know more can follow the links. |
|||
::It doesn't even make sense the way you've written it. Are you trying to say that some women identify as trans? Given the extremely small number of women who do so, this gives undue prominence to a rare individual personality trait or an even rarer disorder in the introduction. Or are you saying that some men identify as women? Again it's undue prominence to a rare phenomenon found in males made on an entry for females. And this passage doesn't appear in the entry on ''man'' either which AFAIK is set up to mirror this one. |
|||
::You could put it further down, where transgender is mentioned, edit it so it reflects reality or plain delete it. Why do we need this in an entry for biological women anyway? A woman is not a man and a man is not a woman. Otherwise why are we bothering defining ''woman'' in the first place? [[User:Small candles|Small candles]] ([[User talk:Small candles|talk]]) 12:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::Please realize transgender is a serious birth condition, not a mental disorder as many people think. [[User:Georgia guy|Georgia guy]] ([[User talk:Georgia guy|talk]]) 13:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::I've just checked here on Wikipedia and gender dysphoria is indeed listed as a mental disorder in the DSM-V of the American Psychiatric Association. But this is not the place to discuss the science on gender dysphoria. This is a talk page for a different subject. Your last suggests that this is ideological to you. I wish you well and hope you understand that I make no judgement on transgender individuals by editing this page. |
|||
::::So, may I respectfully suggest that we keep it neutral and stick to what we can source? Do you have a source that shows biological males can become biological females? Do you have a source that shows that the lack of periods in biological males is a disorder of the female reproductive system? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Small candles|Small candles]] ([[User talk:Small candles#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Small candles|contribs]]) 14:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::::{{ec}}The issue here ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woman&diff=835903499&oldid=835900043]) is about mentioning transgender folks in a sentence about menstruation, right? Looking at this further, it does seem to be referring to [[trans women]]. But to say that trans women do not menstruate is not incorrect. Perhaps we clarify the footnote? [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 14:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The footnote refers to this sentence: ''Most girls go through menarche and are then able to become pregnant and bear children.'' To refer to (presumably male) transgender individuals in a sentence about infertility in women (that is biological females) as not being able to menstruate and become pregant and bear children makes no sense as they are not biologically female. The footnote also references specifically intersex conditions which are disorders of sexual development not present in transgender individuals. The whole footnote is superfluous as infertility is discussed later in the page anyway and there are a lot more causes of infertility than just intersex conditions so I don't know why they are given such prominence. |
|||
:::::FYI this discussion is also about the insertion referenced above which replaces a previous insertion that merely stated transwomen can be '''refered to''' as women which is perfectly true, that is what some people do. Instead the insertion now claims them to '''be''' women. That's not NPOV and cannot be sourced either (the reference supporting this insertion mentions "identifying as female" which is not the same as actually being female). |
|||
:::::I came across this page yesterday while writing an article on infertility in women and have to admit I was astonished to see these additions to the page. I simply hadn't realised the definition of "woman = adult human female" is now disputed. [[User:Small candles|Small candles]] ([[User talk:Small candles|talk]]) 14:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:I am only commenting with regard to policy here and not wading into this debate but as it is challenged and unsourced, shouldn't it be removed until the dispute is solved/reaches consensus? <span style=font-size:11px>[[User:Chrissymad|<span style="color:#614051">CHRISSY</span><span style="color:#301934;font-size:11px">'''MAD'''</span>]] <span style="color:#9090C0;letter-spacing:-2px;font-size:9px">❯❯❯</span>[[User talk:Chrissymad|<span style="color:#614051;font-size=11px">¯\_(ツ)_/¯</span>]]</span> 14:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, it should. {{done}}. (And if it is replaced, it should have the 'group' param of the ref tag, or use {{tl|efn}}.) [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 16:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC) |
|||
I agree with [[User:Smallcandles]]. Perhaps there should be separate links to the trans* pages (and brief discussion under a separate heading perhaps?) to deal with this issue. Certainly trans people do not belong in an identical classification and page as biological women, as their issues, needs and bodies are quite different, and outside the scope of this page. Trans people (of all varieties) fall under different classifications, and require such. I believe such pages already exist on Wiki - am I right? [[User:Thelastauroch|Thelastauroch]] ([[User talk:Thelastauroch|talk]]) 21:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Thelastauroch |
|||
==What's with the politics on this page?== |
|||
Transgenderism is mentioned at the very top of the page although being EXTREMELY rare. It makes no sense to be there whatsoever. |
|||
