Talk:Femininity/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Proposed lead

...Deteriorates into pretty much a 2-way conversation. Dave said "I added examples because I think its a no brainer" and said feel free to discuss if you object to any of my extra changes (Talk:Femininity/Archive_2#Extra_section_break). All right. I usually defer to those who came before me, and do so again here. Dave left us his thinking at Talk:Femininity/Archive_of_common_concerns#Removal_of_.E2.80.9Cbiologically-created.E2.80.9D_from_Social_construction_sentence and the IP thought his or her ideas are pretty much "bullet proof".

User:Dave3457 and User:209.226.31.161, because of the time lapsed (over two years), I will post a note to each of your talk pages. I would like the lead of this article to omit a list of traits. It's fine if you want to add detail later in the article. Would you please defend your stance that biological factors are partly responsible for determining femininity?

Proposed lead:-SusanLesch (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

"Femininity (also called womanliness or womanhood) is a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles generally associated with girls and women. It is distinct from the definition of the biological female sex, as both men and women can exhibit feminine traits. Traits associated with femininity vary depending on location and context, and are influenced by a variety of social and cultural factors. The counterpart to femininity is masculinity."

Nopes. I can't agree to that. Are you going to keep attempting to get the traditional traits, and still commonly cited traits, regarding femininity out of the lead, SusanLesch? Are you going to keep attempting to get the note that femininity is partially biologically-influenced out of the lead? Yeah, I think "biologically-created factors" broaches "partially biologically-influenced." Please try to keep the feminism bias out of this article, unless imparting that view neutrally. Many reliable sources exist saying that femininity (yep, I mean what we call feminine behavior) is sometimes (can be) partly rooted in biology. So the lead should also broach that. Kaldari is tired of people not understanding femininity. So am I. Repeatedly claiming that it's only socially constructed does not make it so. Higher up, in the section titled "Please remove traits from the lede," I told Kaldari that a lot of reliable sources "give or debate the argument that 'feminine behavior is sometimes influenced by biology'" and "There is a biological vs. sociological femininity debate among scholars, for reasons partly shown in this article, and we should document that neutrally. Neither side has won in the debate. But hardly any scholar says that femininity is only biologically influenced." There is nothing to defend, and leaving a note for that IP is a waste of time, but I will shoot Dave3457 an email. I call Darkfrog24 too because that editor understands how biology can influence gender (which, as is obvious, includes the masculinity and femininity components), and participated in the RfC about defining femininity. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You still misunderstand my entire argument. If I used your definition of femininity, I would agree with you 100%. But we are using entirely different definitions of femininity. Kaldari (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

How about "traits considered feminine can vary depending on location and context and these beliefs are influenced by a variety of social and cultural factors"? The "considered" would establish that we're talking about the way human beings think about biological gender and how it's translated into human culture rather than any objective and absolute reality. But the comma before "and" has to go. That's not an independent clause. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Susan, it is entirely possible for us to write about beliefs without endorsing those beliefs. For example, we have an article on Adam and Eve, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia endorses their literal existence. Is there any way that we can explain what femininity is traditionally described as without making you feel like we are suggesting that such a definition is written in stone and defined by biology? I feel like it is important that we convey what traditional femininity means (within society) so that it provides context for the criticism sections. I don't really care if this definition of traditional femininity is given in the lead or elsewhere, but it needs to be somewhere in the article. I'm also fine with putting lots of caveats and disclaimers on such a definition, to explain that it is traditional, subjective, socially-defined, etc., but so far you don't seem to be satisfied with such disclaimers. Is there any way that it could be worded that would be acceptable to you (other than just removing it entirely)? Kaldari (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed lead, it has to make clear that biology related to the brain, according to many scientists, plays a role in what we understand to be femininity. But if Kaldari is right and the present lead is not clear that this is the view of many scientists, it should be fixed.

SusanLesch, regarding your request that we ”defend our stance that biological factors are partly responsible for determining femininity” I would refer you to this Wikipedia section…Sex and psychology It states “The relationship between sex differences in the brain and human behavior is a subject of controversy in psychology and society at large.” Note that it has references.

Femininity does not describe behavior, it prescribes behavior. Kaldari (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Halo Jerk1, whether or not feminists, in particular, have a problem with the view that biology plays a role in gender, I can tell you from personal experience that it is best not to get personal by questioning motives. Dave3457 (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Revised proposal

First let me say you guys are real gentlemen. Thanks to all of you. Mainly I came around to a second proposal because of Dave3457's pointer. Right now the lead says femininity is "made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors". Yes I would be comfortable, Kaldari, if instead of this point of view, the lead said that the "construction (whether social or biological) of femininity is still debated". Also I strongly agree with Darkfrog24's idea (right, the comma has to go). New proposal: -SusanLesch (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

"Femininity (also called womanliness or womanhood) is a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles generally associated with girls and women. The construction (whether social or biological) of femininity is still debated. It is distinct from the definition of the biological female sex, as both men and women can exhibit feminine traits. Traits considered feminine can vary depending on location and context and these beliefs are influenced by a variety of social and cultural factors. The counterpart to femininity is masculinity."

