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

Culture and gender roles differed by society. The way womanhood is characterized under culture and gender roles currently, e.g. "middle class woman being primary caretaker" as an "ideal" is very subjective to particular cultures, and even to individuals. The description that currently exists may be more accurate under a "Western modernity" or "North America/Europe" subheader, while new content is constructed for other regions, e.g. "Historical," "Indigenous North American," "Indonesia," etc., where a different view of an ideal lifestyle for a female is pervasive. There are numerous societies and historical periods where the ideal life of a woman extended past childcare after a certain age in offsprings' development. Both Hypatia (c. 300 BCE) and Agnodice (c. 400 BCE) were early middle-class to upper-class Greek women whose ideals were to pursue science and literary contributions. In early 20th century Japan, Raichō Hiratsuka was a middle-class woman advocated for women's expression. Amongst the Mosuo in modern China, women are artisans while the men of the household help to bring up the children of their sisters and cousins.

I recommend splitting this section so that there are subheaders that differentiate between the Western model of women's gender roles, and have it more fairly characterize how different cultures--even modern ones--have pervasively different standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.242.230 (talk) 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word) has been relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Bookku (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request removal of "Some women are trans (those who have a male sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity),[1] or intersex (those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female). " Woman/Women is a biological designation as such the first half of the sentence is unnecessary and the second part is entirely incorrect as per https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12129-020-09877-8 Thanks JamesWoods87 (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC) JamesWoods87 (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JamesWoods87. If women can be men (transwomen) then one cannot possibly correctly or coherently interpret the covers of two recent books that focus on disparities between men and women, let alone their content. Maneesh (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User talk:JamesWoods87 request, because the definition is now inherently self-contradictory saying "A woman is a "female human being" and "some women ... have a male sex assignment" (i.e. a male sex). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardoligneo (talk • contribs) 17:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Darren-M talk 00:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to do as instructed, could you walk me through the process as the consensus page says to edit to see if consensus is given, by no one re-editing. Would I literally just create a talk page header asking for people's input on my proposed edit? Thanks JamesWoods87 (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added some new sentences today (the one in the middle has been in the article since 2006):

There is no single, universal definition of woman that applies in all situations.^[1] For example, some definitions consider age a factor in the definition, and other definitions do not. The word woman can be used generally, to mean any female human, or specifically, to mean an adult female human as contrasted with girl. When a distinction between women and girls is made, it may be based upon chronological age, biological maturity, or social situations. In the sentence "That girl's twin sister is a married woman", two people of the same chronological age are described using different words because of their different social situations.

Flyer has reverted it.

I assume that nobody disagrees with this additional explanation on the facts: different sources have different definitions. (If you do think there is one single "correct" definition, then you need to remove the middle sentence, too, since it's clear evidence that there are at least two definitions in common use. Also, you will need to burn your dictionary. Merriam–Webster, for example, gives six different definitions.)

I think this article needs to acknowledge that multiple definitions exist. (I don't think it should anoint any definition as the One True™ Definition.) What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I reverted and included a follow-up note here. The issue is WP:Due and WP:In-text attribution. How is "woman" usually defined? We don't begin this article by stating, "There is no single, universal definition of woman that applies in all situations." Instead (with the exception of currently not stating "adult human female" but rather "a female human being"), we begin by defining it the way it is defined in various reliable sources. It is the definition of "woman" given over and over again in reliable sources. That is why we state that in Wikipedia's voice. As for the assertion that "There is no single, universal definition of woman that applies in all situations"? Who is stating this? Attribute it via in-text. It certainly is not the typical definition of "woman." The section could state that "Dictionaries and encyclopedias [or whatever else] define 'woman' as [so and so]." And then note that feminists, philosophers and others have pondered what a woman is and/or have given different definitions. But presenting their viewpoints in Wikipedia's voice? That's a no for me. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, I was focused on your "There is no single, universal definition of woman that applies in all situations." sentence. As for Merriam–Webster giving six different definitions? Dictionaries almost always have more than one definition/sense of a word. And they tend to put the primary definition first. We can see the first definition that Merriam–Webster gives for "woman." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that we don't begin this article with that statement. That's why I put it in the middle of a section, instead of in the lead.
• I don't think that we need in-text attribution for this. Who, exactly, would you attribute it to? Does any reliable source say that there is only one single, universal definition of woman? I've never seen one that did. I provided one source with a particularly direct quotation, because I think this article ought to have a better ratio of citations to sentences, but there are many such sources.
• NB that no definition was provided. A definition would want in-text attribution, e.g., "Dictionaries define it this way" or "This philosopher defined it that way". The cited sentence, however, only states that multiple definitions exist.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that dictionaries define "woman" basically all the same way (and note that Merriam-Webster's other definitions are obviously derivatives of the primary one), and that vast numbers of reliable sources in medicine and other fields implicitly use the obvious definition, means we should not have unattributed philosophizing. In fact, attribution is needed to avoid contradiction. Also, in context, what other definitions does the author talk about? Crossroads ^-talk- 21:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you personally define woman as "an adult female of the human species", that's not enough. We then need to ask, e.g., how you define adult. Is a married 17-year-old an adult? In different times and places, laws and cultures have said yes, and laws and cultures have said no. Is an unmarried 20-year-old an adult? Same problem. How about an emancipated minor?

Note that nothing I've mentioned here is has anything to do with any pro-trans or anti-trans point of view. This has to do with whether or not George III married a 17-year-old woman or a 17-year-old girl. Do you believe that there is one, single, universal definition that will let you arrive at the sole correct answer to that question? I don't.

That particular source was arguing for accepting a multiplicity of definitions, and a multiplicity of scales for definitions. The author (a law professor) thinks that there should be space for everyone to develop their own personal definitions plus space for every group to develop their own different, collectively generated definitions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'An astonishing number of our concepts allow for borderline cases.' from Bogardus who goes on to say:

And, so, the advocate of the traditional definitions of woman and man is free to deny the original premise (7) on the same grounds: perhaps woman and man are defined partly in terms of sex, and perhaps that’s partly why those terms allow for borderline cases. After all, many biological concepts allow for borderline cases. Like the central biological concept life, for example. Think of viruses, or prions. And also fish (think lungfish), eye (think eye-spots), etc. When it comes to our concept woman, female is vague, but so are adult and human. So, if a woman is an adult female human, it should be no surprise that woman allows for borderline cases. That concept plausibly inherits its vagueness from its constituent concepts, all of which are vague. But why think this vagueness is a problem? Biology is shot through with vagueness, after all. There’s no way around it.1"

Maneesh (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO that supports the claim that there are multiple potentially valid definitions. "Perhaps woman and man are defined partly in terms of sex" means "and perhaps they're not, depending upon whom you're asking". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Bogardus is saying is that borderline cases are endemic in biology, but the existence of borderline cases does not lead to sensible arguments against clear definitions. WP really ought to (and I think it does) presume the existence of borderline cases for many words and then rely on things like notability to mention if a broderline case is worth mentioning. Of course, borderline cases don't result in meaningless concepts that admit anything, a red super giant star is not a woman. "There is no single, universal definition of woman that applies in all situations" seems far too strong a claim here that doesn't acknowledge a set of core concepts that admit borderline cases, and that there is a difference between the core concepts and borderline cases. A reader might then think that there are definitions of 'woman' that admit a red supergiant star to being a woman in some situation. Maneesh (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What the core concepts are is exactly what's in dispute with these conflicting definitions. Some people say that gender identity is the only thing that matters. Other people say that biology has a role (either partial or total). The beliefs that "Gender identity is everything" and "There's a role for biology in this definition" are mutually exclusive. It is not possible to have a single, universal definition that includes both of those beliefs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEIGHT would suggest the "adult human female" are the core concepts as it is taken to mean, at least, almost all of biology and medicine and the verified sources associated with those domains. Maneesh (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source that says that biology and medicine have a single definition of woman?

