Template:Vital article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anthropology C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Sociology C‑class High‑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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Gender studies C‑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 C This article has been rated as C-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 · 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 Feminism C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism 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.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Women C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Women's History C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.107.125 (talk) 10:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe you can enhance the article please make changes. Jgalt87 (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Use an image depicting several women in a collage (see [carnivora]). --169.231.181.119 (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No-can-do per MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, there was concern after MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES was implemented that it was too broad and might be used to keep out such lead image collages in articles that are not about ethnicity. It's why a part of the section was changed soon after being implemented. The "or similarly large human populations" part was disputed as applying to all articles that deal with different types of people. It was felt that MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES is specifically about "articles about ethnic groups" or articles in a similar vein. This article is not about ethnic groups. This is probably something that needs more clarification at the guideline talk page, especially since the Girl article currently does use a collage or montage (whatever one wants to call it) for its lead presentation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per Jytdog (in the #Lead image section below) pointing to the followup RfC, I refreshed my memory on all the debate. The "or similarly large human populations" aspect was seen as vague and needing clarification by me and EvergreenFir, and some opposed the broad application of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, but the "or similarly large human populations" aspect was upheld. The "WP:OR" part of the wording was, however, removed. More stated below in the "Lead image" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Newimpartial (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:

1. The term "gender identity" became a necessity after feminists appropriated[1] 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.
2. 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. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 00:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Newimpartial (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marie Paradox (talk • contribs) 01:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Newimpartial (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 02:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Newimpartial (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Newimpartial (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 this 2017 "Is It Time to Change the Definition of 'Woman'?" source from 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."

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 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. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Newimpartial (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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, 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." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Newimpartial (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is beyond me why Newimpartial insists on what the medical authorities define "woman" as for purpose of policy. Disregarding the fact that the keyword here is policy, different cultures, specialties and subjects have different ideas of what a word means. Biologists, gynecologists, logicians, coroners, feminist writers, database administrators and artists surely have different ideas of what a "woman" is. I'm all for representing the variety of interpretations in the article, mind you, but I don't support going cherry-picking whatever best fits your agenda and using that. I challenge you to find one generalist encyclopaedia published in the last 15-20 years that defines "woman" significantly differently from "an adult human being of female sex". --InspectorRex (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, the relevant group of sources for Wikipedia is not "other generalist encyclopedias", it is all reliable sources. Second, I am contesting that legal and medical definitions of "woman" are the only ones that matter, but they do (increasingly) matter, and their differences - say, between OECD and non-OECD countries also matter.

I am not for "cherry picking", I am for representing diverse viewpoints, and while I find that biological and gender role aspects of the topic are treated adequately in the current article, gender identity is not - in relation to the currently available reliable sources. It is fine to disagree with my position, but ASPERSIONS that I support cherry-picking or am proposing unsourced changes are baseless, and violate WP:AGF. Newimpartial (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any unsourced changes that Newimpartial proposes. Userwoman (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Lenina Libera (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, this, this, this and 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. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Trankuility (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Trankuility (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I 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. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 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. Userwoman (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't remotely helpful... EvergreenFir (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lenina is right the current wording could be talking about trans women, trans men, or both (too vague). What about changing it (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).") to:

"Women may also be 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 (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. -sche (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The wording rubs me the wrong way. I think it's an extremely hairy and wholly non-trivial problem. The point is that it's difficult to come up with a wording that essentially says "<<woman>> can also refer to trans women but for some purposes they-are-not-quite-the-same" in a way that's both encyclopaedically accurate and non-inflammatory enough to sit comfortably in the introductory paragraph. I can't help bu wonder: how do dead tree encylopaedias do it? --InspectorRex (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think we should go with my proposed wording above. I think it's concise and appropriate. It also avoids the "assigned male" issue that some people have been debating at the Trans woman talk page (and in the previous discussion before that one). And, of course, the "with" part of my proposal regarding intersex women should be "born with." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I support the new wowding proposed by Flyer22, pending the writing of new material for the body of the article. Newimpartial (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with that wording ("A woman may also be a trans woman or an intersex woman"), specifically with the use of the verb "be" encoding an is-a relationship, which is something exceptionally strong. In fact, it's usually strong enough that there is no need to point it out in the introduction of an article - e.g. the "Dog" page does not say "a dog may also be a spaniel or a bulldog", precisely because it's obvious.