Also, get rid of the Feminism stuff on the right side of the page. Feminism is an ideology, Woman is something that is set in stone. This page is a mess. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/66.192.63.2|66.192.63.2]] ([[User talk:66.192.63.2#top|talk]]) 18:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
'''I agree.''' This page reads like a political diatribe with poor citations and no biological evidence to support scientifically-unsupported conclusions. At present I have not edited the page, as it is simply a mess and I have no desire to get into a "wiki war" but either our goal is to make wikipedia a reputable source of actual facts, or it's a tool for propaganda :(. The current page ''(as I write this)'' is a politically vandalised diatribe and unusable for any student / reader seeking genuine information. '''Let's keep wikipedia facts-based and clean. Take your politics elsewhere.''' Cheers. [[User:Thelastauroch|Thelastauroch]] ([[User talk:Thelastauroch|talk]]) 21:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Thelastauroch |
|||
==Non-scientific citations an issue== |
|||
== Why was it edited from "adult human female" to "adult female human"? == |
|||
The first citation on this page (Morrow & Messinger) is a book written by two social workers, and is not scientifically valid for a page about biological and social *fact*. Can anyone come up with a good reason why it is there? I'm thinking of deleting it (and its associated non-scientifically-based content) unless there are good arguments for retaining it. Perhaps a better alternative is to lead with "some people believe..." and similar content, pointing out that this is a sociological / political belief, rather than anything based in fact. [[User:Thelastauroch|Thelastauroch]] ([[User talk:Thelastauroch|talk]]) 21:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Thelastauroch |
|||
Adult human female is better [[User:ShobanChiddarth|ShobanChiddarth]] ([[User talk:ShobanChiddarth|talk]]) 13:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
How can I find a girlfriend? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2600:1:F152:CEBE:9414:701B:EE44:F922|2600:1:F152:CEBE:9414:701B:EE44:F922]] ([[User talk:2600:1:F152:CEBE:9414:701B:EE44:F922#top|talk]]) 22:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:No such change has occurred that I'm aware of. Possibly a [[Mandela effect|Berenstein effect]]? The sources cited (and various others) tend to use use ''female'' as an adjective modifying ''human'' or ''person''. "Adult human female" is more common as a TERF/GC slogan. See also {{slink|wikt:female#Usage notes}}. –[[User:RoxySaunders|RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️]] ([[User talk:RoxySaunders|💬]] • [[Special:Contributions/RoxySaunders|📝]]) 13:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{U|Thelastauroch}} I support your proposal to remove Morrow & Messinger as it is not a reliable source. [[User:Userwoman|Userwoman]] ([[User talk:Userwoman|talk]]) 16:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, even if the other version wasn't in use as a [[Dog whistle (politics)|dog whistle]] the current version is more grammatically correct and there is no reason to prefer the Ferengi version. [[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 20:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Page edit request == |
|||
'''Do not remove''" in what sense is social work not a relevant expertise with respect to this article's topic? I dare say it is more relevant than most of the other sources currently used. This proposal reeks of IDONTLIKEIT, and possibly a misconstrue of the relationship between Sociology and Social Work as disciplines. |
|||
Please let me remove a image from this article [[User:Mybirthday647|Mybirthday647]] ([[User talk:Mybirthday647|talk]]) 20:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
As for that, I suppose that the copy could be amended with "''in social sciences'', woman can refer to...". I think it's self-evident the suggested meaning is not universal across disciplines and/or natural language and cultures. --[[User:InspectorRex|InspectorRex]] ([[User talk:InspectorRex|talk]]) 00:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:Mybirthday647|Mybirthday647]], can you please tell us which image you would like removed. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 20:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Thelastauroch would also benefit from reading about what "social facts" actually are, per WP:CIR. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 18:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== Ada Lovelace should be added to the science section of the article == |
|||
I'm not familiar with the work in question, but I'm not at all satisfied with the inline citation. It does not seem to suggest what the article copy suggests. --[[User:InspectorRex|InspectorRex]] ([[User talk:InspectorRex|talk]]) 00:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
How is possible that Ada Lovelace is not mentioned in the science section of this article? |
|||
== Gender identity == |
|||
Ada Lovelace was the creator one of the first algorithms for modern computers, she had the intention to develop software for multipurpose tasks, not just the first woman, but one of the first humans if not the first in doing that. |
|||
As I have suggested in a discussion on the NPVN, it might be helpful for this article to have a section entitled "Gender identity" in which the issues specific to those identifying or not identifying as women can be discussed. As many OECD countries now recognize that Trans women can legally be recognized as Women and are entitled to legal protections against discrimination either as women or specifically as Trans women, it seems to me that it would be helpful for this article to include a discussion of the increasingly prevalent use of the term "Woman" to indicate a gender identity that is non-identical with definitions of "Woman" in terms of either anatomy or social roles. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 23:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC) |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace#First_published_computer_program |
