Talk:Woman/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
The part of the intro about gender identity
(Also see: relevant discussion in the talk page of the trans woman article.)
It's a bit unclear what this sentence means: "Woman" may also refer to a person's gender identity.
The quote in the citation clarifies a bit: "Gender identity refers to an individual's personal sense of identity as [man] or [woman], or some combination thereof."
I think it would be good to clarify Wikipedia's own wording to explain in what sense this personal identification actually makes the person a woman. I would propose: Some people are considered to be a woman by some because of their gender identity or social presentation rather than because of their sex.
I would remove the currently existing sentence and replace it with this one, maybe use a different citation (as it's a slightly different claim), and move the sentence to the end of the paragraph, as the part about female genetic development that currently follows doesn't apply to trans women. TaylanUB (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Your proposed alternative text is awkward in the extreme. It also seems quite unnecessary; the sentence "Woman" may also refer to a person's gender identity" is verifiable, neutral, and doesn't seem unclear to me. RivertorchFIREWATER 18:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Feel free to improve the wording of course. I wasn't satisfied with my sentence structure either, but it's the content that matters. Let me try to explain my problem with the current wording: when I read that sentence, my thought patterns are roughly: So there's a thing called 'gender identity', and some people's 'gender identity' is 'woman', OK, but what does this have to do with actual women (which the rest of the paragraph seems to be concerned with), and why does this sentence appear in the middle of the intro of all places. If, instead, the sentence explained why these people in question are considered to actually be women, then its appearance in the intro would be a lot more natural and wouldn't require the reader to first delve into the 'gender identity' article (which is quite involved) and try to understand what that sentence means in the context of that introduction. A different issue my proposal would solve is: as far as I know, some transsexual women don't think in terms of 'gender identity' (which as I understand seems to be related to the conviction of literally being a woman on the inside or so; explanations seem to differ), but rather just see transitioning as something done for society to perceive them as women, to become women in the eyes of society and not through the claim of some subjective feminine feeling that they already had and which therefore already made them "really" women (tell me if my understanding of 'gender identity' is wrong).
- Well in any case, if you really don't see any improvement at all in my suggestion (given better sentence structure), then I guess it's subjective to me. For the record though, here's an attempt at improving the structure:
- Some people who are not female may be considered women because of their gender identity or social presentation.
- Ideally there would also be a whole section or so on this topic, mentioning the political disputes over whether these people are "really" women or not and yadda yadda. If the standards for inclusion aren't too high (I don't know why this article was locked?), I can try to write such a section, mentioning a few common points made by both sides. TaylanUB (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with RiverTorch. We have a link to gender identity for those unsure of its meaning. Additionally, your proposed wording suggests that trans women aren't really women, just that some of society considers them women. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- The position that trans women are women is a disputed one, not one supported by most English dictionaries, encyclopedias, anthropologists, lay people... or what would make Wikipedia adopt the position as fact? I'd think that obviously both the position that says they are women, and oppositional positions, should be neutrally represented on Wikipedia. Tell me if I get Wikipedia's intention of neutrality wrong. Also, I don't see how the current sentence says they're women. It doesn't even suggest that people with a 'gender identity' that is 'woman' are actually women. If you think it implies that (and if RiverTorch also does) then that's probably the reason you don't see why the current sentence is very confusing; a person who isn't already knee-deep into gender identity stuff doesn't get what it's supposed to mean, and going through, say, the intro of the gender identity article doesn't help either. In fact, from a quick skim, it seems you could read through that whole article and still not get that some people may consider some male people to literally be women based on this notion of gender identity (if only because it's such an involved topic). TaylanUB (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Actually anthropologists would generally consider gender a social construct (third genders are under their field of research). But the current wording does not claim trans women are women nor does it deny it. It simply states "woman" can be a gender identity. The tone is neutral. Your suggested language is less neutral. WP:NPOV does mention tone, but more so covers things like WP:DUE: the policy that we give issues due weight and don't create WP:FALSEBALANCE. I think your suggestions are venturing into that. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- The position that trans women are women is a disputed one, not one supported by most English dictionaries, encyclopedias, anthropologists, lay people... or what would make Wikipedia adopt the position as fact? I'd think that obviously both the position that says they are women, and oppositional positions, should be neutrally represented on Wikipedia. Tell me if I get Wikipedia's intention of neutrality wrong. Also, I don't see how the current sentence says they're women. It doesn't even suggest that people with a 'gender identity' that is 'woman' are actually women. If you think it implies that (and if RiverTorch also does) then that's probably the reason you don't see why the current sentence is very confusing; a person who isn't already knee-deep into gender identity stuff doesn't get what it's supposed to mean, and going through, say, the intro of the gender identity article doesn't help either. In fact, from a quick skim, it seems you could read through that whole article and still not get that some people may consider some male people to literally be women based on this notion of gender identity (if only because it's such an involved topic). TaylanUB (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't see that TaylanUB's proposed change would be an improvement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate on how my suggestion would create false balance? Since you've previously objected to language that "suggests that trans women aren't really women," it makes me wonder whether you believe that the position that they aren't women is a minority view? I would have thought the opposite, as it goes against the ubiquitously held definition of "woman" that is "adult female person". The understanding of gender (i.e. sex-based roles and stereotypes) as a social construct doesn't change that either, from what I know: in most societies, the "appropriate" gender is forced based on sex, and someone who doesn't adopt that gender, or adopts the one of the other sex, is either not accepted by the society at all, or only accepted as a third gender. So nearly no society accepts male people as truly women; correct me if I'm wrong. It's certainly the case in western societies, as open transsexuals face intolerance and aren't seen as women by society. (Changing only very recently.) Despite that, I was trying to construct my sentence such that it gives exactly equal credence to both positions... So if anything, I'd have thought it may create false balance in the other direction. :-)
- I thought it would be useful to make it half-way explicit in the intro that there's such a dispute in society. With the current wording, readers will just interpret the sentence according to their own bias and not learn anything new, especially the majority that have no idea what it means for one's "gender identity" to be "woman". There's now 3 people who don't think a sentence like the one suggested would be an improvement, so I'm beginning to give up, but I still wonder whether this may be because the concept of "gender identity" is second nature for most people who work on this article? I can only speak for German and Turkish cultures (and my understanding of general western culture): most people in these societies don't know anything like "gender identity". They know identification with traditional roles and stereotypes of masculinity and femininity, but they don't confuse these with the fact of simply being a woman or a man. TaylanUB (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- But the fact of being a woman or a man isn't always simple. Look, the current wording says that the word "woman" may also refer to gender identity—nothing more, nothing less. It acknowledges the existence of a notable usage. As such, it is verifiably true and implies nothing about the validity of the usage nor does it introduce the idea that the usage is often disputed. This seems appropriate for the lead paragraph, which is supposed merely to summarize the main points found later in the article.