"A trans woman is-a woman" is ontologically much more finicky, irrespective of how much you and I choose to like it; this is not a trivial question and not a new one (as an extreme example, to South American catholics the capybara - a rodent - literally was a fish for centuries), but I'd choose to at least aim to consistency within Wikipedia.

In fact, the very first sentence of this page is "A woman is a female human being". And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female says that "Female (♀) is the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, that produces non-mobile ova (egg cells)", which is not a characteristic found in trans women (science is not quite there).

I'd support "<<Woman>> can also refer to a trans woman or an intersex woman". The point is that, again, irrespective of how much you and I like it, it's a notion that's more or less true in time, space and across specialized disciplines.

In the hope, of course, that the lawmakers of your countries or mine don't choose to use this page to decide whether or not to afford certain rights to certain people. --InspectorRex (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I checked and none of my dead tree encyclopaedias, including quite recent ones, contain any copy of this sort. Which sort of supports the idea that we're looking at a meaning that's too transient or localized in time and space (read: US, 2013 to 2018) to belong in the introductory section of an encyclopaedic article, much less with an exceptionally strong wording such as "is-a". --InspectorRex (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your dog comparison is ill-advised. Furthermore, no one disputes that a dog may also be a spaniel or a bulldog. As the aforementioned discussion at the Trans woman talk page shows, transgender matters are highly debated. We could state "A woman is also a trans woman," but not only is that inaccurate since a woman may or may not be trans, it would be subject to debate precisely because of the aforementioned Trans woman talk page discussion. "May be" is also obviously subject to debate because of those who do not view trans women as women, but there is no getting around the fact that "woman" is in the term "trans woman." As for "refer to," see WP:Refers. This is not a term article. Although the trans woman and intersex woman material is not in the lead sentence, it's still best to not restrict trans women and intersex women to just a term. And a lead sentence definition does not exclude other aspects of a definition/topic anyway. Wikipedia commonly begins with the most common definition first. That definition does not negate a minority definition. As for including material in leads, since trans and intersex women are discussed lower in the article, we should mention them in the lead. See WP:Lead. Yes, the lead is small and needs expansion. As an alternative, we could state: "There are also trans women (those who have a sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity) and intersex women (those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female)." By "none of [your] dead tree encyclopaedias" and "exceptionally strong wording such as 'is-a'," I take it you are referring to trans women? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would my dog comparison be ill-advised? It's a textbook example of is-a, or hyponymy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyponymy_and_hypernymy). As for the rest, I fold. My objections in terms of inconsistency between the first five words and the wording currently used still stands. --InspectorRex (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ill-advised or ill-considered, whichever. If you don't see an issue with comparing wording for gender identity or a trans woman to wording for a type of dog, then I don't know what to tell you. Furthermore, "may be" is already used in the lead. All my proposed wording does is clear up the fact that we don't mean everyone who is trans or intersex. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Dog type article, though, I do see that it currently states, "A dog type can be referred to broadly, as in gun dog, or more specifically, as in spaniel." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The dog example is an easily understood textbook example (as in, you can find it in textbooks) of an is-a relationship and serves to illustrate a point about ontology. If it offends you, I don't know what to tell you - except "stay away from Philosophy 201". InspectorRex (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poor logic. And I'm not personally offended, but I do think about how things might offend others, especially when dealing with sensitive subjects. It is not uncommon, for example, for people who oppose transgender identities to compare a transgender person to someone identifying as a non-human animal (such as a dog, with some argument such as "but that person is not really a dog"). Either way, you have given no valid reason for not going with clearer language. Like I stated, "may be" is already used in the lead. All we want to do is add a clearer version of it. And we will...if you do not give a valid reason for not doing so and leaving the lead in a state that can suggest that we mean everyone who is trans or intersex. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main concern I have about Flyer's wording is that, like the existing wording, it's only clear if you already know what it's getting at: if you don't know what "trans woman" means and assume it means someone who doctors/parents assigned/raised as a woman on the basis of just-mentioned characteristics like being capable of giving birth, but who is now trans (i.e. what would actually be termed a trans man), the parenthetical "someone whose sex assignment does not align with their gender identity" is consistent with this (mis)interpretation. That's why I suggest clarifying "...female gender identity" (or another adjective in that vein, like "feminine" or "womanly"), if not also clarifying the "sex assignment" part. Add that adjective in, and it's workable. :)
I mean, I do also think that following "A woman is a [A. ...] Women with typical genetic development are usually [B, C, D]." with some variation of "Some women are [E or F]." sounds better than "A woman may also be [E or F]", but that's subjective and much less of a concern to me than the first thing. -sche (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except for missing "born with," I don't see an issue with my initial proposed wording. What "trans woman" means is briefly noted within parentheses, and is not much different than your second proposed wording. The only difference is that you use "male sex assignment" and "female gender identity," which is wording that could easily be added on to my proposed wording, so that it reads as "someone whose male sex assignment does not align with their female gender identity" or "someone with a male sex assignment that does not align with their female gender identity." I don't think anyone would think we mean trans men simply because "male" and "female" are not there. People will be clicking on the links anyway. As the trans woman debating indicates, average readers likely won't understand what we mean by "sex assignment" anyway unless they are familiar with trans topics and/or click on the link. If we are to go with one of your suggested wordings, the second is best. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to this, per above (followup note here). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Botticelli's The Birth of Venus is a very poor lead image for this page.

