Talk:Woman/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Transgender woman suggestions for picture

I notice that the grid with pictures of women contains no pictures of transgender women, which could be taken to bolster the incorrect idea that such women are not "real" women. I also see that the grid contains a picture of a goddess - Isis - who is not human and thus not an "adult human female", which this article is supposed to be about. Perhaps Isis could be replaced with a picture of a transgender woman? I would suggest Christine Jorgensen but I am open to other suggestions. Maranjosie (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I support this and agree with point about Isis. I'd suggest Andreja Pejić and Laverne Cox as possibilities. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add an image of a transwoman in the body of the article. The article only mentions transwomen once. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm thinking maybe Laverne Cox in the grid replacing Isis and Andreja Pejić replacing the Venus symbol in the biology and gender section of the body of the article, since there is already another picture of Venus (the painting that says "Venus, a classical image of youthful female beauty in Western art") in that section in the body of the article. I'll give it a week from now to see if any objections are made, if not I'll try it. 71.175.26.106 (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Or we could just remove all of the images because they are in fact undue weight, giving prominence to an arbitrarily selected few out of the billions that have existed in history. I doubt that there is anyone who reads Wikipedia who cannot visualise what a woman looks like, even those using screen-readers. - Sitush (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how having a variety of images of women, as the article currently does, including a female biology image, can be argued as WP:Undue weight. Of course we can't display every woman who has existed in the world; similar can be stated of having an image of anything in a Wikipedia article. We can't have an image of every single thing that ever existed; often, we can't even have an image of every type of a topic that has existed (if there are too many types to display, especially in an encyclopedic manner). The point of an image is to give an example. And giving examples of what a woman may look like at a certain age, of a certain color, while naked, while breastfeeding, while working, etc., are all images that help aid readers, just like the variety of images at the Man article do, despite being able to picture a woman or a man in any of these ways. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not just for adults; these pictures are going to especially help little kids better understand the topic, even with their big imaginations, which is why such images are often in school books.

As for transgender only being mentioned once in the article, that's not true. If it were, per WP:Lead, it should be removed from the lead unless discussed lower in the article. However, like I noted, it is a topic that is discussed lower in the article -- in the Biology and gender section. The "Women are typically capable of giving birth from puberty until menopause, although some intersex and transgender women cannot." line that is in the lead, though, needs more tweaking. I realize that Sitush tweaked it recently, but either version gives the impression that transgender women can give birth to children. Unless by transgender, one is talking about the topic of third gender or genderqueer, or transgender women who are intersex, the transgender part needs tweaking since girls assigned male at birth based on their genitalia cannot give birth once they are adults unless they have the biology to do so (might be possible if intersex). Flyer22 (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The mention of intersex and transgender should be presented better in the lead anyway, instead of as an afterthought with regard to fertility. Flyer22 (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

My opinions on the lead photos. 1)Don't remove them. 2) Move Sappho down to "Science, literature and art" and use that space for a transgender woman. I'd suggest the most well-known, Christine Jorgenson. We don't need two representative photos and I strongly object to deleting Isis. Gandydancer (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds like a good compromise. If nobody objects, a week from now, I will move Sappho down to science, literature, and art and use that space for Christine Jorgensen. I know the grid can't give examples of every type of woman, but I think an example of a transgender woman is especially important because some deny such women are women at all, and we don't want to be seeming to perpetuate that idea. Maranjosie (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd argue for taking them out of Man as well. They've already gone from caste-related articles. Images that are specific to a subject, eg: a photo of a person in a bio article, are fine. Broad-brush images are inherently subject to pov. Why not find some images of completely non-notable women on Commons and we use them instead, if we must use at all. And, actually, if some people argue that transgender women are not women then that is an excellent reason not to have a transgender woman in the imagebox because it most clearly would be pushing a POV. - Sitush (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

A single photo causes frequent arguments and the grouping has been a good solution. Gandydancer (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Opps - misread your post. You have suggested multiple non-notable women. I prefer what we've got. Makes more sense to me. Gandydancer (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure Christine Jorgensen is a notable trans woman. Georgia guy (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