- Something you said a couple of posts further up is worth noting: "...some people may consider some male people to literally be women...." But who says they're male? If you begin with the premise that a person can be positively identified by someone else as male and that, by extension, transgender women are really male and therefore not women, then I guess I sort of see where you're coming from. Yet even within that frame of reference, the current wording seems satisfactory. RivertorchFIREWATER 00:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- If the intent is to avoid bringing up the dispute, then that's fair I guess, although it doesn't educate the readers. As for trans women being male, that's not even a dispute except if you get into really fringe ideologies from what I can tell? Sure a person can be identified by someone else as female or male (or as having an intersex condition that justifies putting them into neither category), as these are concrete biological/medical terms. For the vast majority of people, naked eye on naked body is enough to tell. :-) An informed person will be able to note intersex conditions also. Only a few very rare conditions like CAIS in genetic males (~0.007% of population) and XX male syndrome in genetic females (~0.005%) can fool the eye, which in turn can be detected via a genetic test, in particular a karyotype test. Note also that many conditions included under the intersex umbrella don't actually hinder an unambiguous classification as female or male, which is one of the reasons the term Disorders of Sex Development (DSD) is sometimes used instead. Anyway, returning to trans* rather than intersex people, it may be an interesting exercise in philosophy to ponder whether e.g. a male-born person is still male if they had their gonads and genitals surgically removed, but most people would probably just say yes. TaylanUB (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
(de-indent) The sentence as written is as simple an objective fact as can be stated: the word "woman" is sometimes used to refer to trans women. In order for changing it to be in order, that would either have to be false, or it would have to be giving undue weight to a position held by negligibly few. It is neither.
The opposite position is also held by a non-negligible fraction of people. Is it important for the article to point out that some people contest the womanhood of trans women? I'd say, no. People who are looking for information about that can easily find it on wikipedia. This one sentence is unlikely to be taken as gospel truth by either side of this debate. And frankly, this issue is not particularly central to this article. Leave the axe-grinding to articles where it is central.
I'd also note that the harms of error are not symmetrical here. If the article is too anti-trans, it may in some small way contribute to an alarmingly high suicide and violent crime rate harming trans people. If it's not anti-trans enough, um..., some people might theoretically be unaware of anti-trans sentiment? Because, you know, most people reading wikipedia tend to think society has totally no opinions about gender identity... To me, these risks are drastically disproportionate, and while that wouldn't justify violating WP policy, it certainly justifies giving the benefit of the doubt to arguments for the safer side.
But that's just my opinion. If someone can find a way to note the issue without breaking NPOV or the flow of the article, then... whatever. Homunq (࿓) 01:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Quote: In order for changing it to be in order, that would either have to be false, or it would have to be giving undue weight to a position held by negligibly few.
- May it not also be changed simply to make it more informative to readers?
- Regarding the suggestion that it may contribute to suicidality to remind people that there is contention on whether trans women are or aren't literally women, I see two issues with this. Firstly, such logic that is based on the assumption of an extreme sensitivity of the readers would, I suppose, also justify removing mentions of homophobia from the page about homosexuality (which is there in the intro, end of third paragraph), removing mentions of the Holocaust from the page about Jews (also in the intro, start of second paragraph), and so on, and be overall unmanageable for an encyclopedia. Or is there a reason to special-handle this case? Secondly, if you say that the mere suggestion that trans women aren't literally women may trigger suicidality in some trans people, one may also say that the suggestion that they are literally women may trigger suicidality in some female people, as they see this as a grave insult for several reasons related to women's liberation. (I know many women who are fierce on this topic, many of them citing erasure of their material oppression, and even lesbian bashing and corrective rape culture resulting from the idea that "since some women have penises, lesbians who categorically reject sex with penised people are being bigoted." True story, and not even a rare occurrence nowadays; faced it again on Twitter just two days ago.) But anyway, I think Wikipedia should (obviously) be just neutral and objective in such cases. I thought it would be generally more informative for readers if the intro was more explicit about the fact that some people opine that gender identity is grounds for classifying some male people as women, and that other people disagree with this, but if even the neutral mention of the dispute is seen as "axe grinding" then so be it; we can just keep the current (and IMO uninformative) wording. ;-) TaylanUB (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2017
 | This edit request to Woman has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please edit the first line of the article "Woman is an adult human female but may also refer to a person's gender identity." to say simply "Woman are an adult human female." The male page simply says "men are an adult human male" why the double standard? We need to clarify this (woman) page to be the same. Woman is a sex class, not an identity, the same as man. Dorrie.dd (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: Please refer to the discussion in the above section, The part of the intro about gender identity. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}}template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Two references needed in "Education" section
Two references are noticed with [1] and [2] but with no references. Tuanminh01 (talk) 07:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Woman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021100954/http://law.case.edu/saddamtrial/documents/Iraqi_Penal_Code_1969.pdf to http://law.case.edu/saddamtrial/documents/Iraqi_Penal_Code_1969.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121175822/http://www.eyeontheun.org/voices.asp?p=632 to http://www.eyeontheun.org/voices.asp?p=632
- Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081026065259/http://www.aidsportal.org/news_details.aspx?ID=4236 to http://www.aidsportal.org/news_details.aspx?ID=4236
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130801084310/http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1142.html to http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1142.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160301002442/http://music.cbc.ca/ to http://music.cbc.ca/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Merci beaucoup اجناز (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Je suis très contente pour la surprise اجناز (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Additional Citations Needed
Multiple parts in the Article that require citations. Especially some statistics under the "Culture and gender roles" subsection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAttebery.19 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Ideological changes to this page
Adding "and transgender" to the footnote on first periods. Honestly what is happening here? Transgirls do not get a first period because they are biologically male. If they do not have periods it is not caused by an illness in their reproductive system because they belong to the sex that produces sperm, not ova. Is Wikipedia now a mouthpiece for fringe ideologies? Transwomen are male. They are a subset of men. Transsexuals may have surgery that imitates the other sex, but apart from SciFi stories, changing sex is not yet possible. So can we please stick to material reality? Or for the editor who added this, can you please cite a peer-reviewed study that seriously discusses the lack of periods in male to female adolescents as an actual illness and a disorder of their male reproductive system? I know it's only in a footnote (33) but it is no less ludicrous for that.Small candles (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Also this recent insertion by Georgia guy
With regard to gender, a woman may also be a person whose sex assignment does not align with their gender identity,[1] or those who have sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female (intersex).