I see that there used to be a gallery that was removed in Feb 2016 following this RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images about galleries of large groups of people (which arose from an RfC here, now in the archives here), which arose from a prior RfC about ethnic groups" that led to MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. There was an effort to repeal MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES here in June 2016 that failed.

So OK, no gallery. There has been no discussion here since then.

In the article, we've had:

• gallery removed in Feb 2016, leaving the infobox symbol at the top
• image of group of women runners added 18 May 2016 by User:OnBeyondZebrax
• 2nd image of group of older women added 18 May 2016 also by OnBeyondZebrax
• here women runners was replaced by Lee Remick 23 January 2017 by User:Zhyboo then replaced by Zhyboo with Salma Hayek.
• here the Salma Hayek image was replaced with a fitness model 10 February 2017 by User:Js20030
• here on 15 February 2017 both images were removed by User:Flyer22 Reborn, leaving the infobox symbol image at the top.
• here on 12 March 2017 a drawing "of a woman's bust" was added by User:HeliumPearl
• here on 28 April 2017 image removed by User:Coltsfan, leaving the infobox symbol image at the top.
• here on 18 May 2017 the drawing "of a woman's bust" was restored by HeliumPearl, reverted a few hours later by Flyer22; here a different image of "a woman's bust" was added by HeliumPearl, immediately reverted by User:EvergreenFir
• here on 2 August 2017 the current image of Botticelli's The Birth of Venus was added by User:Gunkarta; reverted by User:Cleaner880 3 days later with no reason given. Immediately restored by Gunkarta.

So the Venus is just a "classier" version of the "bust", "fitness model", and actress pictures, emphasizing sexuality/beauty ideals, and this is not a good thing. I'm removing the image, leaving the infobox symbol image at the top. I very much doubt that an RfC would provide consensus for Venus or the similar images as the lead image on this page. Jytdog (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree overall. I'm also concerned that it uses Western ideals to represent a global topic. I'd recommend scouring https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Females_in_art_by_medium for something not Euro-centric and not objectifying if possible (perhaps like the Willendorf Venus shown on the right?). Otherwise, I'd recommend just leaving it blank. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