I don't support that wording as it suggests that femininity can be biologically constructed, which is nonsense. It also suggests that there is some objective quality that is femininity. And before Halo and Dave start talking about how many studies have shown that women's behavior is affected by biology, let me reiterate that I agree with that. The difference in our opinions is not a difference in scientific understanding, it is a difference in definition. According to the definition used in sociology, femininity is not an observation of biological reality. Femininity is a social construction designed to enhance the differences between the sexes in society. This construction is influenced and informed by observations of biological reality, but it is not defined by it. In other words, femininity prescribes behavior and appearance, rather than describing it. The definition of femininity that you are using is essentially "femaleness", which is not the same thing. See my previous replies for elaboration on this. Kaldari (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest that your reply belongs in this article? You have such a strong understanding. How would you word the lead in keeping with what you've said? I think now you can find a solution that does not list a bunch of traits. If you think this is tiresome, I came to this article from a link in yin and yang. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

SusanLesch, you shouldn’t just ignore our objections. You need to put forward a good reason for removing the list. Am I mistaken or is the only reason you’ve stated so far… “because as of today, Wikipedia's article on masculinity does not list any traits”

Also the line…”The construction (whether social or biological) of femininity is still debated.” just doesn’t “read” for me. What does the “construction” of femininity mean?. I do however like the idea of mentioning the controversy between nature VS nurture. I also don’t feel the word “beliefs” works.

Kaldari, I don’t know what the “definition used in sociology” is, but when people link to this article from other articles they are expecting the normal definition that the general public is using. Dave3457 (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Dave3457, allow me to explain, because I don't think I am ignoring you at all. I thought your statement, "I added examples because I think its a no brainer" referred to traits. (Am I wrong? Easily could be.) I personally objected (as a female) to being described by an unsourced list of traits. By "unsourced" I meant the article needed a universally accessible source preferably online that anybody with a computer can use. Then, very helpfully, an IP gave us a source. Then I started to purchase books and got into trouble (and that's when I saw your HTML comment in the lead!). The books I bought unanimously supported my own belief (a complete tangent, that females are still in a subordinate position in society). Here I noticed that nobody is arguing a list of traits at masculinity. Why not? I thought your pointer was also very helpful, and I accepted the idea that my sources and their conclusions are not the same as your sources. What more do you want? Let's let Kaldari propose his lead. He is more eloquent than anybody I've ever read. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Dave: There are 3 fields of scholarship that deal extensively with masculinity and femininity: sociology, gender studies, and women's studies/feminist studies. Our article should reflect a balance of the viewpoints presented in these 3 fields. Wikipedia articles should not be synthesized from primary sources such as individual research papers, but should reflect the scholarship of the secondary sources written about the topic at hand (See WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Of the 3 fields I mentioned, I imagine the only one you would actually agree with is sociology (as it is a scientific field based on empirical investigation, while the others are interdisciplinary fields with political baggage). You are correct that there is controversy in the field of sociology as to what degree biology affects human behavior (across the board) and how much is dictated by social constructions. But within sociology, femininity is defined as a social construction:

"Femininity and masculinity are rooted in the social (one's gender) rather than the biological (one's sex). Societal members decide what being male or female means (e.g., dominant or passive, brave or emotional)…" —Encyclopedia of Sociology

"Often we mistakenly attribute masculinity and femininity to biology, when in fact, they are socially created… [Sociologists] would never argue that there are no biological differences. Sociologists are, however, interested in the extent to which differences are socially induced. That is, they study the actions that men and women take to be different from one another and to accentuate biological differences." —Sociology: A Global Perspective (8th ed.)

In other words, femininity is a layer applied on top of our purely biological instincts, behaviors, and appearance. The fact that it is not simply an objective description of what it means to be a female is easily demonstrated. If you visit the tribes of the Amazon, you won't find women wearing high heels and shaving their armpits. Within Western society, it is easy to ignore this distinction and assume that femininity is simply 'natural', especially since many of its rules are simply an exaggeration of what is found in nature (e.g. less facial hair, a higher pitched voice, etc.):

"Many men, and even some women, do not realize that women work to achieve these cultural standards and that women's compliance makes males and females appear more physically distinct… than they are in reality." —Sociology: A Global Perspective (8th ed.)

I think for the most part, we agree on biology's influence on the sexes. We just need to find a way to explain that femininity is an active influence in society, not simply a passive description. The fact that most people in Western society accept it as a description doesn't make that empirically true (or an accurate reflection of reliable sources). Kaldari (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawing

Sorry to bother you all. I'm getting nowhere and so I withdraw from this discussion. Sociology was always a weak point in my education, so much so that I frown on it. Wishing you luck with this and your other work on Wikipedia. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I hope that you'll reconsider. I appreciate your input on this discussion. Kaldari (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Julia Serano thesis

The passage by Julia Serano explained at the end of the article is only valid for recent times. Before the 1890s, any form of trouser-wearing by women was viewed extremely negatively by most people in Western cultures, and it wasn't really until the 1960s that women started to be able to wear trousers to school or to the office. In Victorian times, middle-class girls were often allowed to be semi-tomboyish (within limits) until about the age of 14, but were then generally expected to discard their skirted sailor suits for more overtly feminine attire as they started to shape their behavior towards that expected of adult women... AnonMoos (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Femininity or feminity?