The linked reference clearly refers to an individual's personal sense of identity as [man] or [woman] and not to material reality or an even actual sex change from man to woman which as I mentioned above is currently impossible. The citation therefore is not sufficient to include this paragraph in a discussion about biological women. A male to female transsexual or transgender person does not change sex to become a "woman". This person becomes a "trans woman" or "transwoman" (depending on spelling preference). As written, the added paragraph doesn't even make sense because biological women may also be transgender or transsexual and identify as men or both or neither. Keeping that in mind this passage could also be understood as "a woman may also be a man" which is complete nonsense. The reference to gender in connection with intersex is not one intersex organisations agree with or even accept either.
I would prefer to wait for the editor who made those changes to comment here before making any edits myself as this seems to have become a contentious issue. I find editing wars unedifying anyway and am always open to reasonable arguments. Please note this is not a philosophical "transwomen are women" kind of question. That can be had on the relevant pages. This page is about biological women (hence the discussion about health and reproductive issues, violence against women and girls etc). If no one comments, I will delete this section or edit it in line with my comments within the week.Small candles (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't add it arbitrarily; I reverted a bad edit that was made by removing it. Georgia guy (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah the problem is that what you added is worse than the last thing that created a huge discussion. You're not even saying "Woman may also be used to refer to transsexual males and other males who identify as trans". You said "a woman may also be a person [...]". "Refer to" would be perfectly fine, as this is what a minority of people now do and I'd have no problem with that, especially since anyone wanting to know more can follow the links.
- It doesn't even make sense the way you've written it. Are you trying to say that some women identify as trans? Given the extremely small number of women who do so, this gives undue prominence to a rare individual personality trait or an even rarer disorder in the introduction. Or are you saying that some men identify as women? Again it's undue prominence to a rare phenomenon found in males made on an entry for females. And this passage doesn't appear in the entry on man either which AFAIK is set up to mirror this one.
- You could put it further down, where transgender is mentioned, edit it so it reflects reality or plain delete it. Why do we need this in an entry for biological women anyway? A woman is not a man and a man is not a woman. Otherwise why are we bothering defining woman in the first place? Small candles (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Please realize transgender is a serious birth condition, not a mental disorder as many people think. Georgia guy (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- I've just checked here on Wikipedia and gender dysphoria is indeed listed as a mental disorder in the DSM-V of the American Psychiatric Association. But this is not the place to discuss the science on gender dysphoria. This is a talk page for a different subject. Your last suggests that this is ideological to you. I wish you well and hope you understand that I make no judgement on transgender individuals by editing this page.
- So, may I respectfully suggest that we keep it neutral and stick to what we can source? Do you have a source that shows biological males can become biological females? Do you have a source that shows that the lack of periods in biological males is a disorder of the female reproductive system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Small candles (talk • contribs) 14:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The issue here ([1]) is about mentioning transgender folks in a sentence about menstruation, right? Looking at this further, it does seem to be referring to trans women. But to say that trans women do not menstruate is not incorrect. Perhaps we clarify the footnote? EvergreenFir (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- The footnote refers to this sentence: Most girls go through menarche and are then able to become pregnant and bear children. To refer to (presumably male) transgender individuals in a sentence about infertility in women (that is biological females) as not being able to menstruate and become pregant and bear children makes no sense as they are not biologically female. The footnote also references specifically intersex conditions which are disorders of sexual development not present in transgender individuals. The whole footnote is superfluous as infertility is discussed later in the page anyway and there are a lot more causes of infertility than just intersex conditions so I don't know why they are given such prominence.
- FYI this discussion is also about the insertion referenced above which replaces a previous insertion that merely stated transwomen can be refered to as women which is perfectly true, that is what some people do. Instead the insertion now claims them to be women. That's not NPOV and cannot be sourced either (the reference supporting this insertion mentions "identifying as female" which is not the same as actually being female).
- I came across this page yesterday while writing an article on infertility in women and have to admit I was astonished to see these additions to the page. I simply hadn't realised the definition of "woman = adult human female" is now disputed. Small candles (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Please realize transgender is a serious birth condition, not a mental disorder as many people think. Georgia guy (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- You could put it further down, where transgender is mentioned, edit it so it reflects reality or plain delete it. Why do we need this in an entry for biological women anyway? A woman is not a man and a man is not a woman. Otherwise why are we bothering defining woman in the first place? Small candles (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- I am only commenting with regard to policy here and not wading into this debate but as it is challenged and unsourced, shouldn't it be removed until the dispute is solved/reaches consensus? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with User:Smallcandles. Perhaps there should be separate links to the trans* pages (and brief discussion under a separate heading perhaps?) to deal with this issue. Certainly trans people do not belong in an identical classification and page as biological women, as their issues, needs and bodies are quite different, and outside the scope of this page. Trans people (of all varieties) fall under different classifications, and require such. I believe such pages already exist on Wiki - am I right? Thelastauroch (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Thelastauroch
What's with the politics on this page?