something "not Euro-centric" so you propose a European artifact found in Europe instead. More of a comment on wikipedians than anything 71.246.152.225 (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's from Europe, but not really "Western"? But point taken. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Botticelli's The Birth of Venus image, I just love visuals and would prefer the art to represent the subject, that's all. There is no ill intention on my behalf for the installment of the image. What I did not expect was all this sensitivity; and the fact that people do read into things; like diversity and objectification issues, also the question of Eurocentric beauty ideals, I'm not a European myself. So.., if the main picture is posing a problem, go ahead remove it, I do not mind if the article has none. Cheers..! Gunkarta  talk  05:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't/didn't mind the Venus image as the lead image because it's an artistic expression that shows the female form. It's not WP:GRATUITOUS. There is currently a similar image (of a man) at the Man article. But, sure, if it's preferred that the lead images at both of these articles be of people with clothes on, so be it. Here at the aforementioned RfC, I stated in part, "if this RfC closes with consensus for the broad interpretation of the gallery aspect, we should work out the wording for the content since a number editors, including ones who do support the broad interpretation of the guideline, clearly do not agree that the matter is WP:OR, and also have significant disagreement about the 'similarly large human populations' wording. And there is also the matter of having the gallery lower in the article. How is it any more of a problem for the lead than if it's placed lower in the article?" The "OR" piece was removed from the wording, but the "similarly large human populations" piece is still there, and we see that it hasn't stopped the gallery that is currently at the bottom of in Child article. Furthermore, the Girl article still currently has various images as the lead presentation. It also had it at the time of the aforementioned RfC. It's working for that article, but that's likely because the images are not of celebrities or other notables. As the aforementioned RfC shows, a main problem with such a presentation at articles was including celebrities or other notables. For this article, the debate was mostly over including trans woman Laverne Cox. If we were to do a "variety" presentation again, the trans debate would start up again, but if we included a trans woman or trans women who weren't known as trans, I doubt we'd get fuss over the inclusion(s). People objected because they knew Cox was transgender. Maybe having a gallery at the bottom of the article would work. In that case, not noting who is trans could be seen as trans invisibility; so noting who is trans might be the better option despite the occasional anti-trans comments we'd get. Anyway, a single image for an article like this doesn't come anywhere close to being representative. At least a collage/gallery of different types of women has a significantly longer reach representative-wise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for the image EvergreenFir suggested, I don't see that as an improvement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reached this article to read about how hormonal differences between women and men lead to differences in world-view between the sexes. But again, found nothing. Why all articles about sex are totally framed in anatomy + politics? I need objective information, from the Biological and Psychological Sciences, not feminist propaganda.--MisterSanderson (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"As in cases without two sexes, such as species that reproduce asexually, the gender-neutral appearance is closer to female than to male". Shouldn't it be "such as species that *can* reproduce asexually"? If a species reproduces asexually then ostensibly it has no sex, in which case there's no male/female to which the embryo (appearing a sentence before that) can be similar. --178.8.24.240 (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t really understand the question. Homo sapiens is a species that *can* reproduce sexually, but not every individual does so. But you don’t have to include the ′′can′′. One simply says, homo sapiens is a species which reproduces sexually (as opposed to some other way). If you still have a question, perhaps you can state it some other way? Mathglot (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Why hasn't this page been fixed yet? With such a topic as huge as "woman" there shouldn't be so much jargon, politics and new age "ideas" while being written at a high school level. The article should be neutral and devoid of bias. The opening to the article should not have anything that is not about a female human being. I have read through pretty much all the comments on the talk page and I don't understand why this is not resolved. Transgendered individuals make up less than .05% of the population, not to mention transwomen making up even less from that number. Why is the entire side of the page is covered in "women in society", "feminism" and "feminist philosophy" page links? Come on, what is this? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a political rally. The first thing when you think about women is not feminism and feminist philosophy, get them out of here.

"A woman is a female human being. The term woman is usually reserved for an adult, with girl being the usual term for a female child or adolescent. The term woman is also sometimes used to identify a female human, regardless of age, as in phrases such as "women's rights"."

Why is this phrase "women's rights" here? Is this all women are about? Meanwhile the men's page says "men's basketball." This can be changed to "women's health", "women's volleyball", "women's section", I mean, literally ANYTHING else.

"Women with typical genetic development are usually capable of giving birth from puberty until menopause."

This is poorly written. Is it necessary to insinuate about infertility in the first intro to the page? Infertility/difficulty carrying to term effect 10% of women ages 15-44. This stat does not include the top reason why women become infertile which is that they wait too long and their egg reserves diminishes severely after age 32. Again... WHY is this in the introduction to this article? I think everyone knows that not every single woman on the planet is capable of getting pregnant and giving birth, there is no need to handle this with kid gloves.

"There are also trans women (those who have a male sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity),[1] and intersex women (those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female)."