All my whole life I was always saying feminity and I rarely hear others saying femininity. In fact, I always thought femininity was wrong and when I saw it used on Wikipedia it came as a surprise. I yahooed and googled about this and I found sources say the word feminity is older and very rare. yet, this seems to counter my experience. Perhaps we should find more sources about the words femininity and feminity and have some information in the article about the uses of these words? Sofia Lucifairy (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is correct that it's much less common than "Femininity" in standard usage. Look at the title of Susan Brownmiller's book. AnonMoos (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks! :) Sofia Lucifairy (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Photo

What do editors think about the recent addition of this photo to an article about femininity? It might be accompanied by a comment stating this is a commercial presentation of a modern, Western, idealized femininity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for questioning this photo. To me, it seems like self promotion from the photographer or promotion of Cattolica, Italy, unrelated to the discussion in the article. Wikipedia:Spam The other images chosen to represent femininity in this article went through numerous edit wars and had to be backed up by reliable sources. This photo needs the same scrutiny, or at least a source. USchick (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, USchick. Any other comments from editors? Or should it just be removed? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Just remove it. There's no way we can have one photo that illustrates the ideal feminine for the whole world. Plus, it's possibly spam anyway. Kaldari (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Great, thank you!!! USchick (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Julia Serano WP:DUE

I'm not disputing the inclusion of Serano's views or the transfeminist perspective just that this articleis far too heavily reliant on Serano's point of view. There are other transfeminists[1]. More diversity couldn't hurt--Cailil ^talk 12:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The statement I see as extremely relevant is: "interpreting women's interest in aesthetics as intended solely to entice or attract men." It balances out the POV in the Men's View section about waist-to-hip ratio as a feminine trait. I had a long discussion with Dave, the original editor of that section who insisted that being feminine is something women do in order to attract men. These two ideas are at odds with each other and need further discussion. If the original editor of the Serano section is still active, it would be interesting to have their input on the rest. USchick (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove Horatio Alger?

In 1876, Horatio Alger, Jr. proclaimed women of Cape Cod as the ideal feminine beauty.[57] Specifically, because they were blond, tan, physically fit and educated. << I removed this text from the article with an edit summary that said something like "who cares" and got reverted by another editor who suggested it be discussed on the talk page. Therefore: Horatio Alger, Jr. is of course himself notable, but on this topic he has no special expertise. If nobody objects I'll take out the two sentences again in a week or so. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a huge difficulty in establishing what exactly is considered "feminine," so when a reliable author provides a description, it's very valuable. His expertise is in describing the human condition of his time and culture. He is certainly a lot more qualified to have an opinion than Marjorie Rosen. USchick (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Article needs a thorough overhaul

This article has been improving quite a bit recently, but it is still pretty bad, and IMO needs a thorough overhaul.

I haven't yet started to think through what exactly that would look like, but I am guessing it would probably include a restructure, a greater historical emphasis, and a more systematic/comprehensive global view. I think that possibly the current sections about men's/feminist/trans* views would want to be integrated into the main body of the article. Probably the Communist section (which I think I wrote most of) is too detailed for an overview article, and would want to be shortened/summarized here, maybe with the bulk of the text and citations moved into a separate article.

I will probably work towards improving this article over the next few weeks, and would be happy to have other people contributing as well, either by critiquing the current article or actively editing it. When I start thinking about how to restructure it, my first step would likely be to look at articles on similar broad global cultural topics to see how they are structured -- so if anyone has suggestions for good models, I'd love if you would leave them here. (When I think of the types of topics that might be comparable from a structure standpoint, I think about topics such as "childhood," "leisure" or "social class," although I haven't checked to see if our actual articles on those topics are any good.) I'm also going to start looking for more detailed subset articles (like, femininity in [X country] type stuff) to see if they contain useful material. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Historically, the idea of femininity went from the original "she who suckles" (not at all sexual) to something extremely sexualized, and this phenomenon happened fairly quickly. I would love to be able to explain this transition in the article, but I don't know how. Are there any reliable opinions in this regard? p.s. If you think this article is crappy, see what you think about Masculinity. I don't have the nerves to go there. USchick (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The main problem with the article in my view is that it does not make it clear that femininity is prescriptive, not descriptive. There is very little sociological analysis in the article, although femininity is frequently analyzed and discussed in sociology textbooks. Kaldari (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, this article is leaning way too much toward the Western idea of what is feminine with statements like "women are socialized to present themselves as precious, ornamental and fragile." Just because a writer claims something, doesn't mean it's true all over the world. That statement contradicts the information in the Communist section, where women were not conditioned, but they went looking for cosmetics and lingerie on their own. Fragile and ornamental women are only found in developed nations where labor is no longer valued. There are just as many, if not more women doing hard work. [2] I think we need to reach consensus about a vision and direction for this article. USchick (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's what I find very interesting. While the modern Western idea of a feminine woman is weak, in Ancient Rome, the feminine was much more powerful, where a single naked woman was strong enough to stop a hailstorm and chase away enemies. Anasyrma#Apotropaic effect of nakedness In Iran, Barbie doll is a threat to their way of life [3] and "more dangerous than a nuclear weapon." (This quote was sourced in the article previously, but then deleted as irrelevant.) A comparison like that around the world is what I'd like to see. USchick (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile in the news..... a proposed ban on high heels in Russia is not getting much traction. [4] USchick (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Pink for boys

This part is incorrect and not supported by the reference:

Today, the color pink is strongly associated with femininity, whereas in the early 1900s pink was associated with boys and blue with girls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyxwv99 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 13 February 2016‎ (UTC)

@Zyxwv99: The reference does support the statement: see p. 315. See check out List of historical sources for pink and blue as gender signifiers. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

"Men and women" vs "males and females"

There's a notice at the beginning of the article that says: "Because the subject of femininity is so contentious, the lead of this article seems to be subject to more change than the leads of other articles. Consensus for the present lead of this article has been achieved through the work of several editors over many days. In some cases the exact wording of a given sentence in the lead has been chosen to appease all concerned. Of course it goes without saying that you are still more than welcome to contest anything in the lead."