You mean, do these such people have a perfectly okay point of view to be entitled to?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The idea that transgender women are not "real" women has already been debunked in the body of the article as well as many other articles on Wikipedia that mention transgender women, and is thus not a valid objection. Are there any other objections to my replacing the picture of Sappho in the grid with a picture of Christine Jorgensen, and placing a picture of Sappho in the science, literature, and art section? Maranjosie (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure in agreement and I give you a lot of credit for bringing the issue to our attention in the first place - it's something important that I never thought about. Gandydancer (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment. If a newly-registered or un-registered user notices this talk page section, it is likely that they might want to say something like "No. Such a woman really is a man, and this is a biological fact. Real women lack a Y-chromosome," as their comment as a reason to oppose. (The quotation in the preceding sentence is only a statement that I'm referring to; I'm not saying it's true.) Please close this section as soon as a consensus among registered users for at least a week is reached. (My own opinion is to support this change.)Georgia guy (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

For clarification, "support this change" means support the change that this section of the talk page is talking about, which is a change in the image at the top of the article. Georgia guy (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, it seems like we've got a consensus. I put a picture of Sappho in the science, literature, and art section. Can somebody please replace the picture of Sappho in the grid with a picture of Christine Jorgensen? I'm sorry but I can't figure out how, so if anybody could do it for me that would be a great help. Maranjosie (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Neither can I. It's a single image with lots of pictures. Georgia guy (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Bleff is the author of that image. Maybe they can help. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I wrote a message on Bleff's talk page but Bleff didn't respond. Georgia guy (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I can replace it, but there's not a picture of Christine Jorgensen I can use.--Bleff (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Christine Jorgensen article reveals a picture of herself. Georgia guy (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

But that picture is not free to use; look at the licence. The non-free use rationale will allow it to be used on the article in question, but wouldn't allow its use here. If you need more information, read Wikipedia:Non-free content. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, try to upload a free picture of CJ to replace the appropriate part of the picture in this article. Georgia guy (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Other names were suggested if Christine Jorgensen's image is not available. Personally I like Laverne Cox. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

So, re-upload the image by taking out Isis and putting in Laverne Cox. Georgia guy (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get to it tonight. Image would need cropping and added into current collage. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I've uploaded a version with Laverne Cox instead of Sappho. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I've been thinking, if it isn't too much to ask, do you think we might also put a picture of a transgender man (maybe Chaz Bono?) in the picture grid for Man? I tried to ask on the talk page for Man but nobody answered. I thought we could replace the picture of Vitruvian Man since it is also shown further down on the Man page. Maranjosie (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot tonight. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}}18:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Cool! How do you do that? 71.175.26.106 (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I used a program called Paint.NET to edit out the one square, then using layers I took the new image, scaled it down, and positioned it into the blank square. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I think all of the images should be removed. I don't think the reader needs examples of women. What purpose does this photo-box serve? Bus stop (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, and I already addressed why above. Nothing more for me to state on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

WARNING: there are plans going on a trans-hate site to remove this edit specifically for transphobic purposes. http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2014/08/22/laverne-cox-launches-media-campaign-in-support-of-transwoman-synthia-china-blast-convicted-for-the-rape-murder-and-abuse-of-the-corpse-of-thirteen-year-old-ebony-nicole-williams/#comment-40195 I am not sure what preventive measures, if any, can be taken, but at least have to alert the community. Ramendik (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. We had some edits from the same site on War on Women. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Now this one was a surprise. But at least, praemonitis praemunitis, etc. Ramendik (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

OTRS note We have had very similar notes emailed to us, however due to this discussion, I have directed then here. You may need to expect a bit of an influx, especially if the email is leaked outside the recipient. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

external link/female tennis players

I should think this would make an excellent external link to this article. Yet my edit was reverted. This is a link to The New York Times. It is about "female tennis players". I'd like to hear the opinions of others. Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I really don't see what it adds to the article. The only connection is the gender of the people, but the link is primarily about tennis. I also have some concerns that it's objectifying. No similar gallery for men. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It is about physicality in women; it isn't only "about tennis". What do you mean by "objectifying"? These are women exerting both body and mind in sport. You say there is no "similar gallery for men". What is your point? We use relevant material. Relevant material does not become irrelevant when its counterpart is absent from a corresponding article. Bus stop (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