Why are transwomen being mentioned in the intro to this article? A woman is a female human by wikipedia's own admission--why are transwomen who are biologically male mentioned in an article about biologically female humans? Trans and intersex individuals make up such a tiny, minute portion of the population and should not be mentioned here. They do not hold equal validity in an article that is about female humans. This sentence should not be here at all and the wording of it uses lingo and buzzwords a la Vox or Slate. Transwomen are not "assigned" male; the doctor visually observes a baby's genitalia and uses the word corresponding to said genitalia. In essence, if you have a penis you are male and if you have a vagina you are female. Sure, there are anomaly's... but this doesn't belong here. The word "Assign" makes it seem like the doctor gives the baby it's sex because of his or her own personal choice or feelings, like "Hmmm, having assigned female in a while, let's do that!" If the baby chooses to transition later in life that has absolutely nothing to do with what the doctor, all the nurses and the parents saw with their own eyeballs at the birth. It's as simple as that. This line needs to be removed completely. It's inaccurate and personal feelings do not belong in an encyclopedia. AikaNikolas (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, you aren't new to Wikipedia despite your new account. So I felt I should go ahead and point that out. Second, you are complaining about a gendered topic such as this being too ideological and political. What???? What would anyone expect, given the gendered issues that come with being a woman, such as violence against women, women's rights, sexism, etc.? This is not the Female article. The topic of men's rights is commonly associated with unsavory and WP:Fringe aspects. So, of course, it wouldn't get as much weight in the Man article as women's rights gets in the Woman article. The Woman article addresses stuff like science, literature and art. If you want to expand that, or sports, then expand it, but make no mistake about it...the literature on "woman" mostly concerns what you currently see in the article. It matters not that you probably first think of the female body when you hear the word woman. Third, transgender and intersex women are currently not mentioned a lot in the article. Regardless of what you think, they should have their WP:Due weight in the article. A Wikipedia article on "Woman" should not exclude mention of trans women and intersex women. I'm not going to address the rest of your statements, except to state that the lead should summarize the article. When there is content in the lead that is not covered lower, an argument for removing content from the lead can be made. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And as for "assigned," Wikipedia recently had a big debate on that, as you likely know. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  The current lead image at Man
• 
  The current lead image at Woman
• 
  Human anatomy.jpg
• 
  Weaving profile.jpg
• 
  WomanFactory1940s.jpg

Apologies for bringing up the issue of lead image again, as I see it was discussed above a few months ago. But the lead image is kind of important because it's the image that pops up in previews and some aggregators and such. I was reading something that wikilinked "Man and Woman" and I moused over the links to see the WP:Tools/Navigation popups, and the lead image for Man is a picture of a man, specifically Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam. The lead image for Woman is a diagram of the female reproductive system. These two pictures communicated to me that "man" is a male (complete) human being, and "woman" is a vagina. I didn't want to change it unilaterally (specifically, I didn't want to revert this edit without asking first). Is it just me? ^Leviv_ich 23:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the image in question is not in an infobox or at the top of the article, but instead several screens down and below two other images (which are in the infoboxes), it is indeed very awkward that it's the "top" image that various on- and off-site scripts grab. A very slight tweak would be to swap the order of that image and File:Human anatomy.jpg, which are very close to each other in the same section. This would not involve introducing any new images or changing what section or "screen" any of the images were on, so it would hopefully not be controversial; does anyone object? -sche (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to that change, as I think it would be an improvement over the current situation. However, I think that change creates a new problem: the lead image for Woman would be a picture of a man and a woman. I think articles like Man, Woman, Horse, Pig, Fish, Tree, etc., should have a lead image that depicts a typical example of the subject. What about swapping it with File:Weaving profile.jpg or File:WomanFactory1940s.jpg (both currently in the article), or adding a new picture altogether? ^Leviv_ich 03:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an issue that File:Scheme female reproductive system-en.svg currently presents as the main image. And it wouldn't be much better to have the main image be of both male and female anatomy. Given what I stated about the Girl article in the #Lead image discussion above, I think it's time we revisit the "similarly large human populations" matter with a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. A lead image (collage or otherwise) that shows a variety of different types of women would work best -- meaning it would be better than an image of a single woman for this article. But if the Man article can get away with using a single artistic image for its lead image, so can the Woman article. This is regardless of the transgender topic repeatedly being more of an issue for this article than it has been for the Man article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we can't find a suitable lead image for this article, maybe we should change the lead image on Man instead? In general, I agree that the Man and Woman articles should focus less on anatomy than the Male and Female articles. feminist (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the lead image on the Man article won't fix the aforementioned issue with this one. And what would we change the lead image of that article to? We should be more focused on this article unless we want to have a discussion about both articles and leave a note there that, per WP:TALKCENT, the discussion is centralized here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest a painting by Frida Kahlo - if the lead image on Man is a well known painting of and by a man, why not make the lead image on Woman a well known painting of and by a woman? But, unfortunately, it seems her work is still under copyright, and I can't think of another female portrait painter who is iconic in the same way. Someone who is more versed in art than me should make suggestions, but here are a few ideas:

• 
  female artist
• 
  female artist
• 
  female artist
• 
  male artist
• 
  male artist
• 
  male artist
• 
  ancient