So has this edit been discussd also? I think "males and females" is more inclusive than "men and women". If this has been discussed, then I am happy to self-revert (I don't really care about this anyway). It would be nice if someone could include a link to the lead discussion just for any future reference though. DimensionQualm (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it's more inclusive and encyclopaedic. I've just had a quick look at the archives, and I've found relevant info on the lead here, here, here and here, as well as discussion on uses of the terms "feminine", "female" and "gender" here, although I don't think this particular wording has been brought up before. I've not fully looked over the conversations though, so I'm not sure how helpful any of these links are. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 16:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes "males and females" is more inclusive, but it's too inclusive, as it is not limited to humans. This article is completely about humans, so we should use "men and women". Kaldari (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Femininity. 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/20160128093431/http://www.essortment.com/all/whatisbodymod_pdv.htm to http://www.essortment.com/all/whatisbodymod_pdv.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929211724/http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2011/01/13/2002-the-ny-times-covers-the-worthington-1?blog=161 to http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2011/01/13/2002-the-ny-times-covers-the-worthington-1?blog=161
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111121034026/http://universityhonors.umd.edu:80/HONR269J/projects/wolf.html to http://universityhonors.umd.edu/HONR269J/projects/wolf.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130303003725/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120128235329/http://www.christ-centeredkabbalah.org/Studies/glossary.htm to http://www.christ-centeredkabbalah.org/Studies/glossary.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://bitchmagazine.org/article/feminine-protection

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Is a criticism section allowed or not?

I just noticed this article does not have one where the article on masculinity does. What is wikipedia's policy on criticism sections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanikk999 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Femininity. 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/20130831002012/http://geert-hofstede.com/dimensions.html to http://geert-hofstede.com/dimensions.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111107191849/http://web.missouri.edu/~rouderj/3010/readings/Singh.pdf to http://web.missouri.edu/~rouderj/3010/readings/Singh.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://universityhonors.umd.edu/HONR269J/projects/wolf.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Inanna and the lead image

Hello! I am the editor who wrote almost the entire article Inanna and brought it up to GA, so I thought I would comment that whether Inanna symbolizes femininity depends greatly on your definition of the word; she definitely does not embody the traditional English definition of the word as "submissive and subservient," but she would certainly embody a much more modern feminist conception of what a strong woman ought to be like. She was seen as very powerful (in fact, quite terrifyingly so), but she was generally regarded as benevolent (albeit highly capricious). Her domain included a broad diversity of different attributes and, although she was the goddess of love, beauty, sex, and fertility (which are all traditionally considered very feminine), she was also the goddess of war, combat, and political power (about as masculine as you can get); in fact, in the image that is used in the lead, she is actually shown carrying a flail in her right hand. I am not sure which definition of "femininity" this article is going for, but if you are trying to go by the more traditional definition, you would be far better off with the old image of Aphrodite that was here before it was replaced with Inanna. (Coincidentally, I also wrote almost the entire article Aphrodite and recently brought it up to GA as well, so, either way, the image would be of a deity I have written about extensively.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

this is a good point. Can we engage with it? AnaSoc (talk) 06:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Katolophyromai, what more is needed in order to change the image? If what you've written is true, the replacement is urgent.--MisterSanderson (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@MisterSanderson: I have now replaced the image of Inanna with the painting Venus with a Mirror by Titian, which is very famous and which presents the goddess Aphrodite as the personification of femininity. It certainly represents a more conventional idea of femininity than the Inanna relief, although I am not entirely sure if that is necessarily a good thing. One major problem with the articles femininity and masculinity is that ideas about what is "feminine" and what is "masculine" vary drastically across cultures and belief systems. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

feminism sidebar displayed twice

the this article is part of a series on feminism side bar appears near the top (under woman in society) and lower down in the feminist views section. is this intentional? 🌸 𝐖𝐞𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐊 ^ 🌸 10:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Weegaweek: I strongly suspect that it was accidental. I actually noticed the exact same thing a few minutes ago before seeing your comment here and I have already removed the first navbox with this edit, leaving the second one where it was. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Framing

I've reached this article to read about how hormonal differences between women and men lead to differences in world-view between the sexes. But again, found nothing. Why all articles about sex are totally framed in anatomy + politics? I need objective information, from the Biological and Psychological Sciences, not feminist propaganda.