My comment on "no gallery for men" was questioning the motives/intentions of the artist. The photos talk about "beauty" (though through strength) and only has images of women. But that aside, in my opinion the link fails based on #1 and #13 in WP:ELNO. I'll let someone else weigh in on the issue and if there are others who disagree with me, I'd concede. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What "photos" are you referring to? There are videos of 7 tennis players. You say you are questioning the motives of the "artist". What "artist" are you referring to, and how would we know about "motivations"? This is The New York Times and the topic is tennis. Would that cause one to suspect less than noble "motivations"? I can't fathom how WP:ELNO is ruling out the external link. The subject of this article is obviously "women". A good quality source explores by exceptionally good quality video the functioning of 7 very exceptional female sports players. Our policy of WP:ELNO discourages the inclusion of external links to such material? Bus stop (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I also don't see what it adds. Is the point that women play tennis? Or is it that we produce film of them playing, in designer outfits with special studio lighting and effects, with high-speed cameras, so we can watch in slow motion? It's nice and all, but I can't discern anything significant about this. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Their bodies and their minds are functioning at a very high level. These are extremely talented women. Bus stop (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure that's true, but I wouldn't know that from the videos, since they're staged. The only thing provably demonstrated is their ability to perform on cue, and others' ability to enjoy watching them. That last part leaves me slightly uncomfortable, and there's no other significance presented to counter this. --A D Monroe III (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Many things are "staged". We need not omit external links on the basis that they are "staged". On a tennis court too a "staged" event takes place, the difference being that the tennis court is the normal setting for that activity. It is not the staging in the video at our external link that allows for the muscular actions, fast reaction times, or calm and steady visual contact with the tennis ball. Rather it is the professionalism in the other stage, the real tennis court, that allows for this. Only these tennis players can perform at this level. These are a group of some of the most highly developed international athletes. You are denigrating them when you say "The only thing provably demonstrated is their ability to perform on cue..." They are demonstrating that which they are most noted for but they are demonstrating that under the controlled conditions that allow for the creation of a high quality visual record in the form of a video. Would you say that there is a significant disconnect between the skills these women demonstrate on the real tennis court and the skills that they display on the New York Times video? I would say not. I would say that few if any other human beings on the planet Earth could handle a tennis racket and hit a tennis ball as we see these 7 women do on this video. Isn't this article about Women? The names of the seven women featured in the video by the way are Kim Clijsters, Serena Williams, Elena Dementieva, Jelena Jankovic, Samantha Stosur, Victoria Azarenka, and Vera Zvonareva. Bus stop (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd be fine if the videos were about the tennis players, but it's only about how they look. We can guess at the intent of this, but nothing is stated. At best, it's simply vague. Why add it? I've nothing more to say. --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not about the tennis players? I see 7 professional tennis players. Do you see something different? How is it not about the tennis players? You are being coy. If you object to the external link, please articulate your objection. You say that you "can guess at the intent of this". We are not "guessing". We are actually speaking with one another. In my opinion we should provide an external link at an article on Women to seven women who allowed themselves to be filmed doing something that they are exceedingly good at—the sport of tennis. I am astounded that you can say "I'd be fine if the videos were about the tennis players, but it's only about how they look." They "look" however they look. As far as I can tell they look like themselves. They all look different. I would assume they chose their costumes on their own. I don't think they were coerced to wear costumes other than costumes of their own choosing. Do you doubt their intelligence? These are unique individuals with a high degree of proficiency in tennis in common, and I assume they voluntarily engaged in the reenactment of their activity on-court, under controlled circumstances that allowed for a very high quality video documentation of the way they play the sport of tennis when played under normal conditions. You would not get such a high quality video if it were made on an actual court during an actual tennis match. They are engaged in a reenactment of almost precisely what transpires on an actual tennis court. The musculature of the female body is distinct from that of a male body. We don't have to shy away from showing the female body in motion, under the control of a powerful and precise musculature. It is completely baffling that you are objecting to a very good quality external link. You are not articulating any objection to showing the female body in motion, so what is your objection to the video at the external link that I attempted to add to the article? In my opinion this is an important document. I think this document is on-topic as concerns this article. There isn't any reason for excluding the document we are discussing, or at least you have not articulated any reason. Women can be physical in sport. These seven women are top-notch in this particular sphere of activity known as tennis. Physical agility represents a longstanding and important facet of females. Haven't there always been females that were particularly strong and agile—even in comparison to men? Each of the tennis players already has an article on our project. And The New York Times is hardly a source lacking in journalistic stature. These are women who represent how strong and physically fit women can be. Bus stop (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I've initiated a discussion here at the External links/Noticeboard. Bus stop (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You still don't have local consensus. Frankly the EL is just "fitness porn". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Catchy phrase there—"fitness porn". Please tell me in what way this is "porn"? Kim Clijsters, Serena Williams, Elena Dementieva, Jelena Jankovic, Samantha Stosur, Victoria Azarenka, and Vera Zvonareva are tennis players. They are virtually the best tennis players in the world. Do you mean that they also dabble in pornography? Bus stop (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a catchy phrase that I took from this article. But that's just my personal opinion on it. Still feel it violates WP:ELNO as I mentioned on the ELN. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