Alternately, I think either the factory picture or the weaving picture would be good. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I see there's already been some good discussion above about the Birth of Venus, beauty standards, etc up higher that I missed. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per what I noted in the Lead image discussion, I don't mind File:Sandro Botticelli 046.jpg (the Birth of Venus image) being the lead image. I think that File:Serebryakova Bath house study 1912.jpg would be a poor choice because it's focused on women bathing. I think that File:Self-portrait in a Straw Hat by Elisabeth-Louise Vigée-Lebrun.jpg would be a poor choice because of her dated clothing and the fact that she is a notable woman from the past. I think that File:Shoen Uemura - Firefly.jpg would be a poor choice because it's too tied to a specific culture. I think that File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg would be a poor choice because of just how famous the image is and that it is sometimes mocked. I'm not sure about File:Meisje met de parel.jpg, but I know I don't prefer it. I think File:Venus von Willendorf 01.jpg would be a poor choice (the poorest choice) because it's a statue without clear facial features and doesn't represent what is typically thought of as the female form. Yes, female forms differ, but WP:LEADIMAGE is about trying to find a representative image. Sometimes a traditional or stereotypical image is more representative to the masses. For example, a red apple as opposed to a green apple, as the lead image for the Apple article. I'm not stating that we need to go with a white woman as the lead image, though, of course. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh brother, must we go through this again? I'd think we had best left well enough alone. But if we must, it would be best to use the first woman rather than the last, in other words a black woman should be used. Gandydancer (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which woman, Gandy? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer, that's the point - which black woman? Seems to me we're between a rock and a hard place when we think we can find a woman to represent "woman". Look above at all the pure, virginal, sparkling white photos. A black woman in Africa with a nursing child in a sling as she works in a field might as well be from Mars compared to the above photos. I don't want to choose a woman but if we must at least a poor Asian woman better represents woman of today since they are at least half of our world population (I think). BTW, at one point we had a composite and that didn't work out either due to squabbles about the choices. Gandydancer (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, there is no need to bring race into this. Just select the most suitable image that represents a female human, and that means a traditional or stereotypical image that resonates with readers. And I'm not even white. feminist (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gandy, yeah, in the Lead image discussion, I noted the "various display of women" aspect and that the "various display" route has been working for the Girl article for years. The main issue with using a collage or composite at this article? It was the people who kept complaining about having a trans woman -- Laverne Cox -- in the collage or composite. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you can have countless trans women saying that they knew something was wrong when they were three years old and yet there are those that say they know better than what these people knew for a fact because they lived it. All the more reason to not use a photo of some illusion of what is considered to be a woman. Gandydancer (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that reminds me (because this was also a criticism of at least one of the figures in the collage) of one of the criticisms of the Birth of Venus: it's not a depiction of a woman, it's a depiction of a deity. -sche (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who made that argument? Was it it a common argument? Whatever the case, I think that's a weak argument, -sche, since the imagery is clearly of the female human form. Editors could also use an image of Eve to contrast the image of Adam at the Man article, but then we'd have to worry about "Wikipedia is going with a religious viewpoint" arguments. In the case of Venus, it's Greek mythology and so we don't have to worry about "Wikipedia is going with a religious viewpoint" arguments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"that means a traditional or stereotypical image that resonates with readers". You must be kidding, right? Gandydancer (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looking at it again I understand why this comment may easily be misinterpreted. But I want an image that resonates with the majority of readers. According to a visualization created by the WMF, almost 50% of English Wikipedia readers come from the US or UK. An absolute majority of readers come from the Global North. We should cater to them. feminist (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to switching to some completely different image (and I would be fine with either the birth of Venus or a black woman, as proposed above), but another "least change" idea that might side-step debate over a new image: is there a way to cause the image which is currently the first image in the article, File:Symbol_venus.svg, to be parsed as the top/thumbnail image? -sche (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the Venus symbol would be a good choice for a neutral image. feminist (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume one way to do this would be: instead of including Template:Women_in_society_sidebar, copy and paste the entire contents of the sidebar into the article. Of course, this wouldn't be ideal because any changes updates to the sidebar would have to be added to the article manually and they'd likely fall out of sync. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10 (Wikipedia editor reading this thread)

Some additional possibilities? ^Leviv_ich 04:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? A beautiful work of art that's 1. Stylized enough to feel somewhat universal 2. Not depicting anyone specific. 3. From a culture that's not over-represented on Wikipedia (it's a fresco from a Minoan palace.) 4. Not sexy or male-gazey.