The point here is that we have multiple reliable sources that say that there is no single definition. The existence of multiple definitions does not mean that they are not all equally popular, but it's not really a popularity contest anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the meaning of "woman" in terms of gender roles, mentioned by Crossroads above, the term also refers to female gender identity. This aspect is crucial to the work of demographers, such as Statistics Canada and to academic and applied psychology, such as the American Psychological Association. It is presumably superfluous to insist that the work of demographers and psychologists have made an important contribution to discourse surrounding "woman", as represented in this article and in the mass of reliable, recent sources elsewhere. Newimpartial (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. And that means "no single, universal definition". Statistics Canada is allowed to have their definition, but they are not allowed to invalidate the definition used by others. Fertility rates should be studied according to whoever might get pregnant, which includes some non-binary people and transmen. It would not make sense to base your fertility rate calculations on transwomen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Do you have a reliable source that says that biology and medicine have a single definition of 'woman' - I mean, I think the burden is on you to demonstrate that isn't true. Federal research agencies across any country I am aware use "woman" to mean "adult human female": NIH, CDC, FDA, CIHR...the list is very very very long. This is well-known common language. If you spend any time reading scientific papers and clinical trials, I could not stop counting ones that used "woman" to mean adult human feamle.Maneesh (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to include a sentence that says anything about how biology or medicine define anything, so the WP:ONUS for proving that is certainly not on me. I'm only trying to get a sentence in that says even within the confines of "adult human female", there is a lot of room for different definitions. I've provided multiple sources that directly support a claim that multiple definitions exist. Was Queen Charlotte a "woman" when she was married? Or was she still a girl? If there is only one single definition, then you should be able to answer that question with certainty.

(From Newimpartial's comment, it appears that a federal research agency called Statistics Canada is using gender identity as its primary definition these days. And you might find upon careful inspection that many research studies, such as these, include minors in their definition of "women".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for a reliable source that says that biology and medicine have a single definition of woman, I replied that the overwhelming majority of sources in those domains agree with the notion of 'adult human female'. If you think that is not the case, you'll have to demonstrate that there is a reason to believe that (do you think these recent books have been written in some strange dialect of English?) Statistics Canada still seems to use 'woman' as 'adult female' (note its use under 'sex'). The clinical trials you cite seem to include 16 yro women, that's a vagueness inherent in the concept of an adult. WP seems to do a reasonable job at describing that vagueness and borderline cases of that word, I'm not sure sure there is a terrible need to explain that again in this article.Maneesh (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maneesh, "Adult female human" can refer either to the sex of a person or to the gender of a person, or both - that phrase does not have a single, unique definition either. The Statistics Canada source I cited earlier, identifies "female" as a value of the classification of gender as well as the classification of sex which means that it means different things in different contexts. Your argument that whenever people say "female human" they are referring to "sex" is, shall we say, unsupported by evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, when it comes to how demographers define it, we can't selectively choose one country's agency as having the One True Definition. Other such agencies' definitions need to be factored in to determine WP:NPOV and WP:Due regarding demography. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So it's a good thing that demographers in other countries have implemented this same distinction or are working on it. Newimpartial (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The claim links to a UK civil service site, if one is going to claim that a country is 'working on' self identification of males and females, the UK is probably a bad example. Maneesh (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the "civil service" link, Maneesh? It quite clearly sets out the distinction between female sex and female gender, including which measures are currently being collected and which are under development, from within the community of demographers at the UK's national statistical agency. I am talking about the work of demographers within their professional expertise, not policy development for "gender self-identification". Try to keep your eye on the ball. Newimpartial (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, I don't see any mention of "female gender" in female. Maneesh (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That article doesn't focus on humans, does it? This one does. The concept of "gender" applies only to humans AFAIK. Newimpartial (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maneesh, the way that you counter seven reliable source that directly state that there are multiple definitions is by producing reliable sources that directly state that there is only one source. If you could find such a source, then we could say, "Alice and Bob say that there are multiple definitions, and Carol says there is only one". But we can say "Every single reliable source we've found on this subject says there are multiple definitions, but some Wikipedia editor says there's only one that actually matters". Doing that would be WP:NOR violation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way I would counter assertions like yours. The assertion seems to be merely that words have multiple definitions. This is true for words like 'adult', 'human' etc. due to borderline cases (humans in various states of death, women with varying physiological development, countries with different laws etc.). 'Woman' does have multiple definitions since the definition uses words with multiple definitions; writing would become very unclear if this was stated for all these kinds of words in WP articles. If an alternate definition admits a case that really falls outside some subjective threshold of implicit understanding, sure, I can see a case for mentioning that...but I don't see what you are saying as anything other than definitions have borderline cases. Vagueness is a basic part of language and has been long been explored in philosophy ("where does the tail of a snake begin")...you can explore that, but I think WP should focus on clarity and 'common sense' standard that I don't think is difficult to establish by soliciting opinions here.. Maneesh (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The available definitions aren't simply about "borderline" cases. There is at least one definition (which you can read about in ISBN 9780199892631) that defines biological males who self-identify as men as "women" for certain purposes (for example, a man who is subjected to sexual harassment because the perpetrator mistakenly thought he was a woman).

The common-sense standard in 19th-century western Europe was not the common-sense standard in 19th-century Southeast Asia, because the different cultures had different definitions of female. The Western definition was based on anatomy, and the Asian one was based on basically anything except anatomy.