Transgenderism is mentioned at the very top of the page although being EXTREMELY rare. It makes no sense to be there whatsoever. Also, get rid of the Feminism stuff on the right side of the page. Feminism is an ideology, Woman is something that is set in stone. This page is a mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.63.2 (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree. This page reads like a political diatribe with poor citations and no biological evidence to support scientifically-unsupported conclusions. At present I have not edited the page, as it is simply a mess and I have no desire to get into a "wiki war" but either our goal is to make wikipedia a reputable source of actual facts, or it's a tool for propaganda :(. The current page (as I write this) is a politically vandalised diatribe and unusable for any student / reader seeking genuine information. Let's keep wikipedia facts-based and clean. Take your politics elsewhere. Cheers. Thelastauroch (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Thelastauroch
Yes, please. --InspectorRex (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment no reliable source published in the last 20 years would regard "woman" as something "set in stone". People of a certain ideological bent might not approve, but "woman" has been the object of study and analysis for feminists for more than 200 years now, and there is extremely reliable and well-substantiated scholarship about gender roles that goes beyond feminism and back to the beginnings of anthropology and ethnography. Meanwhile, in the last 20 years "gender identity" has moved well beyond the transsexual politics of the 1990s to being socially relevant to womanhood and increaeingly a concept of legal scholarship about who is a woman (e.g. the legal protections in Canada and the EU, among other jurisdictions).
The idea that "woman" is a purely biological concept has never been true in practice, and at presently is simply a rhetorical shibboleth for those who don't like the direction psychology and the medical sciences have moved over the last 20 years. To which I say, follow the recent, reliable sources, which on the whole is what this article does and needs to keep doing. Newimpartial (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Dear NewImpartial, "woman" is also a biological concept. There are a variety of meaning to the word from different fields and cultures in time and space. I think you are being a bit too needlessly inflammatory for my taste when you say that this "is simply a rhetorical shibboleth for those who don't like". I agree with Thelastauroch that the paragraph that boils down to "a trans woman is also a woman" (which certainly is true to varying degrees in some contexts, cultures and fields) in the introduction to be a bit politically motivated, particularly because
- It precedes several other more important points about the meanings of "woman"
- It is a simplification at best. Under an empirical epistemology, for example, a trans woman is ontologically different from a woman (why we'd have two different words for it?). Medicine and the social "sciences" are well aware of this too; I know a gynecologist has turned down transexual patients because she has no idea how to treat them.
So yes, let's use the recent and reliable sources, but let's use, recombine and remix them in a neutral/NPOV way. --InspectorRex (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Non-scientific citations an issue
The first citation on this page (Morrow & Messinger) is a book written by two social workers, and is not scientifically valid for a page about biological and social *fact*. Can anyone come up with a good reason why it is there? I'm thinking of deleting it (and its associated non-scientifically-based content) unless there are good arguments for retaining it. Perhaps a better alternative is to lead with "some people believe..." and similar content, pointing out that this is a sociological / political belief, rather than anything based in fact. Thelastauroch (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Thelastauroch
How can I find a girlfriend? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:F152:CEBE:9414:701B:EE44:F922 (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Thelastauroch I support your proposal to remove Morrow & Messinger as it is not a reliable source. Userwoman (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
'Do not remove" in what sense is social work not a relevant expertise with respect to this article's topic? I dare say it is more relevant than most of the other sources currently used. This proposal reeks of IDONTLIKEIT, and possibly a misconstrue of the relationship between Sociology and Social Work as disciplines.
Thelastauroch would also benefit from reading about what "social facts" actually are, per WP:CIR. Newimpartial (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- As for that, I suppose that the copy could be amended with "in social sciences, woman can refer to...". I think it's self-evident the suggested meaning is not universal across disciplines and/or natural language and cultures. --InspectorRex (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- On a second thought, please try to be less dismissive/passive-aggressive towards the user in question, even if you don't agree with him. This is the second or third time on this page you do it. --InspectorRex (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the work in question, but I'm not at all satisfied with the inline citation. It does not seem to suggest what the article copy suggests. --InspectorRex (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Gender identity
As I have suggested in a discussion on the NPVN, it might be helpful for this article to have a section entitled "Gender identity" in which the issues specific to those identifying or not identifying as women can be discussed. As many OECD countries now recognize that Trans women can legally be recognized as Women and are entitled to legal protections against discrimination either as women or specifically as Trans women, it seems to me that it would be helpful for this article to include a discussion of the increasingly prevalent use of the term "Woman" to indicate a gender identity that is non-identical with definitions of "Woman" in terms of either anatomy or social roles. Newimpartial (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- There should probably be a section related to trans women, but for a couple of reason I do not think that casting it in terms of "gender identity" and "anatomy" is the way to go:
- The term "gender identity" became a necessity after feminists appropriated[2] the term "gender", which had once been used by psychologists to explain transgenderism. Recently there has been a move among trans people to use the word "gender" again.
- There is a growing mound of research showing that there are respects in which trans women's brains are more like cis women's brains than they are like cis men's brains, discernible by activity or structural differences. Thus, some relevant authorities would say that trans women are anatomically female.
- I am not sure that the section would need to get into all that. Perhaps it would be best to start simply by noting that in various disciplines there is a growing consensus that trans women are women, and use the rest of the section to offer more details as they seem necessary. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 00:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- For the record, I am not saying that there should be a section on "gender identity" to provide a section on Trans women. There are people who have periods who have gender identities as men or as genderfluid or as agender, for example, and the section should probably mention this whole terrain while pointing out that the gender identity "Woman" is non-identical with other uses of the term. Newimpartial (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Whatever you call the section, there are people who would use "woman" to refer to a trans woman but do not define it in terms of gender idenity.
- What are the other uses of the term? Why are they worth mentioning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marie Paradox (talk • contribs) 01:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- By my reading, the first sentence of the lede, "A woman is a female human being", is not intended to reference a gender identity, though gender identity issues are mentioned at the end of the lede. I think it is worth including a fuller discussion of the tensions between "woman" as a gender identity and "woman" as a gender role or as a label for "female human beings", preferably as its own section before any changes to the lede are considered.
- If there are people who would include all transgender women as women for some reason other than their gender identity, I would be interested in reading a source articulating that position. There are certainly those who would define a subset of trans women as women for other reasons, but not the entire group AFAIK. Newimpartial (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Changing the body before the lede is an excellent idea.