WanderingWanda (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That image is ambiguous gender-wise. And definitely no to the cartoon image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it feels ambiguous gender-wise I'd argue that's a good thing - it means it's presenting a broad and non-stereotypical view of women. Plus the title of the piece - Ladies of the Minoan Court - will clear up any confusion. I'm going to be bold and throw it up there - I think a piece of art is better for such a broad concept as 'woman' than a photograph of one specific person, and after looking at various pieces of art this feels like the best candidate that I've found. In any case it's definitely better than the various photos of conventionally attractive young white women that people keep putting up. But I know this is a controversial subject so 100% feel free to revert or put forward other candidates. (I'd be perfectly happy if we could find a good piece of art where the subjects happened to be black, per discussion above, for example.) WanderingWanda (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. As a lead image for the topic, it is poor. Clearly, it does not adhere to what WP:LEADIMAGE states about the lead image being something the reader expects to see. You apparently want to use an image that readers won't expect to see...all for the sake of ambiguity or a "non-stereotypical view of women." Our job is to go with an image that readers will expect to see or one that will otherwise resonate with them, or use no image at all. After all, WP:LEADIMAGE also talks about it sometimes not being possible to have a representative image or any lead image. I fail to see how that image you added will resonate with readers in terms of what a woman is. "Conventionally attractive young white women" might be stereotypical, but they resonate with people. This is not an article about gender ambiguity. And the lead having the Woman article use such an image as the lead image is not an improvement. It is also silly for this article to go by such a standard while the Man article does not. Some people might not expect a black woman as the lead image, but a black woman as the lead image would clearly be of a woman to readers and is an image they (many anyway) can easily resonate with. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how debatable this topic (what lead image to use or to use a collage or composite) has been, it would be best to form consensus on an image or images before another lead image attempt is made. We can, of course, also take the WP:RfC route. For how an RfC on images can look, see Talk:Scarlett Johansson/Archive 6#Request for comment on lead image and this one that was had at Talk:Blond. But like I stated in the discussion before that RfC about what blond hair image to use, too many options can overwhelm participants. In other words, the more options there are, the more overwhelmed editors are and less likely they are to vote. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a painting of women. That seems like something a reader might expect to see in an article about women. :) I'll add that my goal was not specifically to pick an androgynous image, even if I question why that would be a bad thing. Instead I picked it for the criteria I outlined above. You could probably make the image I picked feel less androgynous by cropping it differently, though, if that was the goal. In any case I'm not married to the choice.