|||
:There should probably be a section related to trans women, but for a couple of reason I do not think that casting it in terms of "gender identity" and "anatomy" is the way to go: |
|||
:# The term "gender identity" became a necessity after feminists appropriated[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/#GenTer] the term "gender", which had once been used by psychologists to explain transgenderism. Recently there has been a move among trans people to use the word "gender" again. |
|||
:# There is a growing mound of research showing that there are respects in which trans women's brains are more like cis women's brains than they are like cis men's brains, discernible by activity or structural differences. Thus, some relevant authorities would say that trans women are anatomically female. |
|||
:I am not sure that the section would need to get into all that. Perhaps it would be best to start simply by noting that in various disciplines there is a growing consensus that trans women are women, and use the rest of the section to offer more details as they seem necessary. -- [[User:Marie Paradox|Marie Paradox]] ([[User talk:Marie Paradox|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Marie Paradox|contribs]]) 00:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::For the record, I am not saying that there should be a section on "gender identity" to provide a section on Trans women. There are people who have periods who have gender identities as men or as genderfluid or as agender, for example, and the section should probably mention this whole terrain while pointing out that the gender identity "Woman" is non-identical with other uses of the term. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 00:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::Whatever you call the section, there are people who would use "woman" to refer to a trans woman but do not define it in terms of gender idenity. |
|||
:::What are the other uses of the term? Why are they worth mentioning? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Marie Paradox|Marie Paradox]] ([[User talk:Marie Paradox#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Marie Paradox|contribs]]) 01:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::::By my reading, the first sentence of the lede, "A woman is a female human being", is not intended to reference a gender identity, though gender identity issues are mentioned at the end of the lede. I think it is worth including a fuller discussion of the tensions between "woman" as a gender identity and "woman" as a gender role or as a label for "female human beings", preferably as its own section before any changes to the lede are considered. |
|||
::::If there are people who would include all transgender women as women for some reason other than their gender identity, I would be interested in reading a source articulating that position. There are certainly those who would define a subset of trans women as women for other reasons, but not the entire group AFAIK. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 01:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Changing the body before the lede is an excellent idea. |
|||
:::::As for the sources you ask about, I will have to get back to you. It is easy to find sources that say trans women are women without making reference to gender identity (e.g., there is a dearth of mention of "gender identity" in Rachel McKinnon's works, including those that unambiguously say trans women are women), but it would be [[WP:OR|original research]] to try to synthesize them in such a way as to support the view that trans women are women for reasons other than gender identity. If anyone else knows of a good source, please let me and Newimpartial know. -- [[User:Marie Paradox|Marie Paradox]] ([[User talk:Marie Paradox|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Marie Paradox|contribs]]) 02:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC) |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Note_G |
|||
{{Outdent}} |
|||
Thanks.--[[User:Zchemic|Zchemic]] ([[User talk:Zchemic|talk]]) 16:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
How to cover trans women in this article has been discussed times before. See, for example, [[Talk:Woman/Archive 9#Why]], [[Talk:Woman/Archive 9#Transexuals]] and [[Talk:Woman/Archive 10#The part of the intro about gender identity]]. Yes, we should not give [[WP:Undue weight]] to the trans aspect in the lead or lower in the article. Similar goes for [[trans men]] at the [[Men]] article. Similar for the topic of [[intersex]] people, another aspect mentioned in the lead and lower in the article. Briefly noting these other aspects in the lead and then having a section that addresses them more fully, like we currently do, is the way to go. I don't see a need for a "Trans woman" section, which unnecessarily separates trans women. Covering the topic in the "Biology and sex" section, like we currently do, is fine and (again) is the way to go. The section could also be renamed "Biology and gender" (since the sex aspect is in reference to biology anyway). Or if it's felt that it's best to create a "Gender identity" section, we could do that. I know that the both of you have been heavily involved in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=852625730#Definition_of_%22trans_woman%22 the recent transgender debates]. I ask that you don't unnecessarily let all of that bleed over into this article. I also ask that you keep [[WP:Advocacy]] in mind. The aforementioned debating shows that people disagree on this and have strong opinions on it. So if necessary, I will [[WP:Ping]] each and every editor that has been involved in those debates to this talk page in order to have more varied views. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 09:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:The section {{slink|Women|Science, literature and art}} is meant to be a summary of the articles [[Women in science]], [[Women in literature]], and [[Women in art]]. To avoid becoming overly long and cluttered (it already contains 6 paras and 2 images), it cannot hope to include every notable woman in these fields, regardless of her contributions. The Countess of Lovelace is mentioned in {{slink|Women_in_science#Early_nineteenth_century}} and her portrait appears in an imagebox alongside Curie later in that article. |