- As for the sources you ask about, I will have to get back to you. It is easy to find sources that say trans women are women without making reference to gender identity (e.g., there is a dearth of mention of "gender identity" in Rachel McKinnon's works, including those that unambiguously say trans women are women), but it would be original research to try to synthesize them in such a way as to support the view that trans women are women for reasons other than gender identity. If anyone else knows of a good source, please let me and Newimpartial know. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 02:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- For the record, I am not saying that there should be a section on "gender identity" to provide a section on Trans women. There are people who have periods who have gender identities as men or as genderfluid or as agender, for example, and the section should probably mention this whole terrain while pointing out that the gender identity "Woman" is non-identical with other uses of the term. Newimpartial (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
How to cover trans women in this article has been discussed times before. See, for example, Talk:Woman/Archive 9#Why, Talk:Woman/Archive 9#Transexuals and Talk:Woman/Archive 10#The part of the intro about gender identity. Yes, we should not give WP:Undue weight to the trans aspect in the lead or lower in the article. Similar goes for trans men at the Men article. Similar for the topic of intersex people, another aspect mentioned in the lead and lower in the article. Briefly noting these other aspects in the lead and then having a section that addresses them more fully, like we currently do, is the way to go. I don't see a need for a "Trans woman" section, which unnecessarily separates trans women. Covering the topic in the "Biology and sex" section, like we currently do, is fine and (again) is the way to go. The section could also be renamed "Biology and gender" (since the sex aspect is in reference to biology anyway). Or if it's felt that it's best to create a "Gender identity" section, we could do that. I know that the both of you have been heavily involved in the recent transgender debates. I ask that you don't unnecessarily let all of that bleed over into this article. I also ask that you keep WP:Advocacy in mind. The aforementioned debating shows that people disagree on this and have strong opinions on it. So if necessary, I will WP:Ping each and every editor that has been involved in those debates to this talk page in order to have more varied views. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, causes of transsexuality are still very much debated, especially the brain studies. There is also research that indicates that lesbians have some brain similarity to heterosexual cisgender men and that gay men have some brain similarity to heterosexual cisgender women. So I would not go into the brain aspect in this article, at least not without WP:MEDRS-compliant sources and making clear that the "brain data indicates this" material is not definitive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- I hear all of those points, Flyer22. I would however suggest that the salience of "Woman" as a gender identity specifically is well-established in recent, Reliable Sources and extends well beyond the issue of Trans inclusion. The fact is, the Woman article currently covers anatomical femaleness and gender roles much more effectively than it does the equally important aspect of gender identity. Newimpartial (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- By "well beyond the issue of Trans inclusion," are you referring to cisgender women's views of what it means to be a woman and/or non-binary people's views? As for the article as a whole, it's more focused on social issues than it is on biology/sex. This is obviously because, like the topic of what it means to be a man, the topic is socially constructed and therefore social. The vast majority of sources about women don't focus on gender identity. They focus more so on gender roles and other social issues (such as sexism). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what I'm saying. For example, the move away from heteronormativity has changed the content of the gender identity, "woman", even apart from changes in gender roles and gender power relations, and I think the reliable sources bear this out. I would also hazard that sources published over the last 20 years, at least in OECD countries, have dealt increasing with gender identity as opposed to, say, gender roles. Newimpartial (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- This article is not simply about defining "woman." Even if it was, it's still the case that the vast majority of reliable sources on the definition of "woman," recent or otherwise, do not explicitly consider trans women or non-binary people (meaning the non-binary people who identify as a woman one day and not as a woman the next, and the ones who describe themselves as a blend that happens to include "woman"). For reliable sources that do, feel free to list them here, but I think such sources are likely trans sources. If not, they will still list the cisgender woman aspect first (without stating "cisgender"). There are trans sources that challenge the traditional definition of "woman," but they are in the significant minority. There's also sources like this 2017 "Is It Time to Change the Definition of 'Woman'?" source from Slate magazine. It challenges dictionaries' definition of "woman," but this was spurred on by a complaint from a transgender woman. Slate asks, "Is it time for dictionaries to make room in their definitions for transgender and intersex women who may not fit under the umbrella of 'adult female human being,' especially given that Collins' primary definition for 'female' in its American dictionary is 'of the sex that produces ova and bears offspring'? In other words, exactly how well are dictionaries keeping up with the evolving contemporary conversation around the language of gender and sexuality?" But again, this viewpoint is in the significant minority. In that source, Merriam-Webster lexicographer Emily Brewster states, "Our goal is to catalog the language when it becomes kind of stable—to define things when the dust has settled. That, I think, is the best that a dictionary can do. Otherwise, it's subject to so much information that it really can't be helpful." Regarding Webster's seemingly somewhat updated definition of "man," Brewster stated, "That word 'typically' creates a broadness that allows for differently abled bodies to be male. It may become clear that we need to have additional senses to address uses of the words that are not quite covered. We wouldn’t be lexicographers if we didn’t leave that door open."