A link doesn't violate WP:ELNO simply because you say it does, unless the violation is very obvious. You've presented no argument. You've simply pointed to the sections #1 and #13 at WP:ELNO. You've engaged in no lengthier argument beyond asserting that a violation exists. Please tell me in what way the link I tried to add to the external links section of the article is in violation of the policy language found at those two sections of WP:ELNO. Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Composite image

Sorry I missed this discussion last month. Anyway, I'm down for continuing to include Ms. Cox in the composite, but may I suggest that instead of replacing a real person, she replace a fictional person? So we'd restore Sappho and remove Venus or Isis. This would also restore a woman writer to the composite, which currently lacks any women who were/are primarily authors. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

An author is an occupation. Do authors have special properties that makes you say this?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed and it was decided to move Sappho down to the Arts etc. section. Gandydancer (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that that was discussed above, yes, but it's not as though there was a big discussion as to which of the women in the existing composite should be removed. I'm objecting to the removal of Sappho and suggesting that we remove one of the fictional women instead, that is, Venus, Venus, or Isis (in order to keep the image, it could be moved down to Religion). I think it's a problem that the current version contains no authors, as writing is generally acknowledged to be an important contribution to society. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I strongly support removing the image of Sappho. Deviants like that should not be depicted in an encyclopedia article meant for the whole world, not only for Western perverts and degenerates. ″a woman writer″? Harlot and Beelzebul! Abdurrahman Muslim (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Biologically male

Although women typically have a female reproductive system, some intersex people with ambiguous genitals, and biologically male transgender people, may also be classified or self-identify as a woman.

This statement appears to point towards the statement that trans women are really men who call themselves women simply because they want to. We need to alter the above statement to make it not point towards this statement so much. Georgia guy (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Biology does not consider an individual's feelings, self-image, or even their brain structure or chemistry when classifying the individual's sex. --NoPetrol (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think it points to exactly what it says: "some intersex people with ambiguous genitals, and biologically male transgender people, may also be classified or self-identify as a woman." Rather than "really men" or "simply because they want to", it says "biologically male" and "may also be classified or self-identify". These are wholly accurate and starkly contrast with what you say they "point to". Am I wrong? 04:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.46.33 (talk)

Yes, just like your whole life is 71.246.152.92 (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There needs to be more information in here about transsexual women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.144.215 (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Seconded, there is a severe lack of information about transgender/transsexual women. I'm unsure if it would be considered cissexist to have a new section to include more information on intersex and transgender/transsexual women, but something does need to added to address the imbalance.Oneboikyle (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I was directed to this wiki page by a discussion in a feminist group. The main concern which caught our attention was that the primary person representing all woman is Laverne Cox who is actually a transgender actor who happens to be the star of a silly reality TV show. Even if Cox were biologically female, this individual does not belong in the same pantheon as the other figures such as Marie Curie. Not only is it silly for Cox to be there but to be listed as the FIRST woman in the image lineup is simply ridiculous. The other concern is that the entire article is a huge mess in terms of mix-matching the terms sex and gender. People who are not familiar with the difference in the meaning of the words have mixed them up throughout the entire article. This ties directly into the transgender representation. Transgender MtF's and intersex are only considered women by some people talking about women in the gender sphere. When you talk about a woman in a biological sense then the word gender does not come into play and you are only talking about human females. Audaxski (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

