Why is "women" pronounced like it is? 92.192.60.10 (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language for questions like this. Mathglot (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise profusely if there's an answer to my question within the many talk pages for this article. I've scanned them but not found it.

So what is the article supposed to be about? It seems to me that if consensus were reached on this question, some of the other controversies would go away.

For example, is the article supposed to be about "women" in the sense in which the majority of native English speakers use the word "women", namely to refer to adult humans of the female sex? If so, the first sentence of the article is fine as it is, but the paragraph about trans women is incongruous (if anything, it should be about trans men rather than trans women).

Alternatively, is the article supposed to be about "women" in every sense in which competent English speakers use the word "women", including fringe uses? If so, perhaps there should be more about trans women in the article, but the sections about biology will need to duplicate what's in Man, since trans women are biologically male.

Finally, I note that article is "part of a series on women in society". Is a sense of "woman" stipulated for the purposes of that series? I've searched the help pages but not found anything.

Let me emphasise that I'm not trying to reignite discussions that have already been had, which should be clear enough from a careful reading of the paragraphs above. H Remster (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion may be helpful to review: Talk:Woman#WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked. What specifically are you directing me to? H Remster (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The implicit consensus is what you see in the article. That it is exclusively based on biological sex and that anything else is "fringe uses" is not supported by reliable sources. Presumably you would dislike it even more if someone tried to make the article exclusively about gender and not sex, so no reason to rock this boat. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's important to remember that nothing is forever and that An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement. In this way, the encyclopedia gradually improves over time. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how this is an answer to my question. I've asked what the article is supposed to be about, i.e. what its subject-matter is supposed to be. You've replied "The implicit consensus is what you see in the article". The implicit consensus about what? H Remster (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On another page, editors have used the creation of discussions like this to argue that the first sentence should explicitly define the topic as more so based on gender. Do you wish to enable this? Crossroads ^-talk- 19:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wish to establish (here, on the talk page) what the article supposed to be about, i.e. what its subject-matter is supposed to be. H Remster (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The subject matter is what reliable sources, as a whole and in proportion, have to say about the topic of "woman" or the plural, "women". Crossroads ^-talk- 19:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think we understand the phrase "subject-matter" differently, so I'll rephrase. I wish to establish (here, on the talk page) what the article is supposed to be about, i.e. what the topic is supposed to be. H Remster (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If your response is simply that the topic of the article is the topic of "woman", my next (and also original) question is: "woman" in what sense of the word "woman"? H Remster (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the sense of how RS defines it, which includes trans women. Filiforme1312 (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Filiforme1312 Ah, the sainted RS. You'll be adding a section on female servants and personal attendants, then? No, I thought not. H Remster (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we work based on RS. If you feel those are DUE go ahead and create a new talk section and myself and others would be happy to help. Filiforme1312 (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was being flippant. I've just come back to respond properly.

If you read my original post (which I doubt), you'll know that I'm not trying to get the article changed. Rather, I'm suggesting a way of neutralising some of the controversies that have arisen in these talk pages, namely by clarifying or even stipulating what the topic is. If the topic is whatever-gender-studies-experts-mean-by-"woman", then so be it. Gender studies is hardly a credible academic discipline, but that's neither here nor there if the article is a gender studies article. H Remster (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lol I did read your post. Glad you read my user page and consider me an expert. Filiforme1312 (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what a user page is, but I took you to be an activist. H Remster (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about adult female humans. The contents of the body are that subject matter. We're having a similar discussion at Talk:Man, which I think is at a similar place as here: folks are happy with what the body contains, though of course the quality and depth can be improved up to the WP:FA level yet. I'm not seeing any broad move to actually change what man or woman are about, though there is musing about how to best approach the definition. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And is the article supposed to cover every sense of "female" or just the majority, biological sense? H Remster (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article does cover multiple facets of female, though in keeping with summary style, sub-categories like trans woman or mother are split out and only briefly mentioned here. The logic is straightforward: all mothers are women, but not all women are mothers. So it bears mentioning here, but not at great length. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, but all mothers are also female (in the biological sense of "female"), whereas no (or hardly any) trans women are female. That makes the paragraph about trans women look like a change of subject – on the assumption that the article is supposed to be about adult female (in the biological sense) humans. H Remster (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand the subject. Female in humans is about sex and gender, which is mentioned at the article about female. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What a curious response. Obviously I misunderstand the subject, or I wouldn't have needed to ask the question in the first place.

So the correct response to my initial comment is that the article is supposed to be about both "women" in the sense of "adult humans of the female sex" (the majority sense) and "women" in the sense of "adult humans of the female gender" (as yet a fringe sense). Where I went wrong was in suggesting that "the sections about biology will need to duplicate what's in Man, since trans women are biologically male". I can see now that additional information about the sex of adult humans of the female gender who aren't also adult humans of the female sex is irrelevant to the article.

For what it's worth, I'd have thought that separate articles for the two sense of "woman" are called for, with a disambiguation page. But I'd be surprised if that idea hadn't been floated already. H Remster (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that sources, or society for that matter, differentiates between those senses of woman, so neither would we. Nor do I think the female gender is a fringe concept. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that it's a fringe concept. I said that it's a fringe sense of "woman". Here's a paper that illustrates the point. The hypothesis that people don't differentiate between the two senses can't explain the pattern of responses. H Remster (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you know about that journal? H Remster (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A journal, which by definition, publishes controversial ideas. Inherently, that is outside the mainstream, which means it is more likely to be WP:FRINGE, and certainly a minority viewpoint. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you deduced that from the title, or looked into why it's called that? H Remster (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, you can find the answer in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the journal's homepage. It has nothing to do with being fringe. H Remster (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The Journal of Controversial Ideas offers a forum for careful, rigorous, unpolemical discussion of issues that are widely considered controversial, in the sense that certain views about them might be regarded by many people as morally, socially, or ideologically objectionable or offensive." (emphasis added) I don't think that makes for something that Wikipedia should be following. Regardless, that one paper alone is not cause for us to suddenly split our coverage of man/woman out into separate articles. This article is doing the trick just fine. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying it did (make for something that Wikipedia should be following). I was saying it explains the sense in which the ideas the journal contains are "controversial". And I cited the paper in the first place only as a response to your 21:27, 26 March 2023 post. It doesn't surprise me for a moment that you don't want to see the article split. H Remster (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are many pages of archives on this talk page regarding your question and similar questions. There are even helpful links to important discussions at the top of the page. Theheezy (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another contributor who hasn't read my original post. H Remster (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]