- Yes, that is what I'm saying. For example, the move away from heteronormativity has changed the content of the gender identity, "woman", even apart from changes in gender roles and gender power relations, and I think the reliable sources bear this out. I would also hazard that sources published over the last 20 years, at least in OECD countries, have dealt increasing with gender identity as opposed to, say, gender roles. Newimpartial (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- By "well beyond the issue of Trans inclusion," are you referring to cisgender women's views of what it means to be a woman and/or non-binary people's views? As for the article as a whole, it's more focused on social issues than it is on biology/sex. This is obviously because, like the topic of what it means to be a man, the topic is socially constructed and therefore social. The vast majority of sources about women don't focus on gender identity. They focus more so on gender roles and other social issues (such as sexism). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- By the lead of this article mentioning trans women and intersex women, it's clear that Wikipedia does not simply follow what dictionaries state anyway. Also, Wikipedia does not simply consider recent sources. Per WP:Due weight, it considers what the literature states as a whole and gives most of its weight to the majority view (unless it's something like scientific knowledge or scientific consensus having changed and we have reliable sources explicitly noting that). The majority view of a woman is still the cisgender viewpoint. So this is why the lead begins with that view. It's why the article should not be artificially balanced to be about both cisgender and trans women, which would hardly be any different than merging the Trans woman article into this article. It's still the case that the vast majority of the literature on women is about social issues, especially gender roles and gender inequality. It is significantly more about gender roles than it is about gender identity. All the article should have on gender identity is one section on it, if the material is to be split from the "Biology and sex" section. The article should not be artificially balanced to be half about gender identity. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- That is an interesting argument, but I am not convinced that it actually engaged with what I am asking about, which would be a new section in "woman" as a gender identity. I am not suggesting that the arti be about "cis and trans women" equally, or about "gender roles and gender identities", employing some kind of FALSEBALANCE. What I am suggesting, among other things, is that hiding discussion of gender identiy within "biology and sex" gives a misleading view of what is being discussed in reliable sources on the article's topic. Also, WP is supposed to privilege recent, reliable sources, so the reality that gender identity has become important in these sources over the last 20 years is not a reason to hesitate in including them in this article. Newimpartial (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- As noted above, I'm not opposed to creating a "Gender identity" section (and breaking the gender identity aspect off from the "Biology and sex" section to go in the new one). I also suggested renaming the "Biology and sex" section to "Biology and gender." How to go about creating a Gender identity section and what it should entail is obviously something that can be worked out here on the talk page. For example, an editor can work on the section in their sandbox and then point to it here for review. The editor can also invite editors to help write it in their sandbox. As for privileging recent, reliable sources, Wikipedia actually does not unless, like I stated, consensus has changed on a matter and reliable sources explicitly note that consensus has changed. See WP:Recentism and WP:RSBREAKING. At the Recent African origin of modern humans article, we can't decide for ourselves that consensus has changed. And for medical articles, WP:MEDDATE's emphasis is more on whether the material is up-to-date than on how new the sources are. A source can be old, but still reflect today's consensus. WP:MEDDATE also addresses recentism. My above "07:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)" post concerns how Wikipedia works and the fact that the cisgender view of "woman" is still the prevalent view of "woman." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- At a time when the medical authorities, as well as the UK, Canadian and NZ governments and many international organizations and academic sources, are endorsing "woman" as a gender identity rather than as a synonym for "cis woman", I think it is clear that consensus on this topic is breaking down. This is clearest when concentrating on sources from the last 20 years, as WP policy requires in cases where the consensus of authorities shifts over time. Newimpartial (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've looked at a lot of the literature on defining "woman," and I do not see that "is a gender identity" or similar is usually used with regard to defining "woman." It is partly why I cited that source I did above. And it is still a fact that, outside of trying to define "woman," the vast majority of the literature on women is not about gender identity, but rather about gender roles and other social issues. Legal recognition of trans women as women does not change any of that. It is why I told you that we will not be artificially balancing this article. You stated that you are not trying to do that. So it seems to me that you should focus on creating the aforementioned "Gender identity" section. And whether "consensus on this topic is breaking down" or not, it's not for us to state. It's for reliable sources to state. I do not know what policy you are referring to when stating "as WP policy requires in cases where the consensus of authorities shifts over time," but it is clear as day that consensus is not for defining "woman" as solely a gender identity. "Woman" being a gender identity is just one aspect of the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- It is beyond me why Newimpartial insists on what the medical authorities define "woman" as for purpose of policy. Disregarding the fact that the keyword here is policy, different cultures, specialties and subjects have different ideas of what a word means. Biologists, gynecologists, logicians, coroners, feminist writers, database administrators and artists surely have different ideas of what a "woman" is. I'm all for representing the variety of interpretations in the article, mind you, but I don't support going cherry-picking whatever best fits your agenda and using that. I challenge you to find one generalist encyclopaedia published in the last 15-20 years that defines "woman" significantly differently from "an adult human being of female sex". --InspectorRex (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- First, the relevant group of sources for Wikipedia is not "other generalist encyclopedias", it is all reliable sources. Second, I am contesting that legal and medical definitions of "woman" are the only ones that matter, but they do (increasingly) matter, and their differences - say, between OECD and non-OECD countries also matter.
- I am not for "cherry picking", I am for representing diverse viewpoints, and while I find that biological and gender role aspects of the topic are treated adequately in the current article, gender identity is not - in relation to the currently available reliable sources. It is fine to disagree with my position, but ASPERSIONS that I support cherry-picking or am proposing unsourced changes are baseless, and violate WP:AGF. Newimpartial (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- At a time when the medical authorities, as well as the UK, Canadian and NZ governments and many international organizations and academic sources, are endorsing "woman" as a gender identity rather than as a synonym for "cis woman", I think it is clear that consensus on this topic is breaking down. This is clearest when concentrating on sources from the last 20 years, as WP policy requires in cases where the consensus of authorities shifts over time. Newimpartial (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- As noted above, I'm not opposed to creating a "Gender identity" section (and breaking the gender identity aspect off from the "Biology and sex" section to go in the new one). I also suggested renaming the "Biology and sex" section to "Biology and gender." How to go about creating a Gender identity section and what it should entail is obviously something that can be worked out here on the talk page. For example, an editor can work on the section in their sandbox and then point to it here for review. The editor can also invite editors to help write it in their sandbox. As for privileging recent, reliable sources, Wikipedia actually does not unless, like I stated, consensus has changed on a matter and reliable sources explicitly note that consensus has changed. See WP:Recentism and WP:RSBREAKING. At the Recent African origin of modern humans article, we can't decide for ourselves that consensus has changed. And for medical articles, WP:MEDDATE's emphasis is more on whether the material is up-to-date than on how new the sources are. A source can be old, but still reflect today's consensus. WP:MEDDATE also addresses recentism. My above "07:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)" post concerns how Wikipedia works and the fact that the cisgender view of "woman" is still the prevalent view of "woman." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- That is an interesting argument, but I am not convinced that it actually engaged with what I am asking about, which would be a new section in "woman" as a gender identity. I am not suggesting that the arti be about "cis and trans women" equally, or about "gender roles and gender identities", employing some kind of FALSEBALANCE. What I am suggesting, among other things, is that hiding discussion of gender identiy within "biology and sex" gives a misleading view of what is being discussed in reliable sources on the article's topic. Also, WP is supposed to privilege recent, reliable sources, so the reality that gender identity has become important in these sources over the last 20 years is not a reason to hesitate in including them in this article. Newimpartial (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- By the lead of this article mentioning trans women and intersex women, it's clear that Wikipedia does not simply follow what dictionaries state anyway. Also, Wikipedia does not simply consider recent sources. Per WP:Due weight, it considers what the literature states as a whole and gives most of its weight to the majority view (unless it's something like scientific knowledge or scientific consensus having changed and we have reliable sources explicitly noting that). The majority view of a woman is still the cisgender viewpoint. So this is why the lead begins with that view. It's why the article should not be artificially balanced to be about both cisgender and trans women, which would hardly be any different than merging the Trans woman article into this article. It's still the case that the vast majority of the literature on women is about social issues, especially gender roles and gender inequality. It is significantly more about gender roles than it is about gender identity. All the article should have on gender identity is one section on it, if the material is to be split from the "Biology and sex" section. The article should not be artificially balanced to be half about gender identity. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose any unsourced changes that Newimpartial proposes. Userwoman (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Wording
The current wording of "a person whose sex assignment does not align with their gender identity, or those who have sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female (intersex)" only makes sense if you already know what it's trying to say. Otherwise it sounds more like it's saying "woman" is anyone who's trans/intersex. That's what I was trying to clarify. Lenina Libera (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Regarding this, this, this, this and this, we could state: "A woman may also be a trans woman (someone whose sex assignment does not align with their gender identity), or an intersex woman (someone with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female)." Yes, genderqueer people exist, but there are a number of identities regarding that matter, and it's often that a genderqueer person will not stick to identifying as a woman. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- The wording can benefit from improvement, but reducing a lifelong identity, socialization, and birth sex assignment to just a gender identity in the case of many women with intersex traits is inappropriate and “othering”. It should be noted that sex characteristics can be acquired as well as congenital. Trankuility (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- My edit removed "with regard to gender," and I mainly did that specifically with intersex people in mind. Like I stated, "may" could be argued as too strong a word for intersex people since so many intersex people do not know they are intersex and are usually considered male or female even if their chromosomes are not typical. They aren't usually treated as "other." And, as you know, the vast majority of intersex people identify as male/man or female/woman, even after finding out they are intersex. As for "acquired as well as congenital," I do not see that the lead needs to add that for intersex women. The lead is currently very small and should not given WP:Undue weight to the trans or intersex aspects. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- My comment about sex characteristics related to your statement about intersex people having sexual characteristics. Any text should note that intersex people are born with relevant sex characteristics. Otherwise the text also relates to people who have acquired atypical characteristics. Trankuility (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- I added "congenital." But it has created a WP:SEAOFBLUE issue. I thought about how to briefly include "congenital" without creating a SEAOFBLUE issue, but having it before "sexual characteristics" seemed best. "Congenital" redirects to the Birth defect article, and I know that some intersex people do not consider their intersex state a birth defect. So it might be better to go with "born with," like the Intersex article's lead sentence does. So I will try that now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- My comment about sex characteristics related to your statement about intersex people having sexual characteristics. Any text should note that intersex people are born with relevant sex characteristics. Otherwise the text also relates to people who have acquired atypical characteristics. Trankuility (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- My edit removed "with regard to gender," and I mainly did that specifically with intersex people in mind. Like I stated, "may" could be argued as too strong a word for intersex people since so many intersex people do not know they are intersex and are usually considered male or female even if their chromosomes are not typical. They aren't usually treated as "other." And, as you know, the vast majority of intersex people identify as male/man or female/woman, even after finding out they are intersex. As for "acquired as well as congenital," I do not see that the lead needs to add that for intersex women. The lead is currently very small and should not given WP:Undue weight to the trans or intersex aspects. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Lenina Libera, to say that a women is any person who is transgender includes trans men as well. Although we should be careful to not confuse woman (a female human) with a feminine gender identity. These two are not the same. Userwoman (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- This wasn't remotely helpful... EvergreenFir (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Lenina is right the current wording could be talking about trans women, trans men, or both (too vague). What about changing it (from "A woman may also be a person whose sex assignment does not align with their gender identity,[1] or an intersex person (someone born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female).") to:
- "Women may also be assigned male but be women by dint of their gender identity,[1] or may be intersex (born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female)."
or, incorporating phrasing somewhat more like Flyer's suggestion above:
- "Some women are trans (with a male sex assignment that does not align with their female gender identity) or intersex (born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female)."
? These are only starting-point suggestions, please suggest tweaks or entirely different wordings—I'm sure we can come up with something. -sche (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The wording rubs me the wrong way. I think it's an extremely hairy and wholly non-trivial problem. The point is that it's difficult to come up with a wording that essentially says "<<woman>> can also refer to trans women but for some purposes they-are-not-quite-the-same" in a way that's both encyclopaedically accurate and non-inflammatory enough to sit comfortably in the introductory paragraph. I can't help bu wonder: how do dead tree encylopaedias do it? --InspectorRex (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: I think we should go with my proposed wording above. I think it's concise and appropriate. It also avoids the "assigned male" issue that some people have been debating at the Trans woman talk page (and in the previous discussion before that one). And, of course, the "with" part of my proposal regarding intersex women should be "born with." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- For the record, I support the new wowding proposed by Flyer22, pending the writing of new material for the body of the article. Newimpartial (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- I have a problem with that wording ("A woman may also be a trans woman or an intersex woman"), specifically with the use of the verb "be" encoding an is-a relationship, which is something exceptionally strong. In fact, it's usually strong enough that there is no need to point it out in the introduction of an article - e.g. the "Dog" page does not say "a dog may also be a spaniel or a bulldog", precisely because it's obvious.
- "A trans woman is-a woman" is ontologically much more finicky, irrespective of how much you and I choose to like it; this is not a trivial question and not a new one (as an extreme example, to South American catholics the capybara - a rodent - literally was a fish for centuries), but I'd choose to at least aim to consistency within Wikipedia.
- In fact, the very first sentence of this page is "A woman is a female human being". And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female says that "Female (♀) is the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, that produces non-mobile ova (egg cells)", which is not a characteristic found in trans women (science is not quite there).
- I'd support "<<Woman>> can also refer to a trans woman or an intersex woman". The point is that, again, irrespective of how much you and I like it, it's a notion that's more or less true in time, space and across specialized disciplines.