|||
Also, [[causes of transsexuality]] are still very much debated, especially the brain studies. There is also research that indicates that lesbians have some brain similarity to heterosexual [[cisgender]] men and that gay men have some brain similarity to heterosexual cisgender women. So I would not go into the brain aspect in this article, at least not without [[WP:MEDRS]]-compliant sources and making clear that the "brain data indicates this" material is not definitive. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 09:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:It is for the best that the text of this summary section mostly avoids mentioning women by name, as this begets lots of {{tq|why does X get included, and not Y}}, which eventually expands into a [[WP:BLUESEA]] of links. For a particularly egregious example of the useless and unreadable text this kind of editing produces, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gay_icon&oldid=995370073#2010s%E2%80%93present old revisions of the article Gay icon]. –[[User:RoxySaunders|RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️]] ([[User talk:RoxySaunders|💬]] • [[Special:Contributions/RoxySaunders|📝]]) 17:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== On "wermann" == |
|||
:I hear all of those points, Flyer22. I would however suggest that the salience of "Woman" as a gender identity specifically is well-established in recent, Reliable Sources and extends well beyond the issue of Trans inclusion. The fact is, the Woman article currently covers anatomical femaleness and gender roles much more effectively than it does the equally important aspect of gender identity. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 10:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::By "well beyond the issue of Trans inclusion," are you referring to cisgender women's views of what it means to be a woman and/or [[non-binary]] people's views? As for the article as a whole, it's more focused on social issues than it is on biology/sex. This is obviously because, like the topic of what it means to be a man, the topic is socially constructed and therefore social. The vast majority of sources about women don't focus on gender identity. They focus more so on gender roles and other social issues (such as [[sexism]]). [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 11:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, that is what I'm saying. For example, the move away from heteronormativity has changed the content of the gender identity, "woman", even apart from changes in gender roles and gender power relations, and I think the reliable sources bear this out. I would also hazard that sources published over the last 20 years, at least in OECD countries, have dealt increasing with gender identity as opposed to, say, gender roles. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 13:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::This article is not simply about defining "woman." Even if it was, it's still the case that the vast majority of reliable sources on the definition of "woman," recent or otherwise, do not explicitly consider trans women or non-binary people (meaning the non-binary people who identify as a woman one day and not as a woman the next, and the ones who describe themselves as a blend that happens to include "woman"). For reliable sources that do, feel free to list them here, but I think such sources are likely trans sources. If not, they will still list the cisgender woman aspect first (without stating "cisgender"). There are trans sources that challenge the traditional definition of "woman," but they are in the significant minority. There's also sources like [http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2017/09/why_a_controversial_definition_of_the_word_woman_doesn_t_necessarily_mean.html this] 2017 "Is It Time to Change the Definition of 'Woman'?" source from ''[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]'' magazine. It challenges dictionaries' definition of "woman," but this was spurred on by a complaint from a transgender woman. ''Slate'' asks, "''Is it time for dictionaries to make room in their definitions for transgender and intersex women who may not fit under the umbrella of 'adult female human being,' especially given that Collins' primary definition for 'female' in its American dictionary is 'of the sex that produces ova and bears offspring'? In other words, exactly how well are dictionaries keeping up with the evolving contemporary conversation around the language of gender and sexuality?''" But again, this viewpoint is in the significant minority. In that source, [[Merriam-Webster]] lexicographer Emily Brewster states, "''Our goal is to catalog the language when it becomes kind of stable—to define things when the dust has settled. That, I think, is the best that a dictionary can do. Otherwise, it's subject to so much information that it really can't be helpful.''" Regarding Webster's seemingly somewhat updated definition of "man," Brewster stated, "''That word 'typically' creates a broadness that allows for differently abled bodies to be male. It may become clear that we need to have additional senses to address uses of the words that are not quite covered. We wouldn’t be lexicographers if we didn’t leave that door open.''" |
|||