The article should not adopt the "common sense" standard that everyone's understanding is basically the same, because everyone's understanding is not basically the same. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more sources. I have not yet found any reliable source that says there is only one definition (and I have looked). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but in context, what are these other definitions of woman? It does no good to plop on readers some contextless philosophizing about how a woman is a "dialectical interaction" or whatever. Many of these quotes will leave many readers with the impression that the term is meaningless. But if I had to guess, they look to me to be discussing how gender roles differ between cultures. If that is what the sources are about, then simply talk about that. Remember that the social and biomedical sciences seem to have little trouble defining what a woman is; it's just a section of philosophy and kindred small subfields that can't seem to nail down an answer. Everyone else doesn't need to define it because they are implicitly using the dictionary definition. We can of course cover that debate, but we should do so in context and with attribution, and with regard for WP:Due. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that I could give you a comprehensive list, but here's a few:

• You're a woman if you're a biological female (with a line drawn arbitrarily somewhere, based on whichever factors the person chooses).
  • ...past a certain point of biological development (e.g., menstruation)
  • ...past a certain chronological age
  • ...in a certain social situation (e.g., living independently or getting married)
• You're a woman if you're not a biological male. (Human chromosomal sex works this way, and the quotation above indicates that English law took a "male default" approach.)
• You're a woman if that's your gender identity.
• You're a woman if that's your gender expression (e.g., you wear women's clothes).
• You're a woman if that's your social role (e.g., you do women's work).
• You're a woman if you are treated like one by other people (e.g., people who experience gender-based discrimination because other people think they're women).

I have read that feminine gender expression and social role was the definition of (wo)manhood among the Teduray people. There could be no question of medical testing or gender-related surgery in that culture. If you looked like a biological male and grew up to have long hair and to cook the rice, then you simply were a woman, as far as they were concerned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me you are getting caught up in defining "woman" with regard to the gender and social roles imposed on them. Yes, there is room to talk about that. That's why we have a "Culture and gender roles" section. These roles have a lot to do with how women are treated and viewed. We know that. But women don't get those gender and social roles imposed on them until their sex assignment. And their sex assignment is based on their anatomical appearance. It's because they are of the female sex that they are expected to have certain roles as a girl and later as a woman.

You stated, "You're a woman if you are treated like one by other people (e.g., people who experience gender-based discrimination because other people think they're women)." This ties into your "You're a woman if you're not a biological male.", "You're a woman if that's your gender identity.", and "You're a woman if that's your gender expression (e.g., you wear women's clothes)." bullet points. A person may identify as a woman, but if that person does not visually pass as a woman, that person often will not be treated like a woman and therefore will not get the full experience of what it means to be a woman. At least what cisgender women experience. Trans women have talked about this. Cisgender women have talked about this. It's why there is a socialization debate with regard to what it means to be a woman. Gender expression? It's tied to gender identity (when not forced on a person). Many sources define it as the external manifestation of one's gender identity. GLAAD used to define it that way, and now states that gender expression is the "external manifestations of gender, expressed through a person's name, pronouns, clothing, haircut, behavior, voice, and/or body characteristics." A person may dress in a way that is stereotypically considered "dressing like a woman", but if that person does not visually pass as a woman, that person often will not be treated like a woman and therefore will not get the full experience of what it means to be a woman. At least what cisgender women experience. People may respect her pronouns, but she will be unintentionally misgendered if people do not know her pronouns.

People assume gender, just like my gender is assumed when I answer the phone and talk to a stranger. Because of my voice, they call me ma'am. In public, because of my appearance, they call me ma'am. If a crime is committed, people report the gender they believe that perpetrator to be. That person may identify as non-binary, but no one is going to see that. Non-binary people have talked about being invisible in society because people will see either male or female. With perhaps the exception of the Teduray people you mentioned, no one says "You're a woman if you do women's work." What is women's work is hard to define these days anyway. Cooking used to be women's work, and is still thought of as women's work in some parts of the world (even in the United States when it comes to misogynistic views). And as for adulthood? The age of majority is age 18 in the vast majority of the world.

Are you going to look to have "What is a man?" material in the Man article as well? Whatever the case, I see no need to have this talk page debate. To repeat what I stated above, "The section could state that 'Dictionaries and encyclopedias [or whatever else] define 'woman' as [so and so].' And then note that feminists, philosophers and others have pondered what a woman is and/or have given different definitions." Here on the talk page or via a link to your sandbox, you can propose text to include. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Tweak post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Sex assignment generally happens to babies, which is a group of people that I don't think is encompassed in typical definitions of woman. I am not in the habit of congratulating parents on the birth of a new baby woman, and I assume you aren't, either.

If I am "caught up" in anything, it is not about defining woman this way or that way, but in having the article simply state that different definitions exist. Even if you believe that biology is the primary and essential component, there are different valid definitions that focus on biology. A adult female in the eyes of the law is not the same as an adult female in the eyes of an evolutionary biologist. There is no sudden biological change on your 18th birthday.

Unlike your proposal, I don't want to go into as much detail as saying which sources give which definitions. I really just want to say that multiple definitions exist, and give an everyday example that average, non-scholarly people will recognize.

You say that people make assumptions about your gender, which is typical; I'll bet that when you were a little younger, no stranger checked your exact birthdate before deciding whether to refer to you as a woman or a girl. I've never yet heard anyone say something like "These three college women and that college girl" just because one of them wasn't technically old enough to be defined as an adult by the law. The law's definition is not the only definition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your "Sex assignment generally happens to babies, which is a group of people that I don't think is encompassed in typical definitions of woman." argument makes no sense to me since I stated that "women don't get those gender and social roles imposed on them until their sex assignment. And their sex assignment is based on their anatomical appearance. It's because they are of the female sex that they are expected to have certain roles as a girl and later as a woman."

Other than wanting to provide different perspectives on what a woman is, your points are lost on me. I'm not getting caught any further into this debate, which I feel is unnecessary for improving this article. I stand by my previous comments on this matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article would be improved by stating that there are multiple definitions. I've now provided quotations from seven (7) books that directly say that there are multiple definitions. Do you have any doubt that the sentence is verifiable? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"For example, some definitions consider age a factor in the definition, and other definitions do not" seems redundant to the (existing) sentence that follows it; I don't see that it adds anything. In turn, the latter two sentences that are proposed don't seem to provide substantially different definitions beyond the one difference that's already noted: they seem to only explain different metrics by which someone comes to be considered, in the words of the one existing sentence, "an adult female human as contrasted with girl". I'm not opposed to expanding that existing sentence to something like ...as contrasted with girl (on the basis of age, maturity, or social factors), but I'm also not sure it's necessary. In turn, the first proposed sentence ("There is no single, universal definition of woman that applies in all situations") is not wrong, and I'm not really opposed to adding it, but it seems kind of unnecessary or vacuous (broadly applicable to many words) unless the section is going to specify other "different definitions" (which would need to be due, etc) besides "female of any age" vs "adult female". -sche (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO is more in keeping with typical encyclopedic style to state the general case (there are multiple definitions) than the specific (for example, some definitions take different approaches to chronological age). If we were going to reduce it to a single sentence, it should be the first. However, I think that including both the general and the specific will have more educational value (which is why we're all here, right?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although the current wording has the advantage of being clear (almost patronisingly so), I agree that it is insufficient in that it doesn't capture the wide debate which is present over the definition of woman among those who study womanhood as a concept. On the other hand, anything which focuses too much on the philosophy may be undue, and may lose sight of the fact that the majority of people would use the definition given. I would support a wording like "A woman is widely defined to be a female human being, although there is much debate over the accuracy of this definition." with a citation to something like [1]. This would be an improvement over the current wording.Wikiditm (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that most of this discussion hasn't largely missed the point. It is certainly true that the vast majority of people understand a "woman" to be "an (adult) female human being", but that doesn't resolve anything, since each element of that definition - adult, female (which can be "female sex" or female gender") and even "human being" (see Sojourner Truth) - is subject to multiple meanings. Newimpartial (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've heard trans women (and others) say before that they find certain people's use of "adult female human" as if it were exclusionary interesting, because they don't feel it actually excludes them.
I continue to not see anything about the portion of this article which deals with that which needs to be changed at this time. (As an aside, and I would not propose adding this to the article because I think it's fine that the article focuses on humans, it is worth noting that in terms of how speakers actually use the word, woman is not even limited to humans; writers say e.g. two (elves|dwarves|aliens|etc)—a man and a woman—[did whatever].) -sche (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiditm, when you say that "the current wording" is clear, which wording are you talking about? I don't see anything in the article that discusses the definitions of woman at all. Do you see anything that clearly states that there are different definitions of woman? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the first two sentences.Wikiditm (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