As for the statement "Transgender MtF's and intersex are only considered women by some people talking about women in the gender sphere"; these "some people" are people who understand transgenderism properly. We have many people who don't. Georgia guy (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Those who you say in your opinion "understand transgenderism properly" are using an incorrect definition of gender which was introduced somewhat recently. This wiki article is not about the definition(s) of gender, it is defining a "woman" which as the article says is an adult human female which is most definitely not a trans-woman. If you want to include an addendum about trans-woman in the context of sociology and 3rd and 4th wave feminism that is one thing but having an MtF as the primary representation of a woman is nuts. The word gender also needs to be almost entirely removed from the article because the article is actually talking about sex. Audaxski (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no one way to define gender; some sources and people, like me, often go by the sex and gender distinction; other sources and people do not. There are feminists, like the Sex and gender distinction article notes, who do not go by that distinction. Also see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Gender identity#The Goal (a WP:Permalink for that discussion is here). The term woman is far more of a social category than it is a sex category. Woman is more so a social category; female is more so a sex category. And even so, many sources and people use the terms interchangeably to mean the same thing. Flyer22 (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you are basically agreeing with me on the gender issue with the indication that others are trying to use a new definition of gender related to transgender politics but the main concern was that the article is using a biologically male individual with little contribution to society as the primary representation of a woman. Audaxski (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Forum-like posts

I suggest that any post in this talk page that references any variant of the statement that trans women are not real women (including any person-specific example of this statement) should be considered a forum-like post and be reverted immediately. Any thoughts anyone has here?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Laverne Cox' presence on that Wikipedia article depends on whether or not Cox is a woman AND the contributions Cox has made for women. That is I why I propose Cox' immediate removal and a substitution with either Sappho or an equivalent historical personality. Yes, mentioning Laverne Cox is a person-specific example, but Cox or any other trans woman being on that page is a factual error and a blatant disregard for historical women. Advokata1 (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

We are all entitled to an opinion. Wikipedia does not delete opinions that we don't agree with. Gandydancer (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean, it's a perfectly okay opinion people have that trans women are just men who make up fake identities by arbitrarily lying?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If you can name some contributions Cox has made for women or, more generally, a good reason why Cox deserves a space in that page, then fine. All I have seen is a history of talking over women, ignorance of female biology and even support of a child rapist (because he decided in prison that he was a woman). Cox' male socialisation is visible.Advokata1 (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Advokata1, do you really think trans women are simply men who arbitrarily lie by calling themselves women?? Please do research to find out what they actually are. Georgia guy (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"Lie" was not the word I used (or would have used) at all. Gender identity and expression may change at one's will, but biological sex does not. Which is why I objected to Cox' presence on that page. All the examples of women on that article feature biological women (women who born women), so why is an exception being made for Cox?Advokata1 (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

An important part of respecting trans women is to understand what they contrast with. They contrast with cisgender women, not with biological women. Georgia guy (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Advokata1: Please do not misgender trans individuals. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Transgender women, you say, contrast with cisgender women. The ugly duckling contrasted with the beautiful ducklings. It thought of itself as a duckling. But it was not a duckling. And it could not become one. 86.45.0.228 (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The Ugly Duckling is a fairy tale. In reality, there is no such thing as "transspeciesism". Only transgenderism exists. Georgia guy (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a huge tangent but the person was making an analogy not a literal point but regardless you are totally wrong in your assertion. The same condition exists in both aspects but otherkin do not have the same options. Audaxski (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend removing her as well as she is not an important figure in history. I do not find her relevant enough to be a part of this article. Sappho should get back, and if we need a transwoman in the header I believe it would be better to have one from the Stonewall riots. 83.250.248.61 (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This is an article about women, not the history of women. Georgia guy (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If that were the case, you could remove all of the images and replace them with a single clinical diagram. Audaxski (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Sappho's picture