The page in its current form mentions without sources the supposed existence of the Old English word ''wermann''. This word is, unless I'm gravely mistaken, completely unattested (try finding it on Wiktionary, for example) and possibly fabricated. Unless a good source can be found for the existence of ''wermann'' as an OE word (and a cursory internet search reveals only discussions pondering where on earth it supposedly came from), its mention ought to be removed. [[User:AutisticCatnip|AutisticCatnip]] ([[User talk:AutisticCatnip|talk]]) 04:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::By the lead of this article mentioning trans women and intersex women, it's clear that Wikipedia does not simply follow what dictionaries state anyway. Also, Wikipedia does not simply consider recent sources. Per WP:Due weight, it considers what the literature states as a whole and gives most of its weight to the majority view (unless it's something like scientific knowledge or [[scientific consensus]] having changed and we have reliable sources explicitly noting that). The majority view of a woman is still the cisgender viewpoint. So this is why the lead begins with that view. It's why the article should not be [[WP:False balance|artificially balanced]] to be about both cisgender and trans women, which would hardly be any different than merging the Trans woman article into this article. It's still the case that the vast majority of the literature on women is about social issues, especially gender roles and gender inequality. It is significantly more about gender roles than it is about gender identity. All the article should have on gender identity is one section on it, if the material is to be split from the "Biology and sex" section. The article should not be artificially balanced to be half about gender identity. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 07:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::::That is an interesting argument, but I am not convinced that it actually engaged with what I am asking about, which would be a new section in "woman" as a gender identity. I am not suggesting that the arti be about "cis and trans women" equally, or about "gender roles and gender identities", employing some kind of FALSEBALANCE. What I am suggesting, among other things, is that hiding discussion of gender identiy within "biology and sex" gives a misleading view of what is being discussed in reliable sources on the article's topic. Also, WP is supposed to privilege recent, reliable sources, so the reality that gender identity has become important in these sources over the last 20 years is not a reason to hesitate in including them in this article. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 09:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::::As noted above, I'm not opposed to creating a "Gender identity" section (and breaking the gender identity aspect off from the "Biology and sex" section to go in the new one). I also suggested renaming the "Biology and sex" section to "Biology and gender." How to go about creating a Gender identity section and what it should entail is obviously something that can be worked out here on the talk page. For example, an editor can work on the section in their sandbox and then point to it here for review. The editor can also invite editors to help write it in their sandbox. As for privileging recent, reliable sources, Wikipedia actually does not unless, like I stated, consensus has changed on a matter and reliable sources explicitly note that consensus has changed. See [[WP:Recentism]] and [[WP:RSBREAKING]]. At the [[Recent African origin of modern humans]] article, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans&oldid=849202029#Article_name we can't decide for ourselves that consensus has changed]. And for medical articles, [[WP:MEDDATE]]'s emphasis is more on whether the material is up-to-date than on how new the sources are. A source can be old, but still reflect today's consensus. WP:MEDDATE also addresses recentism. My above "07:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)" post concerns how Wikipedia works and the fact that the cisgender view of "woman" is still the prevalent view of "woman." [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 11:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::At a time when the medical authorities, as well as the UK, Canadian and NZ governments and many international organizations and academic sources, are endorsing "woman" as a gender identity rather than as a synonym for "cis woman", I think it is clear that consensus on this topic is breaking down. This is clearest when concentrating on sources from the last 20 years, as WP policy requires in cases where the consensus of authorities shifts over time. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 12:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I've looked at a lot of the literature on defining "woman," and I do not see that "is a gender identity" or similar is usually used with regard to defining "woman." It is partly why I cited that source I did above. And it is still a fact that, outside of trying to define "woman," the vast majority of the literature on women is not about gender identity, but rather about gender roles and other social issues. Legal recognition of trans women as women does not change any of that. It is why I told you that we will not be artificially balancing this article. You stated that you are not trying to do that. So it seems to me that you should focus on creating the aforementioned "Gender identity" section. And whether "consensus on this topic is breaking down" or not, it's not for us to state. It's for reliable sources to state. I do not know what policy you are referring to when stating "as WP policy requires in cases where the consensus of authorities shifts over time," but it is clear as day that consensus is not for defining "woman" as solely a gender identity. "Woman" being a gender identity is just one aspect of the topic. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 07:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:You appear to be correct. For those interested, here are some such discussions [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4psymv/in_english_when_was_wereman_replaced_by_man_and/][https://www.reddit.com/r/OldEnglish/comments/sa3n2w/who_invented_the_word_werman/][https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26574747]. I've gone and made an edit ([[Special:Diff/1216741813]]) which replaces the specious ''wermann'' with ''wer'' (apparently the most common OE word for male/man) and {{wt|ang|wǣpnedmann}}, which is attested occasionally as the analogue to ''wifmann''. I hope this looks acceptable. |