___

The article's introduction contradicts itself. It first explains what a woman is, in scientific terms, but the last paragraph says "some women are trans (those who have a male sex assignment)". Assuming that "having a male sex assignment" is a euphemism for being biologically male, the sentence could be simplified to "some women are male" which is a direct contradiction of the prior definition. Suggestion: keep such clearly ideological formulations out of Wikipedia and make the mention of trans women more objective and neutral, such as: "Some male people who are transgender identify as women, in which case they are called a trans woman. There are differing positions regarding whether trans women are women, on the basis of gender identity or having underwent medical procedures to alter their body." The main body of the article could go into detail on the various positions. According to my past interactions with some politically active and highly ideological transgender people, I suppose that they might be unhappy with neutral and objective language being used to describe them, but that's what Wikipedia's goal is, right? Surely Wikipedia doesn't validate any ideological belief as a fact just because its proponents are otherwise offended? Ragstexas (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before discussion really starts on this issue, could the poster please go through the archive of this Talk page and see how it turned out, say, the last three times it was discussed? It might save us all some time, before the poster wastes any energy promoting their ideological beliefs as fact. Newimpartial (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with Newimpartial's characterization of Ragstexas's post. Ragstexas position is reflective of mine and what is plain sense. WP will keep running into people noticing this plain contradiction and keep commenting on in here until it resembles something that makes sense.Maneesh (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the last three talk page discussions of this, Maneesh? I'll wait. Newimpartial (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ragstexas and Maneesh, I made this edit, stating, Per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and the latest round of complaints on the Talk page. None of the "last three pages" of discussion I am aware of commented on the exact wording of this sentence. "Some women are trans" reads confusingly because "trans" in isolation from "man" or "woman" is not really used as a word outside of casual LGBT discourse - typically "trans-" is a prefix. This wording does not change the meaning - trans women are still mentioned here, with the word "women". Let's see if this is preferred. If there is a specific past discussion that found a consensus against this, then point it out specifically. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion on the specific wording on that sentence the last time this was discussed Talk:Woman/Archive 14#Exact working of sentence regarding Trans Woman. Anyways, no objection to Crossroads' edit. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the edit addresses what Ragstexas is saying, the contradiction appears simply to have buried under a layer of language. "Trans women are those whose sex assignment at birth was male" is dodgy language, any reader who understands biology knows that that sentence implies that trans women are male since biological sex is immutable. It also avoids making it clear just how this class of males can be considered adult females and doesn't let the reader know about the controversy behind that implicit claim. Indeed what is such a controversial claim doing in the lead? The cite doesn't support it either (the quote is about "gender identity"). Maneesh (talk) 06:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The contradiction is totally evident and obvious to any reader. It's not a problem of "possible different definitions": that's practicaly literally true for every single word in any language. The point is that, whatever definitions you prefer, there's no possible honest definition according to which "*female*" is "*male*": that's a logical self-contradiction whatever definition you use and the article, now, says precisely that so I think it needs to be fixed. Bardoligneo (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some people whose Assigned sex is male have a female gender identity and are therefore women. It really isn't complicated. Newimpartial (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that clear at all. Which one of those 2 definitions (sex OR gender identity) you say it is using in the very first phrase ("Woman is a female human being")? Bardoligneo (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources say that "A woman is a female human being" either in terms of sex or in terms of gender - or both - depending on the context. That isn't complicated, either. Newimpartial (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it read: "A woman is a female human being, either in terms of sex or in terms of gender (self-identification)" or something like that, it wouldn't be complicated as you say and at least unambiguous. It doesn't read like that, though and so it remains at best obfuscated and ambiguos and, at worst and at a plain read, self-contradictory: I support fixing it. Bardoligneo (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against clarifying the Lede, a progress to which Crossroads recently contributed. My aim here is to dissuade editors from "clarifying" the text away from what the RS say, which has been e.g the approach shown by Maneesh up to now, including previous times this has been discussed. Newimpartial (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bardoligneo, as seen at Talk:Woman/Archive 10#Wording, the wording about trans and intersex women was eventually changed to "There are also trans women (those who have a male 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." A year later (in 2019), as noted at Talk:Woman/Archive 14#Exact working of sentence regarding Trans Woman, Bilorv changed it to "Some women are trans (those who have a male sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity), or intersex (those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female)." Because of this latest (2020) section on the matter, Crossroads changed it to "Trans women are those whose sex assignment at birth was male, while intersex women are those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female.", which was wording already found in the Terminology section. I don't see how the wording Crossroads used has not resolved what you consider a contradiction. I mean, regarding the latest wording used for trans women in the lead, it seems that you take issue with the word woman in trans woman, but that (aside from simply being called women when no distinction is made) is what they are called. The lead no longer outright refers to trans women as women, except for the word women in trans women. So I'm not seeing what else you want us to do. As seen at Talk:Woman/Archive 14, consensus is for keeping the lead (first) sentence focused on the biological aspect per WP:Due weight; the discussions seen in that archive are also clear that consensus is against removing any mention of trans women from the lead (or the article by extension). You might also be interested in reviewing this discussion at Talk:Trans woman. Because of this RfC, we currently state "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth." in the lead of the Trans woman article. So what you consider a contradiction remains regardless of what we do with the lead of the Woman article on the matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed only now that the contradiction I was speaking about has been mitigated by Crossroads last edit on 28th June: "Trans women are ..." instead of "Some women are trans". This way at least the reader is notified, in a way, that the article is introducing a special case (Trans women ...) and it's not automatic to read the "female human beings" part into it, i.e. the contradiction females have male sex... . As for what I want to do, as you asked, I think Ragstexas proposals at the start were good, so I support those or at least keeping CrossRoads's phrasing of 28th June edit: trans women are... . Bardoligneo (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Crossroads phrasing too, even if mitigated keeps the contradiction (Trans women are those [women=female etc.]). Even worse it would include every men (male sex assignment) into the trans-women category. So I suggest at least saying "Trans women are people who have a male sex assignment at birth but self-identify as women."(find some source), if not Ragstexas proposals. Bardoligneo (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bardoligneo, I changed it to state "Trans women are those whose male sex assignment at birth does not align with their gender identity." Your point about mentioning gender identity (like we previously did) is a good point. But stating "identifies as" (or "self-identify as") is a contentious route to take, per the Talk:Trans woman RfC I pointed to. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "identifies as" should be controversial since the cited source itself says "individual's personal sense of identity ". And it remains contradictory: the only clean and clear solution remains Ragstexas proposal, making clear that we are talking of a specific definition that applies to male people. I.E. at least "Trans woman are people whose male sex [assignment at birth (seems superfluous)]" etc. Bardoligneo (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is controversial because, in this context, "identifies as" often carries the connotation "but are not" among those who bring a certain POV into these discussions; those who do not share this POV have learned to detect dog whistles. And you make the subtext text when you refer to "male people" above, assuming the thing you intend to prove. "Male", like "female", is the label for a gender and a gender identity as well as a sex. And on it goes. Newimpartial (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Identifies as" is just the definition according to gender that you said was ammissible: what else is "gender" otherwise if not self-identifying? Anyway I think it could be avoided by saying "trans women are people whose male sex doesn't align with their gender identity", so it doesn't use self-contradictory definitions in the very same context and includes more or less the same wording of the source. Bardoligneo (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some odd dancing around obvious contradictions. I still don't understand this 'at birth' newspeak. Does the male sex assignment change after birth? If not, why is it described like that? How long before the previous consensus should be reconsidered? When Flyer22 says "The lead no longer outright refers to trans women as women...", it doesn't do it outright but there is an obvious interpretation by which it does ("trans women are those [women] who..."). As for WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, the lede and article sentences are identical, it's odd to say the lede follows teh body when the lede is identical with the body. The claim about intersex is absolutely incorrect ("intersex women" are not "those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female", they are almost all women with LOCAH (WP:PROPORTION). If you want to look at things clinically and ignore Fausto-Sterling's 'tongue in cheek' ideas of intersex, they are Triple X syndrome Turner syndrome or Müllerian agenesis. These intersex women have mostly typical female characteristics and atypical characteristics that are exclusively seen in females. Maneesh (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY doesn't mean that different wording needs to be used. The lead of the Intersex article currently states, "Intersex people are individuals born with any of several variations in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones or genitals that, according to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 'do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies'." It is not the only source to define intersex in such a way. For the Woman article, the intersex text for the lead (and lower part of the article) could be changed from "that do not fit typical notions of male or female" to "do not fit typical notions of female biology" (or "do not fit typical notions of a female body or [...]") or something like that. I know that you want mention of intersex women out of the lead, but the consensus is to retain mention of intersex women in the lead; this is per the 2019 RfC that took place on this talk page. And since consensus is for retaining mention of intersex women in the lead, how would you reword the piece about intersex women? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support "typical notions of female biology". No need to mention "male"; "body" should be avoided because most women who (according to some authors) fall under the intersex umbrella have female bodies. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY says "update the lead to summarize the body"...I somehow don't think repeating the single sentence about a specific topic in the body identically in the lead qualifies as "summarize". You can see the problematic nature of the intersex definitions you cite if you go through the prevalence table and understand some of those conditions. Unsurprisingly the intersex advocacy organization, Interact, does a much better job that accurately describes the set of intersex conditions: "Intersex is an umbrella term for differences in sex traits or reproductive anatomy.", note how the writing there doesn't refer to female/male. "sex traits" is key there and the definition does not inappropriately generalize to "bodies" as some of the definitions you cited do. When understood from this angle, you can see how it is difficult to reason that intersex women ought to be mentioned in the lead, they are generally just women who happen to have certain atypical traits that are closely associated with sex (as opposed to other biological traits like number of fingers, height, tongue size etc.). The narrow case of intersex individuals who are clinically described with the refined "genetic male" or "phenotypic female" are very small, perhaps interesting enough (I think) to be described in the body but you can see how tiny this population is in intersex, and really doesn't need to be mentioned in the lead. Maneesh (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Biology and sex" section also mentions intersex women, and the piece there could be expanded. As for definitions, I think it's clear that the source (I only cited one) is not defining "bodies" to only refer to the external. Otherwise, chromosomes and sex hormones wouldn't be mentioned in their definition. Either way, I'm not looking to debate you on the definition of intersex. I'm also not going to agree to remove mention of intersex women from the lead solely because of your viewpoint, when the aforementioned RfC that took place at this talk page just last year shows that current consensus is for its inclusion. So instead of focusing on removing that piece, I offered you a compromise. If you're not interested in compromising by proposing alternative wording for the intersex bit (at least for a start), I don't see what else to state to you on the matter. Well, except for suggesting that you start a new RfC -- one that specifically focuses on mentioning intersex women in the lead. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that you refuse to look carefully into what intersex actually means. Look at the conditions that fall under the intersex umbrella. Almost all intersex people are plainly male or female, the conditions they have are almost all *sex specific*. The consensus is contrary to elementary fact.Maneesh (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know what intersex means. I'm not going to repeat myself on what I stated in my "04:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)" post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But Maneesh, the reason "this narrow case" is mentioned in the lede has nothing to do with the extent of its prevalence and everything to do with its definitional impact. For this reason, it is absolutely DUE for inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. The class of "intersex" is made up of almost entirely of plain old males and females and is a gross over-generalization here. If one wants to mention the class of "true intersex" (genetic males, phenotypic females etc.) then those are the specific classes that should be mentioned (which are a tiny fraction of "intersex")...even a little bit of research will show you that summarizing the positions of genetic males and phenotypic females etc. as "women" is difficult to summarize. Some do identify as women, some as men, some as neither. The juxtaposition of intersex and trans is muddling matters here, they are entirely distinct cases. "True" intersex is borderline case which needs to be articulated very carefully and linked in the body probably, I think it is very difficult to summarize in the lead accurately. The way the lead is written now is wrong for the reasons I've already stated. Maneesh (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial's reasoning above seems like religious belief (WP:RNPOV). Being in the female sex category and having a "female gender identity" are not the same thing. The common use of of "woman" to mean "actually being an adult human in the female sex category" is much more important (WP:WEIGHT) than the psychoanalytic construct of gender identity. There should be a separate page that explores this religious belief and describes its adherents and opponents (there is a great deal of material out there that describes the positions of these two groups). Maneesh (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maneesh, this article is not limited to sourcing from biologists and physiologists; it also includes sources such as psychologists, sociologists, legal scholars and demographers, all of whom use the concept of gender. Please do not attempt to deduce my religious beliefs and make arguments on that basis; you are likely to be wrong, and any such discussion is a profound breach of WP:CIVIL in any case.