This article is worse than the other article Woman. This one here presents every information as just a point of view, which is contradicted on the next paragraph. After reading, you get the impressions that no one is sure, or noone is correct in what they are saying.--MisterSanderson (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@MisterSanderson: I actually mentioned something similar to this problem in my comment above. The problem is that, while man and woman are mostly biological concepts, "masculinity" and "femininity" are both cultural concepts that vary drastically across cultures and belief systems and, quite simply, no one actually agrees on what either of the two words really mean. All efforts to biologically define what constitutes as "masculine" and "feminine" behavior have been fruitless. Frankly, they are both concepts that we are probably better off just abandoning, but that does make it difficult to write encyclopedia articles about them! --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand MisterSanderson's complaint about feminist propaganda here or at Talk:Woman. Also, I disagree that "no one actually agrees on what either of the two words really mean." We can see from the articles that femininity is mainly associated with girls/women and why that is and that masculinity is mainly associated with boys/men and why that is. It is societal/cultural, but it is also linked to biology with regard to behavior; this is because of certain differences between boys and girls/men and women that are, in part, rooted in biology...such as males being more aggressive, which is deemed by society to be more masculine. Femininity and masculinity are part of the nature versus nurture (or rather the nature and nurture) topic. As for the feminism side bar, it belongs in this article whether located at the top or at the bottom. And this article will obviously cover feminist points of views; so MisterSanderson's complaint on that is illogical.

On a side note: Regarding the lead image change, I'm not sure that it's best to go with a partially nude image since we recently had an editor complain about a nude image at the Woman talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@MisterSanderson, I tried for several days, years ago to bring some objectivity to this page but finally gave up. What you were looking for has been deleted because it conflicts with a common feminist belief that gender is entirely a cultural construct. The real question here is why do many feminists need it to be a cultural construct. Personally I would quote Gloria Steinem when she said "We are becoming the men we wanted to marry". That is the goal of many feminists but if gender is not entirely a cultural construct, that makes their dream to do away with gender and have only "men", impossible.

Dave3457 (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Dave3457, I'm not sure that "hormonal differences between women and men lead[ing] to differences in world-view between the sexes" was ever in this article. And in any case, the Neuroscience of sex differences article is an article for that topic. And feminist scholars are not the only scholars who see femininity as socially constructed. Also, a compromise was made years ago so that the article's lead states "Femininity is socially constructed, but made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors." At some recent point, that was changed to "Femininity is partially socially constructed, being made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors." And the article does discuss biology, but this is mainly a social topic. If you reply to me on this, I ask that you don't WP:Ping me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me clarify. As I said, at the time mentioned years ago,(Feb to April 2009) there was a full court press to remove changes to the page that did not line up is the androgynous side of the feminist movement. I of course support the equality aspect of the movement. I and another guy spent many hours over many days trying to make this page more balanced with regards to the nature vs nurture issue. From what I can tell, since then all of his stuff has been removed. It was a major up hill battle to not have the lead read something like, "Femininity is a social construct." Which of course is the kind of thing you find in your typical gender studies course.

To give you an idea of how this page can be used as a propaganda tool for anti-gender feminists, the 2009 section linked here on Feminine Attributes in part read..."These attributes result from the relationship between an individual's biology and the socialization she receives as a result of that biology. However, theories of femininity explored in the field of Gender Studies propose that femininity and masculinity are essentially constructed or 'performed' through a process of social construction."

In the 2009 section called Feminine Physical Attributes the following each got their own sub-section...Cleavage, Corsets, Foot Binding, High Heels, Eating disorders, Neck rings.

The 2009 section called Femininity in Women only contained four images, they were images of Foot Binding, Neck rings, High Heels and Corsets. I called it the torture gallery.

Dave3457 (talk)

Womanhood

Removed womanhood from the lead sentence in this edit. They are not synonyms, and womanhood does not redirect here. Mathglot (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

"Biologically created factors"

The lead of the article states that "Femininity is made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors", but the cited sources don't seem to support the claim that there are "biologically created" factors behind femininity, and I don't think that is consistent with the generally accepted view among experts. Biology might influence things like "gentleness, empathy, humility, and sensitivity", but the fact that we consider those traits "feminine" rather than masculine is socially defined. Is there some additional sourcing here? Nblund ^talk 18:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing for masculinity/femininity as socially constructed: None of this indicates that biology is irrelevant, but biology doesn't create norms. Nblund ^talk 19:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Looking at Talk:Femininity/Archive 1#Lead discussion, Talk:Femininity/Archive 2#Definition of femininity, Talk:Femininity/Archive 4#RfC: Is the word "stereotype" compliant with NPOV in the context of femininity? Is it well-supported by reliable sources? and Talk:Femininity/Archive 5#Proposed lead, we can see that this was discussed ad nauseam. Sources were looked at and discussed. The topic was again briefly discussed in the "Framing" section above, where Dave3457 still clearly feels very strongly about the matter. "Biologically-created factors" was a compromise, which has been in place since 2011. What wording do you propose it be replaced with? I don't think reverting back to "Femininity is socially constructed." and leaving it at that is the solution. The previous disputes and that there haven't been such disputes since is indicative of that. There are a lot of sources that state that gender is socially constructed as well, but we don't go with "Gender is socially constructed" in the lead sentence of the Gender article (or leave it at that) because of the different definitions of gender and the biological aspects that have been considered since the popular "Gender is socially constructed" saying. That biology can influence things like "gentleness, empathy, humility, and sensitivity", and that society often (or, in some cases, typically) considers those traits feminine rather than masculine is behind the justification for "biologically-created factors" or including some mention of biological influence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I see that you did restore the consensus wording of "Femininity is socially constructed" to go along with "and is made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors." The use of "and" is "but" in the consensus version, however. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The article doesn't say anything about gentleness, empathy, humility, and sensitivity arising in female biology that I can see. As Nblund asked above, which published sources explicitly connect these qualities to female biology? An ideal source would be a broad, academic survey of sex and gender, rather than passing remarks in otherwise reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