Recently the picture of Sappho's bust was removed from the header image for this article and substituted by Laverne Cox's, as well as the link to Sappho's article. Sappho is an incredibly important historical figure, the only woman among the nine great greek poets. She was also the only lesbian woman in the header image, which is definitely something important for an article about women. While it's relevant for Laverne Cox or other trans women to be added, it shouldn't be at the expense of Sappho. It would be better to add another line of pictures to add pictures of trans women if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.110.169.21 (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's important to have one trans woman in the image. Georgia guy (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The contributor above was not saying that there shouldn't be a trans woman in the collage, but that that addition should not be at the cost of a significant historical figure and the only lesbian. Sappho was removed, but two fictional women and an artistic depiction/fertility image were preserved. Isis or Aphrodite should get the boot, and Sappho should go back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.217.196 (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me we don't need two Venuses. One will do, replace the other with Sappho. There's no comparably important ancient female author, with the (very) arguable exception of Homer. I'd probably keep WiIlmendorf, an actual artifact reflecting the artist's actual belief in Venus, rather than Bougereau, a 19th century artist's conception of a deity he didn't believe existed.- Nunh-huh 00:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI - "Venus" of Willendorf doesn't represent the same Venus that Bouguereau's does, but rather (possibly) an unknown Paleolithic fertility goddess. It's not a content duplicate. There are points in favor of each one (the ubiquity of Venus as a symbol of femininity, the importance of a really ancient depiction like Willendorf, an identifiable goddess like Isis depicted by a believer), although, as I said, I think it's more important to include an author (the point about including a lesbian is also good) than a fictional person. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, so I'm hearing that lesbians should be represented and thus Sappho should be readded, and Venus removed? If that's the case, I can do that in a day or two. Also, it's important to note that the order of the images means nothing about their importance. That Cox is top left does not implies she is somehow more important (remember, top left is not "first" everywhere in the world). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is written in English where top left is in fact first. If this was a coincidence of alphabetization you would have a case but you are reaching for something that is not there. Audaxski (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Audaxski It's only in that location because that's where the Sappho image was. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there any rhyme or reason to the order? Whoever is doing the job of swapping out images (and there seems to be at least a weak consensus to restore Sappho at the expense of one of the fictional people), would it be a huge pain in the ass to re-order chronologically or something? (Personally, I think I like it better visually if it goes through artistic depictions, b/w photographs, and color photographs.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no vote on the order, but please keep Laverne Cox in the image. Georgia guy (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Roscelese: It would be a pain in the ass to be honest, but it's possible. I'm keeping an eye on this page, but have been rather busy. If someone wants a change to the image, I can do the edit. Just message me or ping me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll make sure that I or someone else does when all changes have been agreed upon, so you're not wasting your time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised that it is not seen as an added "honor", so as to speak, that Sappho gets her own section rather than being just one of many. I think that she fits so well in the section that she is now in... But to those that do not see it that way, I can see the reasoning that the composite is not complete without a representative of writing/poetry. What about deleting the Queen of Sheba and putting Sappho there? Gandydancer (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sheba is noted in multiple cultures and traditions, and is "real" insofar as historians believe that the title refers to an actual person. I think that Bougereau's painting is the most expendable from the collage. (If it must be cut? Would 3 more women be hard to find?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.217.196 (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend replacing Mother Theresa given she's a far more contentious figure in terms of representing women. Sappho should absolutely be there, as both a transwoman and lesbian both groups should be represented. Also - there are no sex workers in the image. I'd recommend perhaps replacing Venus, or maybe even Marilyn Monroe with Veronica Franco, who is an extremely important historical feminist figure. Also, perhaps look into adding a Muslim woman, and a historical representation of a witch or village wisewoman type figure.Little Miss Desu (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I support putting Sappho back in the picture. In addition, I don't think it's important that a sex worker is added. There are female chemists, female physicists, female teachers, female soldiers, female store clerks in history - I don't think sex workers are that special of a job group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.214.238.133 (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Trans inclusion in header?

Now that the trans topic is discussed anyway: is "a female human" a complete description? Especially with "female" linked to an article defining "female" by ova. I'm not exactly sure how to phrase it better without going into some form of ideology and I'm definitely NOT making any hasty edits. This is just something for consideration of the editors here - perhaps the heading should be made trans inclusive in some way? Another thing to consider for the formula: goddesses have been described as women without actually being human. All the same issues apply to Man too, of course. Ramendik (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