Also, I never suggested that "female gender" and "female sex" were the same thing, which would defeat the point of having the concepts of sex and gender. The point is that "woman" means female sex and/or female gender depending on the context, according to the sources used in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is anatomical sex "biological", Maneesh? If not, what is it? Newimpartial (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to be precise about what you mean by "anatomical sex" for me to answer. That term just redirects to plain old sex on WP. Maneesh (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, Maneesh. What I was (perhaps obliquely) pointing to is that if "biological sex" - the term you used - is intended to include anatomy and hormones, it is certainly not "immutable". Newimpartial (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is it known that biological sex (to distinguish it from any other odd form of "sex" that anyone would propose, e.g. "legal sex") is immutable along with other related facts like every cell has a sex, this is common knowledge amongst biologists. I will not participate further in the discussion of the sky being blue. EDIT: I've added quotes from Marinov should any reader not be able to access the paper or be inclined to give any credit to the responses below:

"...the objective truth is that sex in humans is strictly binary and immutable, for fundamental reasons that are common knowledge to all biologists taking the findings of their discipline seriously. Denying that sex in humans is binary attacks the very foundations of the biological sciences. This needs to be properly summarized and openly articulated."

Maneesh (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So anatomy and hormone levels are not, for you, attributes of "biological sex". Thanks for letting me know. Newimpartial (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there's no reason anatomy or hormones are any less "biological" in nature than chromosomes. It is "biological male" that is the euphemism, for "classified by me as male because of my political beliefs". There is no contradiction in the lead. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 20:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as Marinov is concerned, that paper was not published in a journal belonging to a relevant field, does not appear to be peer reviewed, and seems to be by an unemployed researcher post-doctoral scholar without relevant publications. It seems to meet WP:ABOUTSELF requirements only. Newimpartial (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a credible attack on *Marinov*. It is a clearly written paper written in careful scientific language by a very qualified academic researcher. Newimpartial's claim of "without relevant publications" is wholly without any merit, as is the claim that of "not published in a journal belonging to a relevant field", and "does not appear to be peer reviewed". These kinds of fibs do not belong here. Maneesh (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see instructions to nominate or exclude potential reviewers, but I don't actually see a peer review process anywhere that works apply to all submissions. Do you see something I don't? And all his publications AFAICT are about chromosomes, which aren't really the topic of this article. Newimpartial (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you don't have much familiarity with scholarly publishing, read the journal page more carefully, it is clear that it is a peer reviewed journal and the submission instructions are entirely standard. As for your claim about Marinov's publications being about "chromosomes", that suggests you don't have much familiarity with biology. His expertise on population genetics (the perspective he writes the paper from) is self-evident, his publications make it clear he is quite qualified. All of this long winded thread has been about sex being immutable, and how that affects the interpretation of Crossroads's edit. It is you you tried to make the nonsense claim of sex not being immutable i humans, it is immutable in and Marinov's paper explains why very nicely (while lamenting that this common knowledge amongst biologists). Maneesh (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this was an important message about biology, why was the paper published in a journal dedicated to "protecting academic freedom" and studying "issues that arise from the interplay politics, ideology, scholarship, and teaching"? I know something about those topics and the literatures associated with them - which this preprint (Edit: article published this month) doesn't really engage with in a meaningful way. Which is why I asked (1) why it was published in what doesn't seem to be a relevant journal given Marinov's "expertise", and (2) whether it had been peer reviewed (and I still don't know, in spite of your assurances; there is no clear statement on any of the journal'#s pages assuring comprehensive peer review or specifying the number of reviewers, etc.).

Oh, and for the record, population biologists studying humans are literally the worst. :p Newimpartial (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If fibs weren't already enough, "this preprint doesn't really engage" is another. This peer reviewed paper is ostensibly not a preprint. I can't take much of what you've written above seriously. Maneesh (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I saw preprint, which at least was an excuse on the part of the journal. I now doubt the peer review process even further: if I find that some "academic freedom" specialists actually approved this for publication, it will make me sad. Newimpartial (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The heck does population biologists studying humans are literally the worst. :p mean? Care to elaborate on that?

And to be clear, I know what the emoticon means, and I have my suspicions for the rest. But I thought the right thing to do would be to ask. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The emoji implies that the statement preceding it is teasing, and that the word "literally" is in fact not to be taken literally. Newimpartial (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I got that. But why do you dislike population biologists who study humans? Crossroads ^-talk- 04:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it "dislike", really; I was thinking mostly of Eugenics and Race realism. Newimpartial (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are incredibly bad faith associations with population genetics. Maneesh (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to explain the associations underlying a teasing statement. I did so. There was nothing "bad faith" about it, nor did I intend for the original tease to be treated as an argument in the discussion. It does not in any way take the place of a critique of population genetics in terms of its origins and current practices. Newimpartial (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "origins" of population genetics, eugenics, and so-called race realism, keep in mind the fallacy of origins. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STICK

I beg that the argument of the meaning of "sex" and its various operationalizations cease. Insisting on a favored version (whether it is common knowledge, immutable, academic, etc. ) as correct does not benefit this page. This discussion is, de facto, using this page as a forum. Please stop. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you post this? 'female' is a fundamental part of the definition of woman and is a sex category. When there are misinterpretations of sex, they need to be put against verified sources that describe what sex is what what sex categories are. Maneesh (talk) 06:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's turned into a pointless debate about the sex category and yet another rehash of intersex and trans women.  We've had a dozen of them and we don't need another. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maneesh, already in this short section you have begged the question you are answering by assuming that this article is only about a "sex category" (it demonstrably isn't, and this has been pointed out to you already). Please drop the STICK. Newimpartial (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This will keep happening by new users until the article addresses clear contradictions. The female sex category is a fundamental part of this article, your own inaccurate understanding of what "sex' demonstrates that these types of misconceptions need to be addressed. Maneesh (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I don't share your chromosomal-supremacist conception doesn't mean my understanding of sex is "inaccurate" Maneesh. I may be subject to plenty of zones of painful ignorance, but sexual biology is not one of them. Newimpartial (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No seriously, drop the damn WP:STICK