And I didn't say it did. Commented below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The comment That biology can influence things like 'gentleness, empathy, humility, and sensitivity' ... is behind the justification for 'biologically-created factors' strongly implies that there is something in the article or the sources that makes this connection. Otherwise, I don't see the point of mentioning it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Nblund stated, "Biology might influence things like 'gentleness, empathy, humility, and sensitivity', but the fact that we consider those traits 'feminine' rather than masculine is socially defined." I responded to that, and was responding in the general sense. I was saying "that biology can influence [femininity] is behind the justification for 'biologically-created factors'." I was saying that because biology can influence femininity, as indicated by some research with regard to gender, editors agreed to add "biologically-created factors." That different wording should have been used is another matter, and I do see that different wording was proposed, including "Though largely socially constructed and distinct from the female biological sex, femininity may encompass biological factors as well." And Noleander supported that wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

...as indicated by some research with regard to gender... Would that be the research named in the two sources cited below, or are we still speaking in the general sense? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Um, no. And I fail to see why you think such an experienced editor as myself needs to be pointed to WP:Not a forum. Of course, you don't think that. You're just being snarky because the history between us is shaky. Still, as adults, we should be able to move on or at least be WP:Civil to each other, which is what I try to do when interacting with you. My history with a few others is far more tempestuous than ours, and here you are making a ridiculous snide comment. My comment was no less on-topic than Nblund's. Gentleness, empathy, humility, and sensitivity are specific qualities associated with femininity, which are mentioned in the lead of this article and is why Nblund and I mentioned them. You unnecessarily questioned my "that biology can influence" statement when it was in direct response to Nblund's "biology might influence" statement. Didn't like my use of "can," I take it? Regarding the sources below, I was clear that I cited the Quartz source, which points to a systematic review, meta‐regression, and meta‐analysis source, because masculinity and femininity make up what people and sources (like the WHO source you added) think of with regard to gender, if not defining gender based on sex, and the saying that "gender is socially constructed" is simplistic unless specifically referring to something like "men's clothes" and gender roles. I cited the "Masculinity and Femininity in the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A" source below because it had been cited in the article for years and was already listed below. I see that you took the time to look at it as well and apparently got farther than I did when reviewing it. Good. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Unless either of those sources (Quartz is hardly an authoritative source here; news media routinely go astray when reporting on scientific research) refer to the specific qualities named, then attributing any of them to biology is improper synthesis. A definitive claim was made in that regard, which I asked for sources in support of. It appears that sources still don't support it, so any affirmative comments regarding gentleness, etc. are off-topic, and indeed into NOTFORUM territory. Any comments about personal "history" between editors are irrelevant. My purpose is to improve the article with references to high-quality sources, and my comments have all been directed toward that goal. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Do stop implying that I stated or suggested things I did not. No one here stated that Quartz is an authoritative source for this material. I was very clear why I mentioned it. It drives home my point about the simplistic "gender is socially constructed" viewpoint. As for "news media routinely go astray when reporting on scientific research," the source points to and is based on a systematic review, meta‐regression, and meta‐analysis source. I've read the source. The Quartz source, which is citing experts, is not misrepresenting that academic source. And as someone who routinely edits medical articles and employs WP:MEDRS, I do not need to be told about how the media often gets things wrong. I am also very much aware of the breaking news concerns that WP:RSBREAKING addresses. As many know, I usually stick to scholarly sources when editing academic topics on Wikipedia and often cite WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I have not engaged in any WP:Synthesis on this talk page. And as made clear by the WP:Original research policy that WP:Synthesis is a part of, and this recent discussion on that talk page, that policy does not apply to talk pages anyway. There was no WP:NOTAFORUM violation or off-topic discussion on my part either. I don't need you condescending to me and then acting like it has nothing to do with our history. As for "sources still don't support it," your time would be better off spent addressing Crossroads below and how he's supposedly wrong. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

A little WP:AGF would go a long way here. A claim that biology can influence things like 'gentleness, empathy, humility, and sensitivity' was made on the talk page; I asked for sources directly supporting the claim. If they exist, great. If not, as seems to be the case, there are other improvements to discuss. You're free to ignore any comments you find too condescending.

Regardless, it's a bit baffling to see acknowledgements that the popular press is not generally reliable for scientific information on the one hand, and references to just such a popular press article making sweeping statements about gender based on boys’ and girls’ toy choices on the other. Surely there's more to gender identity than that.

