The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This page 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
This page 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 page, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles
This page 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
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This page has been marked as needing immediate attention.
Female (gender) is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Draftifying will allow the creators to develop their vision in draft space without another AfD being opened before they have that vision developed. If and when they do develop their vision to that point and move to article space, if there is another AfD, it should at least have removed any concerns on either side about lack of development, which was mentioned by multiple editors on both sides of the debate.
To that end, we'd like to ask everyone to adhere to the following terms while the article is in the Draft namespace:
In general, anyone can edit the draft, but we'd politely request that the proponents of this article are given a disruption-free environment to craft the article. If you have disagreements about the content or the existence of the article, we'd ask that you wait to act upon those disagreements until the article has been moved back into mainspace. Additionally, the draft generally shouldn't be nominated for deletion again while it remains in draft space.
During the time that the article is in draft space, we'd ask that Female (gender) remains a redirect to Gender. Please don't change the target of this redirect unless there is a clear consensus to do so, and please don't attempt to start a new article over the redirect.
When there is consensus among contributors that the draft is ready, it should be moved back into mainspace over the redirect (AfC review is not necessary). The draft does not need to be perfect or complete before it can be moved into mainspace. It simply needs to adequately demonstrate the authors' collective vision for the article, its structure, and the kind of content it will contain. If there is a plan to move/merge content from existing articles into this article, that content should be added to the draft but should not be removed from existing articles until the draft is published. If there is disagreement about moving/merging content, consensus discussions will eventually need to take place. Once the draft is moved back into mainspace, if an editor still believes that it should be deleted, they are free to start another AfD to discuss it further.
We ask that these restrictions remain in place until the draft is moved back into mainspace, or until a reasonable amount of time has elapsed (at least a month or two, but perhaps a bit longer if earnest progress continues to be made on the draft).
@Beccaynr, it's been close to a year since someone has worked on this draft. I suggest that if someone (@Immanuelle, @CamandVyond) wants to take it upon them to get this into mainspace, we should not prevent that based on a consensus that clearly did not work out as intended. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Maddy from Celeste I agree, honestly I don’t understand the purpose of this draft but I want it to get a change rather than stagnate in draftspace forever. There was a lot of work done on it. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 21:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have been waiting for the article creator to return to regular editing so we could further discuss what to do with this draft. As a basic overview, I feel as if my research on this article has led me to a conclusion that it would not be appropriate to have this move to mainspace. I think a merge of content would be more appropriate. Unfortunately, today is not a great day for me to have an in-depth discussion about this. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
To add some further thoughts; one of the reasons I stopped substantively working on this draft is because a merge of the content into other existing articles seemed to become more reasonable as research developed and other articles further developed. For example, there was extensive discussion at the Gender article talk page, which led to the lead of that article approximating the lead in this article. I also think a general review of the sources in this article, which discuss sex and gender, also tend to support merging content into the Female and perhaps the Woman and Gender articles. Based on the sources that discuss female sex and female gender together, I am tending to think that Wikipedia policies do not support a further split of these concepts than what we already have in existing articles. Basically, I did not appreciate the risk of creating a WP:POVFORK until I had conducted further research into this topic area.
My suggestion at this time is to adapt the previous suggestion from Bluerasberry[1], i.e. to recognize that "female gender" is a more accessible search term for a variety of reasons. The adaptation I suggest is to move this article to a Female gender redirect, targeted at the Female article. My understanding is this would preserve the article history and its talk page, and then content can be merged with attribution to other articles. Beccaynr (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Merging to Female is actually pretty convincing to me. It is my impression that in contemporary scholarship, the sex–gender distinction is considered insufficient, not addressing the socially constructed aspects of "sex". So a well-implemented merge into Female would be a pretty good outcome to me. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
To add further sourcing to this, from the Gender article talk page [2], which includes:
the 2022 law review noted above, there is substantial discussion related to this point at 1855: judges need not be convinced to adopt postmodern theories about the social construction of sex to be persuaded that laws based on biological sex are suspect; explanations of how sex is assigned at birth from mainstream medical experts often suffice. At 1872-1874, there is discussion of the Sex and gender distinction, and the law review includes a critique of what is described in the conclusion at 1897 as the persistence of dualistic thinking about sex as biological and gender as social.
The sources listed in my comment above may also be included on the talk page here; this draft article talk page has been helpful for collecting and reviewing research. Beccaynr (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