|||
'''Oppose''' any unsourced changes that {{U|Newimpartial}} proposes. [[User:Userwoman|Userwoman]] ([[User talk:Userwoman|talk]]) 16:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:I think the Dictionary.com link is rotten, as it no longer contains the information we're citing it for. If anyone has access to the OED or another source which verifies this etymology, please verify this text if possible. –[[User:RoxySaunders|RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️]] ([[User talk:RoxySaunders|💬]] • [[Special:Contributions/RoxySaunders|📝]]) 18:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Why does this page use [[extended confirmed protection]] even though [[Man]] uses semi-protection only? == |
|||
===Wording=== |
|||
The current wording of "a person whose sex assignment does not align with their gender identity, or those who have sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female (intersex)" only makes sense if you already know what it's trying to say. Otherwise it sounds more like it's saying "woman" is ''anyone'' who's trans/intersex. That's what I was trying to clarify. [[User:Lenina Libera|Lenina Libera]] ([[User talk:Lenina Libera|talk]]) 13:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woman&diff=853679162&oldid=853644917 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woman&diff=853702951&oldid=853679162 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woman&diff=853905911&oldid=853702951 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woman&diff=854028020&oldid=853905911 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woman&diff=854031132&oldid=854028020 this], we could state: "A woman may also be a [[trans woman]] (someone whose [[sex assignment]] does not align with their [[gender identity]]), or an [[intersex]] woman (someone with [[sexual characteristics]] that do not fit typical notions of male or female)." Yes, [[genderqueer]] people exist, but there are a number of identities regarding that matter, and it's often that a genderqueer person will not stick to identifying as a woman. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 14:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:The wording can benefit from improvement, but reducing a lifelong identity, socialization, and birth sex assignment to just a gender identity in the case of many women with intersex traits is inappropriate and “othering”. It should be noted that sex characteristics can be acquired as well as congenital. [[User:Trankuility|Trankuility]] ([[User talk:Trankuility|talk]]) 14:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::My edit removed "with regard to gender," and I mainly did that specifically with intersex people in mind. Like I stated, "may" could be argued as too strong a word for intersex people since so many intersex people do not know they are intersex and are usually considered male or female even if their chromosomes are not typical. They aren't usually treated as "other." And, as you know, the vast majority of intersex people identify as male/man or female/woman, even after finding out they are intersex. As for "acquired as well as congenital," I do not see that the lead needs to add that for intersex women. The lead is currently very small and should not given WP:Undue weight to the trans or intersex aspects. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 14:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::My comment about sex characteristics related to your statement about intersex people having sexual characteristics. Any text should note that intersex people are born with relevant sex characteristics. Otherwise the text also relates to people who have acquired atypical characteristics. [[User:Trankuility|Trankuility]] ([[User talk:Trankuility|talk]]) 15:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woman&diff=854068066&oldid=854031428 added] "[[congenital]]." But it has created a [[WP:SEAOFBLUE]] issue. I thought about how to briefly include "congenital" without creating a SEAOFBLUE issue, but having it before "sexual characteristics" seemed best. "Congenital" redirects to the [[Birth defect]] article, and I know that some intersex people do not consider their intersex state a birth defect. So it might be better to go with "born with," like the Intersex article's lead sentence does. So I will try that now. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 19:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
... [[User:Usersnipedname|Usersnipedname]] ([[User talk:Usersnipedname|talk]]) 08:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I agree with {{U|Lenina Libera}}, to say that a women is any person who is transgender includes trans men as well. Although we should be careful to not confuse woman (a female human) with a feminine gender identity. These two are not the same. [[User:Userwoman|Userwoman]] ([[User talk:Userwoman|talk]]) 02:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woman&type=revision&diff=854266415&oldid=854069260 This] wasn't remotely helpful... [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 04:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:GENSEX enforcement vs. generic vandalism. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 12:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Lenina is right the current wording could be talking about trans women, trans men, or both (too vague). What about changing it <small>(from "A woman may also be a person whose sex assignment does not align with their gender identity,[1] or an intersex person (someone born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female).")</small> to: |