I don't see anything in the study abstract that justifies any generalizations about femininity, gender roles, or identity per se. The study itself might be usable in a sub-section on gender development in childhood, but that's as far as I'd take it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

A little WP:AGF would go a long way here indeed. That means on your part as well. Given that you often condescend, which I've told you to stop doing times before, and that you often misinterpret things or interpret things in overly strict ways, including our rules, which I and others have told you before, and that you are prone to edit war, I see no reason why I shouldn't point out that you are completely off the mark here and why. You did not ask me for sources that directly support any claim. This discussion concerns whether or not femininity has a biological basis. So Nblund and I commented on that. Completely on-topic. This discussion is also about femininity as a social construct, so that was commented on. Considering that masculinity and femininity make up what people and sources (like the WHO source you added) think of with regard to gender, if not defining gender based on sex, the Quartz source is on-topic. I noted why I mentioned it. It challenges the "gender is socially constructed only" viewpoint, with experts weighing in and other aspects of the literature being cited. Let's not act like the WHO source is specifically about femininity either. It is titled "What do we mean by 'sex' and 'gender'?". It then goes on to state, " 'Male' and 'female' are sex categories, while 'masculine' and 'feminine' are gender categories." The WP:Original policy states, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources." So your surprise that a Quartz source discussing gender as a social construct would be mentioned on an article talk page that is partly about that topic, since, again, femininity is an aspect of the gender topic and is discussed as a social construct, is baffling. WP:MEDRS says nothing about not pointing to such a source on the talk page. And even if it did, the source is pointing to a systematic review -- the type of sources that WP:MEDRS prefers. The Quartz source makes no sweeping statement about gender. In fact, it's careful not to; it does this, by, for example, relaying, "Evidence that gender has some basis in biology, though, in no way implies a strict gender binary, nor negates the existence of transgender and non-binary identities. Many biology-based gender differences originate from the hormonal environment within the womb, which is very different on average for boys compared to girls. But there's a huge variation in these environments, says Alice Eagly, psychology professor at Northwestern University. 'Within boys there will be a range and within girls there will be a range. To say it's biological doesn't mean it's perfectly binary,' she says." And nowhere did I suggest using the Quartz source or the systematic review as a source in this article. I will be using that review in a different Wikipedia article, however. Again, Crossroads provided sources for "a biological basis." If he is wrong, then do show how he is wrong...by responding to him below. As usual, the two of us discussing matters is never beneficial, except for when I bring others in (via a policy or guideline talk page, a WikiProject, a noticeboard, or an RfC) to comment and most people agree with me. This is more of the same questionable behavior from you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

While I certainly question the foregoing evaluation of this discussion (Nblund explicitly framed their comments in terms of the cited sources and the accepted view among experts, not just the subject matter itself, and I explicitly requested sources here), I don't see much point in continuing in this vein. Once again, I propose we all focus on concrete improvements to the article itself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Given what I stated above, your opinion on how I supposedly framed things holds no weight. I am more than happy to move on from this distraction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

And "gentleness, empathy, humility, and sensitivity arising in female biology" was never the focus for me since the wording of the lead was more general by saying "Femininity is made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors." It never stated, "Gentleness, empathy, humility, and sensitivity are made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors." I already explained why I latched onto Nblund's "gentleness, empathy, humility, and sensitivity" wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: I've edited Nblund's opening comment to remove a stray period which broke the following link: doi:10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/03977-2. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Text removed

Femininity is socially constructed, and is made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors.

Sources

Regardless of how long this text has been in place, I don't see it substantited in the rest of the article, so it seems unduly weighted in the lead section. More importantly, it's extremely vague; what are the social/biological "factors" in play? How can a socially-constructed concept be "made up" of biological factors at all? I think some more detailed explanation would be useful here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Noting that a very similar discussion is taking place at Masculinity. I also reverted your change here per BRD. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf's change makes more sense to me. It might be reasonable to say that there are some arguments about the extent to which biological characteristics play a role in creating gender role expectations, but I think that's different from saying that biological characteristics are a part of femininity.

@Flyer 22: I browsed through those discussions, but I didn't see a clear consensus, and I'm not seeing how the sources cited in the lead supported/support the claim.

@Crossroads WP:BRD doesn't require you to revert a bold change if you don't have an objection to it. Nblund ^talk 17:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The D in WP:BRD stands for discuss. I've raised several objections to the material, please discuss these objections before restoring it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

You've raised objections, but this does not mean that you should change the text to new wording during a dispute. There is clearly no consensus for "As a social construct," and there never has been. And, yes, I saw that Nblund arrived here via the masculinity dispute involving Webmaester. Nblund, I see consensus for the long-standing text. By this, I mean that, as a compromise, the opposing side went with the text you and Sangdeboeuf have challenged. Anyway, since that text has clearly been challenged, it's time for a new consensus. I removed the "As a social construct" aspect pending further discussion, and this simplistic "What do we mean by 'sex' and 'gender'?" source from the World Health Organization (WHO). The issue I see with stating "Femininity is socially constructed" or "As a social construct" and leaving it at that is that although social science is still its own thing, researchers today rarely look at behavior as socially constructed only. Masculinity and femininity make up what people and sources think of with regard to gender, if not defining gender based on sex. Stating "As a social construct" or "Femininity is socially constructed" does imply that there is no biological basis.

To drive home my point on "it's not only social," I cite this 2018 "Scientific research shows gender is not just a social construct" Quartz source. It points to this 2017 "Sex differences in children's toy preferences: A systematic review, meta‐regression, and meta‐analysis" source.