...Out of Levivich's choices I'm personally drawn to 3, 6, and 8. The construction images - 3 and 8 - in particular feel bold, empowering, dynamic, well composed, and well lit. WanderingWanda (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts in no particular order: 1. For my part, just about any of the images proposed so far are better than the current lead image, and I always appreciate boldness, so I think the Minoan painting was an improvement, but it's still not my favorite choice for a permanent replacement. 2. I prefer a photograph of a "typical" example(s) of an actual woman (a female human), rather than something abstract (including any symbol or painting) that shows someone's idea of a woman or womanhood or femininity, etc., for the same reasons as Tree, Horse, etc., shows a picture of a typical example of the subject rather than something more philosophical or esoteric (and for this reason I don't like the lead image at Man, either, but that's for another day). 3. I really like the idea of a collage, as is done in Girl, because it demonstrates that "woman" is actually diverse; there is no typical woman; they come in many different appearances. However, it may take some time to create a collage that everyone is happy with; I understand there were some difficulties with the last one, although consensus may change, and perhaps the last collage would gain consensus now even if it didn't before. 4. I do believe/hope we can resolve this on the talk page without having to do something more involved like an RfC. 5. Perhaps we can agree on an interim image to replace the current one, until such time as a collage (or something else) can be created/presented/discussed/consented-to? ^Leviv_ich 16:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this thread has too many suggestions and would overwhelm many people attempting to pick, and we should winnow things down to the few options with the most support. In whatever informal !vote or formal RfC we hold, we should also employ ranking of choices. I like File:Rosie_the_Riveter_(Vultee)_DS.jpg best among the single-person non-painting photographs. What about, as a tentative suggestion for options: the aforementioned riveter photo (or another woman of colour), the birth of Venus, a collage like was used previously, or "none of the above"? In the last case, we would still be left to decide what non-lead image to put first in the article body and hence set as the "thumbnail" image, or to have another !vote with other options. -sche (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WanderingWanda, of course, readers would expect to see an image of a woman or women. But that image you added does not cut it, and I'm certain most or all others would state the same. It's also better to have a lead image that doesn't only show a woman's face or just about only her face. Out of Levivich's latest choices, I really like image 8. Will readers expect to see a lead image of a woman working the way she is working in that image? Probably not. But before they click on the article, they will be expecting an image of a woman standing still doing nothing or doing something. So in that sense, that the woman is doing something will be expected. Readers can only guess what the woman might be doing before they click on the image. I considered image 3 as well, and wouldn't mind it as the lead image. We can also try for two or three lead images in a vertical way as long as it doesn't result in mobile (phone) issues or editors stacking more and more in a row. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Out of these choices, I prefer image 8 the most. It's more contemporary and shows the woman more clearly than image 3. A crop may be beneficial. feminist (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding which woman, what about the panracial line drawing of a woman that is etched onto a gold plaque being carried by the Pioneer 10 spacecraft, and which is the first object constructed by humans to leave the solar system? This image, along with the companion image of a man and some technical information about its origin, was the first explicit, concrete interstellar communication attempt by humans, and is intended to convey information about all humankind to other beings, in case it is ever intercepted by extraterrestrial life. Mathglot (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not for the line drawing image, which is focused on anatomy (because it's showing what a female human's body is likely to look like). Compare File:Human.png (a line drawing image with the one you suggested included) to File:Human anatomy.jpg. Pretty much the same thing, except the latter is more detailed. Even in the Human article, the lead image currently isn't focused on showing what the human body looks like. And diversity-wise, we can see that the image isn't of white people. The Venus image does show a nude woman, obviously, and it's informative to show a typical anatomy of a woman in the Woman article, but that image doesn't have the same "this is all about anatomy" feel to it. And as others have mentioned, this isn't the Female article. When it comes to anatomy, we already have anatomy images in the "Biology and sex" section. And this discussion started because of a concern that an anatomy image presents as the lead image (although that image is only of the reproductive system and doesn't show the overall body of a woman). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich (Leviv), regarding this, the image isn't really in the lead. It currently shows as (mainly) being in the Biology and sex section, at least on my computer screen. And it's misplaced there. Moving the image to the top, ahead of the templates, will make it so that it's the lead image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Reborn, fixed, thanks for the heads up! Leviv ich 19:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who participated in this discussion! Leviv ich 06:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Love the new image! Qzekrom (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! Good job! Gandydancer (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: Sorry to say this but I hate that picture. I feel like it is defining a woman by her form of wage labor, and suggesting that a woman has more value when she performs traditionally male roles. I understand we didn't have much to work with, and I appreciate all your effort. I would like something like this as an example(it says all rights reserved): [2] I discussed criteria I felt was important for this lead image in the Man article here: [3] Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Women are twice as likely as men to use emoticons in text messages"^[1] Benjamin (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions for wording or placement? Benjamin (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The emoticon article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not both? Benjamin (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Various minor gendered differences shouldn't be included in this article. It would be far too long. Save those for specific topic articles. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's too trivial as information about women. -sche (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there, or should there be, some sub article? Perhaps something like "Differences between men and women" or "Women and technology"? Benjamin (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sex differences in psychology may be what you're after, still, not an obvious fit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, yes, perhaps, but that seems more strictly academic. But I'll give it a try. But at any rate, I do think there should be some mention here, perhaps not of this particular point, but that there are differences, in general. Benjamin (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps that belongs in Human, ape or mammal. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps human. Have the non humans used emoticons? Benjamin (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't put it past them, since they can master selfies. But I was thinking of "but that there are differences, in general." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically differences between human men and women. Benjamin (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus? In all seriousness, though, "Sex differences in psychology are differences in the mental functions and behaviors of the sexes..." and so that article seems the right place for well-sourced information about how men and women communicate differently. Leviv ich 08:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do still think there should be one article summarizing all the differences between men and women. Here's another example: In women, the index and ring finger tend to be the same length, whereas men's ring finger tends to be longer.^[2] Benjamin (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found Differences between men and women? That's physical differences, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for that! So, I guess that about covers it, the physical, and the psychological. But perhaps there could be social, cultural, political, economic, etc... Benjamin (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part of a series on
Sex differences in humans
Biology
Sexual differentiation disorders In research Physiology
Medicine and health
Autoimmunity Life expectancy Mental disorders autism depression schizophrenia substance abuse suicide Stroke care
Neuroscience and psychology
Cognition Coping Emotional expression Aggression Emotional intelligence Empathy Gender empathy gap Intelligence Memory Narcissism Neurosexism Sexuality age disparity in relationships attraction desire fantasy jealousy
Sociology
Crime Education in the U.S. Gender inequality Leadership Religion Social capital Social support Sociolinguistics equality paradox

This navbox might help. Leviv ich 16:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thanks! (^.^) Benjamin (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, what about gender differences? Benjamin (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]