This may be futile given how quickly the previous attempt at this degenerated, but I do think we ought to resolve the contradiction between the ledes of Trans woman, Woman, and Female if we can. By my personal intuition, I broadly agree with Newimpartial that the core of the problem is the definition given on Female, and that "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth" does not inherently contradict "A woman is a female human being": having been male doesn't inherently preclude being female right now. This also aligns with the fact that the definition on Female is by far the least well sourced and the least discussed of the three. But I think any sourcing for that definition will go some distance towards clearing up the dispute one way or another. Loki (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been addressed at this discussion at the Trans woman article. To quote Flyer22 Frozen, It's that way because it's standard practice for our WP:Anatomy, WP:Biology and WP:Med articles to focus on biology and/or medical aspects, with little, if any, cultural content or any cultural bent. For example, as seen at WP:MEDSECTIONS, we may have a "Society and culture" section. But the Female article should not become another Woman article, just like the Sex article should not become another Gender article. And: In our articles (not just our biology, anatomy, and medical articles), we usually begin with the typical/most common definition or aspect (as relayed in the overall literature). We note exceptions or atypical facets, such as intersex aspects, after that. That is per WP:Due. Exceptions do not make the rule. We know, for example, that while humans typically have five digits, this is not always the case, which is why the Hand article states that humans normally have five digits. Furthermore, the Female article is not just about humans; it's also about non-human animals. And the topic of gender is firmly within the realm of humans (regardless of some who assign gender to non-human animals in some way). If the sources on different topics implicitly contradict one another, then we can't fix that; that's the experts' problem, not ours. Also, humans are but one of countless sexually reproducing species. We are not going to make the "female" article's lead anthropocentric by talking about gender identity, which is strictly a human matter. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A few sources I've found in the last several minutes:

• GLMA claims that as of an interim meeting in 2018, "the AMA affirms that an individual’s genotypic sex, phenotypic sex, sexual orientation, gender and gender identity are not always aligned or indicative of the other, and that gender for many individuals may differ from the sex assigned at birth". The corresponding AMA press release mentions a policy to this general effect but not the specific language; I'd like to see the specific language straight from them if possible. They do, however, quote a board member saying "It is essential to acknowledge that an individual’s gender identity may not align with the sex assigned to them at birth. A narrow limit on the definition of sex would have public health consequences for the transgender population and individuals born with differences in sexual differentiation, also known as intersex traits."
• The APA has a useful report listing all the ways they've defined "sex" in various documents. While they're not entirely consistent, they all broadly agree that it's based on multiple factors.
• Dictionary definitions tend to align with the "sex that produces ovum" definition, but these aren't biological dictionaries or written by biologists.
• The WHO doesn't define "female" directly, but it does define "sex" as "those characteristics of women and men that are ... biologically determined". It also goes on to say both that "The X and Y chromosomes determine a person’s sex." but also "Clearly, there are not only females who are XX and males who are XY, but rather, there is a range of chromosome complements, hormone balances, and phenotypic variations that determine sex."

The reason most of these are about "sex" rather than about "female" is that it's been pretty difficult finding information about "female" specifically. Also, all of these are primarily about human anatomy, which the page on female is not exclusive to. But nevertheless I think these sources are relevant and so I'm putting them here. Loki (talk) 05:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 ″Originally, starting at a young age, children's occupational aspirations differed according to gender.[53]″

"Originally" is a misleading word. "Originally" could refer to many different points of origin. In hunter-gatherer and nomadic cultures, gender roles were different from post-agricultural society.

 ″Traditionally, middle class women were involved in domestic tasks emphasizing child care." 

"Traditionally middle class" is an oxymoron. The middle class is a relatively recent development, so you need to be clear what "tradition" you are referring to. It would be more accurate to say, "In societies that adopted agriculture, the traditional role of women involved domestic tasks emphasizing child care."

 ″For poorer women, especially working class women, although this often remained an ideal,[specify] economic necessity compelled them to seek employment outside the home. Many of the occupations that were available to them were lower in pay than those available to men.″ 

It's very hard to tell what time period or culture this is referring to. In post-industrial societies, this may be accurate, but it shouldn't be in this article without citation from a trusted source.

 ″As changes in the labor market for women came about, availability of employment changed from only "dirty", long hour factory jobs to "cleaner", more respectable office jobs where more education was demanded.″ 

"Long hour factory jobs" seems to focus on a subsection of the workforce in a very specific time period? This should make clear that it has shifted from talking about traditional roles to roles during the beginning of industrialization.

 ″Women's participation in the U.S. labor force rose from 6% in 1900 to 23% in 1923.″ 

The beginning of the section gave me the impression that it was covering gender roles globally. If this entire section is focused on gender roles in the U.S., then it should make that scope clear in the section title.

 ″These shifts in the labor force led to changes in the attitudes of women at work, allowing for the revolution which resulted in women becoming career and education oriented.″ 

A "revolution" usually refers to political uprisings meant to overthrow a government. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for hyperbole. If you're going to mention the feminist movement, why so vague? "Shifts in the labor force and new technologies led to new opportunities for women and emergence of feminist movements in many parts of the world. As a result, many cultures globally have become more open to women seeking education, careers, and leadership roles."

 ″In the 1970s, many female academics, including scientists, avoided having children. Throughout the 1980s, institutions tried to equalize conditions for men and women in the workplace. Even so, the inequalities at home hampered women's opportunities: professional women were still generally considered responsible for domestic labor and child care, which limited the time and energy they could devote to their careers. Until the early 20th century, U.S. women's colleges required their women faculty members to remain single, on the grounds that a woman could not carry on two full-time professions at once.″ 

Again, this is very narrow in scope, focusing on western society. If this whole section has that scope, then it should say so in the title.

 ″Sexism can be a main concern and barrier for women almost anywhere, though its forms, perception, and gravity vary between societies and social classes.″ 

Finally there is a brief mention that not everybody fits into the mold of western society. But it's so vague. Shouldn't we expand this view if we're really trying to have a full picture of gender roles?

Jeremyagottfried (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Woman#Culture and gender roles section. All I can really say is that the material directly under that heading does indeed have problems, some of which are already tagged. Feel free to work on it per WP:FIXIT. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly no disagreement from me. It needs work. Newimpartial (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, yes, that section does need work. It's also awkward that it begins (with emphasis mine/added) "In more recent history, gender roles have changed greatly."—that's the first sentence in the section on gender roles, no previous sentence in the section has said anything about gender roles in a less recent period, so the comparative isn't intelligible. -sche (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the etymology... is there not a more sensible place to put that (sub)section? Suggestions welcome...
Separately, how does anyone feel about retitling the 'Terminology' section to 'Terminology and scope'? The section deals at length with the extent to which the scope of woman includes or excludes girls (however defined), trans women, and intersex women, thus I submit that the proposed title might be better (clearer to someone looking over the TOC, etc), though I'm not sure. -sche (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With pleasure am I making my case, after being asked to and being reverted, that woman is a gender and female a sex, and that this simple differentiation should be used in the lead. Otherwise we can rename tge article "Female human". The difference between gender and sex is apperent otherwise biology would use gender for sex, vice versa, basic biology. Nsae Comp (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here my proposed and reverted version: "Woman is a gender, associated with adult female humans. The word woman is usually reserved for an adult; girl is the usual term for a female child or adolescent. The plural women is also sometimes used for female humans, regardless of age, as in phrases such as "women's rights".