- In the hope, of course, that the lawmakers of your countries or mine don't choose to use this page to decide whether or not to afford certain rights to certain people. --InspectorRex (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Update: I checked and none of my dead tree encyclopaedias, including quite recent ones, contain any copy of this sort. Which sort of supports the idea that we're looking at a meaning that's too transient or localized in time and space (read: US, 2013 to 2018) to belong in the introductory section of an encyclopaedic article, much less with an exceptionally strong wording such as "is-a". --InspectorRex (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Your dog comparison is ill-advised. Furthermore, no one disputes that a dog may also be a spaniel or a bulldog. As the aforementioned discussion at the Trans woman talk page shows, transgender matters are highly debated. We could state "A woman is also a trans woman," but not only is that inaccurate since a woman may or may not be trans, it would be subject to debate precisely because of the aforementioned Trans woman talk page discussion. "May be" is also obviously subject to debate because of those who do not view trans women as women, but there is no getting around the fact that "woman" is in the term "trans woman." As for "refer to," see WP:Refers. This is not a term article. Although the trans woman and intersex woman material is not in the lead sentence, it's still best to not restrict trans women and intersex women to just a term. And a lead sentence definition does not exclude other aspects of a definition/topic anyway. Wikipedia commonly begins with the most common definition first. That definition does not negate a minority definition. As for including material in leads, since trans and intersex women are discussed lower in the article, we should mention them in the lead. See WP:Lead. Yes, the lead is small and needs expansion. As an alternative, we could state: "There are also trans women (those who have a sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity) and intersex women (those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female)." By "none of [your] dead tree encyclopaedias" and "exceptionally strong wording such as 'is-a'," I take it you are referring to trans women? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Why would my dog comparison be ill-advised? It's a textbook example of is-a, or hyponymy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyponymy_and_hypernymy). As for the rest, I fold. My objections in terms of inconsistency between the first five words and the wording currently used still stands. --InspectorRex (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ill-advised or ill-considered, whichever. If you don't see an issue with comparing wording for gender identity or a trans woman to wording for a type of dog, then I don't know what to tell you. Furthermore, "may be" is already used in the lead. All my proposed wording does is clear up the fact that we don't mean everyone who is trans or intersex. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Why would my dog comparison be ill-advised? It's a textbook example of is-a, or hyponymy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyponymy_and_hypernymy). As for the rest, I fold. My objections in terms of inconsistency between the first five words and the wording currently used still stands. --InspectorRex (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Your dog comparison is ill-advised. Furthermore, no one disputes that a dog may also be a spaniel or a bulldog. As the aforementioned discussion at the Trans woman talk page shows, transgender matters are highly debated. We could state "A woman is also a trans woman," but not only is that inaccurate since a woman may or may not be trans, it would be subject to debate precisely because of the aforementioned Trans woman talk page discussion. "May be" is also obviously subject to debate because of those who do not view trans women as women, but there is no getting around the fact that "woman" is in the term "trans woman." As for "refer to," see WP:Refers. This is not a term article. Although the trans woman and intersex woman material is not in the lead sentence, it's still best to not restrict trans women and intersex women to just a term. And a lead sentence definition does not exclude other aspects of a definition/topic anyway. Wikipedia commonly begins with the most common definition first. That definition does not negate a minority definition. As for including material in leads, since trans and intersex women are discussed lower in the article, we should mention them in the lead. See WP:Lead. Yes, the lead is small and needs expansion. As an alternative, we could state: "There are also trans women (those who have a sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity) and intersex women (those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female)." By "none of [your] dead tree encyclopaedias" and "exceptionally strong wording such as 'is-a'," I take it you are referring to trans women? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Update: I checked and none of my dead tree encyclopaedias, including quite recent ones, contain any copy of this sort. Which sort of supports the idea that we're looking at a meaning that's too transient or localized in time and space (read: US, 2013 to 2018) to belong in the introductory section of an encyclopaedic article, much less with an exceptionally strong wording such as "is-a". --InspectorRex (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- The dog example is an easily understood textbook example (as in, you can find it in textbooks) of an is-a relationship and serves to illustrate a point about ontology. If it offends you, I don't know what to tell you - except "stay away from Philosophy 201". InspectorRex (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Poor logic. And I'm not personally offended, but I do think about how things might offend others, especially when dealing with sensitive subjects. It is not uncommon, for example, for people who oppose transgender identities to compare a transgender person to someone identifying as a non-human animal (such as a dog, with some argument such as "but that person is not really a dog"). Either way, you have given no valid reason for not going with clearer language. Like I stated, "may be" is already used in the lead. All we want to do is add a clearer version of it. And we will...if you do not give a valid reason for not doing so and leaving the lead in a state that can suggest that we mean everyone who is trans or intersex. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- The main concern I have about Flyer's wording is that, like the existing wording, it's only clear if you already know what it's getting at: if you don't know what "trans woman" means and assume it means someone who doctors/parents assigned/raised as a woman on the basis of just-mentioned characteristics like being capable of giving birth, but who is now trans (i.e. what would actually be termed a trans man), the parenthetical "someone whose sex assignment does not align with their gender identity" is consistent with this (mis)interpretation. That's why I suggest clarifying "...female gender identity" (or another adjective in that vein, like "feminine" or "womanly"), if not also clarifying the "sex assignment" part. Add that adjective in, and it's workable. :)
I mean, I do also think that following "A woman is a [A. ...] Women with typical genetic development are usually [B, C, D]." with some variation of "Some women are [E or F]." sounds better than "A woman may also be [E or F]", but that's subjective and much less of a concern to me than the first thing. -sche (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)- Except for missing "born with," I don't see an issue with my initial proposed wording. What "trans woman" means is briefly noted within parentheses, and is not much different than your second proposed wording. The only difference is that you use "male sex assignment" and "female gender identity," which is wording that could easily be added on to my proposed wording, so that it reads as "someone whose male sex assignment does not align with their female gender identity" or "someone with a male sex assignment that does not align with their female gender identity." I don't think anyone would think we mean trans men simply because "male" and "female" are not there. People will be clicking on the links anyway. As the trans woman debating indicates, average readers likely won't understand what we mean by "sex assignment" anyway unless they are familiar with trans topics and/or click on the link. If we are to go with one of your suggested wordings, the second is best. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Changed to this, per above (followup note here). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)