|||
:Also because trolls and bigots perseverate more on people [[assigned male at birth]] who are either gay/bi/pan or trans. Transwomen are targeted more than transmen and thus this article gets more trolls. Here's an article: [https://www.mprnews.org/story/2013/04/28/gays-vs-lesbians-acceptance] [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 16:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:"Women may also be [[sex assignment|assigned male]] but be women by dint of their [[gender identity]],[1] or may be [[intersex]] (born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female)." |
|||
or, incorporating phrasing somewhat more like Flyer's suggestion above: |
|||
:"Some women are [[trans woman|trans]] (with a male [[sex assignment]] that does not align with their female [[gender identity]]) or [[intersex]] (born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female)." |
|||
? These are only starting-point suggestions, please suggest tweaks or entirely different wordings—I'm sure we can come up with something. [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 08:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 16:03, 12 April 2024
 | This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Why was it edited from "adult human female" to "adult female human"?
Adult human female is better ShobanChiddarth (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- No such change has occurred that I'm aware of. Possibly a Berenstein effect? The sources cited (and various others) tend to use use female as an adjective modifying human or person. "Adult human female" is more common as a TERF/GC slogan. See also wikt:female § Usage notes. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 13:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, even if the other version wasn't in use as a dog whistle the current version is more grammatically correct and there is no reason to prefer the Ferengi version. DanielRigal (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Page edit request
Please let me remove a image from this article Mybirthday647 (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Mybirthday647, can you please tell us which image you would like removed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Ada Lovelace should be added to the science section of the article
How is possible that Ada Lovelace is not mentioned in the science section of this article?
Ada Lovelace was the creator one of the first algorithms for modern computers, she had the intention to develop software for multipurpose tasks, not just the first woman, but one of the first humans if not the first in doing that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace#First_published_computer_program
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Note_G
Thanks.--Zchemic (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- The section Women § Science, literature and art is meant to be a summary of the articles Women in science, Women in literature, and Women in art. To avoid becoming overly long and cluttered (it already contains 6 paras and 2 images), it cannot hope to include every notable woman in these fields, regardless of her contributions. The Countess of Lovelace is mentioned in Women in science § Early nineteenth century and her portrait appears in an imagebox alongside Curie later in that article.
- It is for the best that the text of this summary section mostly avoids mentioning women by name, as this begets lots of
why does X get included, and not Y
, which eventually expands into a WP:BLUESEA of links. For a particularly egregious example of the useless and unreadable text this kind of editing produces, see old revisions of the article Gay icon. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
On "wermann"
The page in its current form mentions without sources the supposed existence of the Old English word wermann. This word is, unless I'm gravely mistaken, completely unattested (try finding it on Wiktionary, for example) and possibly fabricated. Unless a good source can be found for the existence of wermann as an OE word (and a cursory internet search reveals only discussions pondering where on earth it supposedly came from), its mention ought to be removed. AutisticCatnip (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- You appear to be correct. For those interested, here are some such discussions [1][2][3]. I've gone and made an edit (Special:Diff/1216741813) which replaces the specious wermann with wer (apparently the most common OE word for male/man) and wǣpnedmann, which is attested occasionally as the analogue to wifmann. I hope this looks acceptable.
- I think the Dictionary.com link is rotten, as it no longer contains the information we're citing it for. If anyone has access to the OED or another source which verifies this etymology, please verify this text if possible. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Why does this page use extended confirmed protection even though Man uses semi-protection only?
... Usersnipedname (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- GENSEX enforcement vs. generic vandalism. Dronebogus (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Also because trolls and bigots perseverate more on people assigned male at birth who are either gay/bi/pan or trans. Transwomen are targeted more than transmen and thus this article gets more trolls. Here's an article: [4] EvergreenFir (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)