While gender and sex are not the same the female sex has two X chromosomes..." Nsae Comp (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"an adult female person" [2]

"an adult female human being" [3]

"An adult human female" [4]

"an adult female person" [5]

We do not use WP:Original research for definitions. Wikipedia is not the place to engage in WP:Advocacy or to WP:Right great wrongs about the definition of "woman". Crossroads ^-talk- 02:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not original research, thats like saying its original research that Earth is a planet and a planet an object. And I do not know what you talking about "right great wrongs", I am not advocating anything other than being more specific. Nsae Comp (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your provided references do not contradict gender and sex. Nsae Comp (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed definition, and going on here about gender vs. sex, is original research. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What defines original research? Nsae Comp (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here a basic reference the UK National Statics Office citing the WHO:"Sex and gender are terms that are often used interchangeably but they are in fact two different concepts, even though for many people their sex and gender are the same." etc., etc. Lol "There is more where that came from" ... [6] Nsae Comp (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about defining sex or gender, or for talking about the sex-gender distinction. We go by the reliable sources. Any perceived inconsistencies in those are theirs to work out, not ours. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you have played this with many before, and I guess thats the problem and why I will be able to throw as many sources as I want at you, its just going to be not enough. But still, if the sources are contradicting then this should not be resolved by us, but it should be reflected in the article. And it does not do that, it enters with some definition that is pre-school level. And I am not discussing gender-sex distinction, that IS done in other articles, BUT I am applying it. Nsae Comp (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Nsae Comp could very likely find reliable sources that support their proposed lead. Nevertheless I don't support it, for a very simple reason: "woman" is not a gender, "woman" is a member of a gender. This is an article about women, as in people, not "woman" an abstract concept. (And for what it's worth: in my estimation the gender and the sex are both called the same thing, which is "female". Gender-sex distinction being a real thing doesn't mean that "woman" is a gender and "female" is a sex.) Loki (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for joining in the discussion. I cant see what you mean by saying "woman is a member of a gender", because if it would say that in the lead that would do with other words what I am proposing. I am not against solutions that approach the issue from a different angle, I just see the need to bring it in on a basic level. Nsae Comp (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Besides if woman and female are the same thing then it is circular to describe a woman as a female. There needs to be a difference in the words, and that should be made clear. Nsae Comp (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. A woman is a member of the female gender. Perfectly straightforward sentence. Loki (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like the sentance, I did reply that it would be good to have something like that. So how about puting it in like that? Nsae Comp (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything that needs to be said has been said by Crossroads and Loki. I agree with them. However, I will reiterate that the definition of a woman is "an adult human female". That's widely used and the one put up by medical sources as well. Also, Nsae Comp DID in fact engage in original research. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Regarding original research, what is original about it? Nsae Comp (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:ORIGINAL. It seems like a long read but it states what original research is in the beginning of the article. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nsae Comp, it seems that you are stating that "woman" is a gender category. If so, you are correct. This 2016 "Introducing the New Sexuality Studies: 3rd Edition" source, from Routledge, states that "some people find the gender categories woman and man too limiting and instead identify as genderqueer [...]." This 2013 "Language and Gender" source, from Cambridge University Press, page 193, states, "Gender categories like those labeled by man and woman, girl and boy play a prominent role in the social practices that sustain a gender order in which male/female is seen as a sharp dichotomy separating two fundamental different kinds of humans beings and in which gender categorization is viewed as always relevant." This 2011 "Conversation and Gender" source, from Cambridge University Press, page 85, states, "This chapter examines how speakers make and repair consecutive references to third parties using the gender categories 'girl', 'woman' and 'lady', within the context of debates about when and how gender is relevant in talk." This 2019 Healthline laysource states, "Also known as gender binarism, this term refers to gender classification systems — whether cultural, legal, structural, or social — that organize gender or sex into two mutually exclusive categories such as male/female, man/woman, or masculine/feminine."

All that considered, "woman" is not usually defined by stating that it is a gender or gender category. Yes, it also refers to gender identity. But I mean that the definition for "woman" is not "Woman: a gender category." And there certainly aren't sources that define it in the way you did here before I reverted you. And while this 2004 "Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women: Global Women's Issues and Knowledge" source (that I have at home) states (on page 1703), "Women's self-esteem is, to a large extent, affected by society's attitudes toward women as members of the female gender.", sources don't define "woman" as "members of the female gender." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested the following image and was reverted because of a previous discussion which had in 2019 the last entry and did not sound like consensus, but was archived. So I want to reopen the discussion with a simple argument: the previous discussion had one or more images proposed. I cant agree with any selection, but what I can agree on and want to advocate is that a collage of image is in any case better, because: mainly to depict diversity and doesnt leave it to one image, even if the single images are changed again and again, the value of the collage goes beyond the single images for that it allways, no matter wich selection depicts a range of people.

(I am not the author of the image)

Looking forward to your input. Nsae Comp (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is against MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. Don't let the shortcut fool you; the guideline does not apply only to ethnic groups. With pertinent emphasis added: Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images of group members; see this and this thread for the most recent consensus discussion on the topic. I see no way in which this article is improved by a huge montage of tiny pictures of various women (and paintings, and a prehistoric artifact). Flyer22 Frozen pointed out that this matter was discussed in archives 11-13. That was in 2019; I see no good reason to waste a vast amount of editor time on rehashing all that again. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the links, if that is unchangeable Wikipedia law, and I do understand the arguments that any selection will cause (eternal) discussion, but I dont see a problem with that, I would introduce the reverse rule: that it allways needs to be a collage, that way people who want to argue can, but the hint that people are diverse remains in any selection. ... But back to a practical solutions, since its Wikipedia law, I would now propose to use no picture at all for the lead. Nsae Comp (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The picture we have is good. There's no "my way or the highway" here. I'd think that since you want 20 pictures, you'd prefer one picture to none at all. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dont care about "my way"/"your way", what I do care about that Wikipedia is a quality place. So what are the arguments why this image is better than none? Nsae Comp (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a picture of a woman? It illustrates the topic. There's no need for a picture to show every woman to illustrate the concept of "woman". Loki (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A potential argument could be made that the current lead image is perhaps not the best, especially because it was determined by a rather hostile discussion between a handful of editors that didn't seem to reach a clear consensus. But it is still much more desirable than the giant collage that is being proposed by Nsae Comp. TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 05:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction I am not proposing the collage anymore, I am proposing now as an alternative to both ways to have no image. Nsae Comp (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would strongly disagree with that also. For articles such as this one it is much better to have an image than to not have one. However, I would be in favor of possibly reconsidering the current lead image. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"For an article such as this"? What makes this article in need for an image? Nsae Comp (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo is the image we have, so it is your burden to explain why no image is better than this one. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What of my elaboration why I find no image better than any, if not a collage, isnt clear yet. Another alternative would be a symbol like the venus symbol like the "Fenale" article has. Nsae Comp (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Having a venus symbol is not good enough. This article needs an image of an adult human female. Because that's what a woman is. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]