also found a very good paragraph in the Man article - how about reusing it here? "Biological factors are not sufficient determinants of whether a person considers themselves a man or is considered a man. Intersex individuals, who have physical and/or genetic features considered to be mixed or atypical for one sex or the other, may use other criteria in making a clear determination. There are also transgender and transsexual men, who were assigned as female at birth, but identify as men; there are varying social, legal and individual definitions with regard to these issues. (See transman.)" change man to woman, of course. Will do this one if not contradicted for a couple of days. Ramendik (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That seems like good language to use. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the current lead of the article, where do you want your proposal included in the lead? I mentioned in the Talk:Woman#Transgender woman suggestions for picture section above that there is a problem with the "[w]omen are typically capable of giving birth from puberty until menopause" line; your text could replace that bit nicely, and then describe reproductive issues more accurately. The wording "a female human" should remain somewhere very early on in the lead, if not the very first sentence, given that it is the most common definition of the term woman (actually, the word adult is usually included). We should definitely respect the WP:Due weight policy in that regard. WP:LEADSENTENCE is a guide for how to begin the first sentence, whether we make it more inclusive of transgender people or leave it as it is, and let the rest of the lead paragraph address the topic of gender identity...like it currently does. Flyer22 (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You are either biologically male or female. How about you just leave facts alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.133.206 (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, trans women have a brain structure similar to those of cisgender women; and brain structure is an important biological property of a person. Georgia guy (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

1%-2% of the population is intersex, so no. Regardless, gender is about identity, not chromosomes, hormones, and gonads. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Please Add...

• {{Feminism}}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.221.112 (talk • contribs)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I propose we add a picture of a transsexual woman

Transsexual women are woman even though they are not genetically or biologically a female. They are legally known as women and consider themselves as women. Gender is very fluid and we need some representation that does not automatically fit a stereotypical mold or definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.15.212 (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Transsexual women are female. Gelatinous cubism (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to add an image of a trans woman, then perhaps you should go and add one. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Go to Christine Jorgensen. Images of such a person can be found in their own article. Georgia guy (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

They are not female because they are biological male.--93.128.1.34 (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree If you were born a man, you are a man. Changing your external features doesn't change that you're a man. 71.60.35.185 (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Somebody please watch the edits to this section of the talk page. Georgia guy (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a great suggestion, I also noticed that the head picture is sorely lacking women in STEM/Business. Considering this I would suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Conway Her contributions to the field of computer science were key, as discussed here: http://www.engin.umich.edu/college/about/news/stories/2014/april/thank-lynn-conway-for-your-cell-phone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.89.74 (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's great to have a transgender woman included but we could really do with a more well known example than Laverne Cox. In the UK hardly anyone knows her and in less Americanised cultures I'm sure it's even worse. Chelsea Manning makes a lot more sense to me to include. Wikiditm (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Cox first - really?

Don't get me wrong, I'm on board with gender and racial diversity, but is Laverne Cox really the first woman that comes to mind over Cleopatra, Joan of Arc, Venus, or Mother Theresa? I agree that Cox, a trans woman of color, has a place in the composite, but first on the woman article is a little overkill, dare I say - tokenistic?

Just the $0.02 of a random anon.

--75.68.111.172 (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Woman Montage (1).jpg

Since the meaning of Woman is "human female" there is no way to make some images in the montage fit. "Isis" is a goddess not a human. We could also say the same about the two Venuses, but that is less clear. Why not change Isis image to Cleopatra VII? tahc ^chat 16:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to make any change, because the female gods do represent the feminine and therefore symbolize the human female form in the myths. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Since this article is Woman and not Femininity, I think your reasoning is misplaced. Are you just saying you don't want to do this yourself, or that there is any actual reason to avoid it at all? tahc ^chat 01:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I agree that there is reasoning misplacement here, but not mine. When one considers that as recently as August of this year, a bust of Sappho was replaced with an image of Laverne Cox, a notable and openly transgender person, then one might feel that "female" gods are appropriate inclusions in this montage. In my humble opinion, they are. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Isis and Venus shouldn't be here. Instead I suggest:

• Queen Victoria
• George Sand
• Simone de Beauvoir
• Virginia Woolf
• Coco Chanel
• Rosa Parks
• Margaret Thatcher
• Katharine Hepburn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1A:BA30 (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The word "woman" is used for female deities when depicting them as humans, so I don't think it's inappropriate to have these. Nature itself is sometimes called a woman too, but that would be too abstract. I don't think the image should be restricted just to human women when the word is used outside that context.Wikiditm (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

But this article is about human women, not deities. I think Eleanor Roosevelt should be added to the montage. She was a wonderful woman for many reasons and represents one the best of us in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.197 (talk • contribs)

Should this really be a one-paragraph lead?

[1] Red Slash 05:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it should not be only one paragraph, but your suggested edit was more than inadequate. It summarized counter to the actual content of the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)