Quoted text from Quartz, based on a systematic review, meta‐regression, and meta‐analysis source.

It states, in part, "A study published (paywall) in November 2017 suggests that these sorts of girly toy preferences aren't simply a reflection of gendered social pressures. A meta-analysis of research, reviewing 16 studies on the subject that collectively included some 1,600 children, found that both biology and society affect boys' and girls' toy choices. The researchers found a huge effect size (1.03 for boys playing with boys’ toys more than girls, and 0.9 for girls playing with girls toys more than boys; anything above 0.8 is considered 'large') across geographical regions. 'The size of sex differences in children’s preferences for male-typed and female-typed toys did not appear to be smaller in studies conducted in more egalitarian countries,' says Brenda Todd, a study co-author and senior lecturer in psychology at City University London. Countries rating extremely low on the Gender Inequality Index, such as Sweden, showed similar differences in toy preferences to countries with far greater gender inequality, such as Hungary and the United States. This runs counter to the popular narrative that gender differences expressed in childhood play are determined entirely by social expectations. Social factors certainly do have influence, and the paper found evidence of this: For example, as boys got older they were increasingly likely to play with conventionally male toys, reflecting the impact of environmental rather than biological causes. But overall, the data reflect broader findings in psychology, which show that biology and society interact to cause gendered behavior. In other words, contrary to the popular progressive belief, gender is partly socially constructed—but it's not just a social construct. 'The 'nature versus nurture' idea is a false dichotomy,' says Sean Stevens, social psychologist and research director at Heterodox Academy, an organization of professors focused on promoting political diversity in academia. 'I don't know any real researcher of human behavior who would say it's all nature or all nurture,' he adds. Despite this empirical truth, researchers who study the biological basis of gender often face political pushback. 'Many people are uncomfortable with the idea that gender is not purely a social construct,' says Todd, who notes that her work has faced 'very critical attention.' There's a political preference—especially on the left—Todd believes, for gender to be only a reflection of social factors and so entirely malleable. Evidence that gender has some basis in biology, though, in no way implies a strict gender binary, nor negates the existence of transgender and non-binary identities. Many biology-based gender differences originate from the hormonal environment within the womb, which is very different on average for boys compared to girls. But there's a huge variation in these environments, says Alice Eagly, psychology professor at Northwestern University. 'Within boys there will be a range and within girls there will be a range. To say it's biological doesn’t mean it’s perfectly binary,' she says."

What I see with the aforementioned 2010 "Masculinity and Femininity in the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A" source, from University of Minnesota Press, pages 14 to 18, is it discussing biological influence and possible biological influence on gender, including masculinity and femininity. For example, on page 16, in its "A Complexity of Influences" section, it states, "Social and cognitive factors represent mechanisms beyond biology through which gender identity or masculinity-femininity is potentially shaped. In conjuction with biological influences, these forces create a pervasive context for development of one's sense of self and of the world." On page 17, it then goes on to mention that gender identity research indicates that biological factors are involved and that a complex interplay of factors lead boys and girls to identify as and behave the way they do. The source also speaks of transgender people and how most experts believe that biological factors are at play with regard to their gender identity, and that transgender people give some insight into gender identity and masculine and feminine behavior.

I think that if we are to add that femininity is socially constructed to the lead, which I agree that we should, we should also add that what society considers femininity may be biologically influenced. The "Behavior and personality" section, which already touches on nature versus nurture, should expand on this. Of course, "may be biologically influenced" is vague, just as it's vague when speaking of gender identity, unless we go into aspects like how a fetus may be affected in the womb. But the lead is simply meant to summarize, not go into all of that. If we can't agree on this approach, then an RfC is in order. And that RfC should probably be centralized per WP:TALKCENT to address both the Femininity and Masculinity articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it is accurate to say that there is a debate about the extent to which biology influences ideas of masculinity and femininity, or something along those lines. Nblund ^talk 02:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Without diving into the scholarly sources presented here, I'll just point out that the World Health Organization should easily be considered reliable for the general statement that femininity is distinct from female biological sex. Statements by professional organizations are generally better than a couple random experts quoted in a news article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I have now made this addition. It states, "Femininity is socially constructed, and is based on both social and biological influences." For support, it uses the two sources discussed by Flyer22 Reborn, and three others. I think it was appropriate to add, based on Flyer22 Reborn's comments, Webmaester's comments at the parallel discussion at Talk:Masculinity, and Nblund's comment above where they stated that something along these lines would be accurate. (Nblund's version said "there is a debate about the extent to which biology influences", which is true, but the sources as used in the edit show agreement that both culture and biology play roles.) Given all this, it seems consensus favors inclusion. Since this sentence is very similar to what was there before, removal would require its own consensus.

More can be expanded on the matter in the body of the article. And it is WP:DUE to mention in the lead. What is due is based on how the matter is discussed in the reliable sources, not what is in the article body. And reliable sources across academic fields agree that society and biology play a role in these traits. It would be very undue to present it as though they are socially constructed only. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Crossroads. I can also look at other sources. At the end of the initial "Biologically created factors" section above, I explained why I looked at those sources. I didn't have the time to thoroughly look for sources, like you and others know I usually do when debating. Regarding this, I see no need for an explanation in the lead. The lead is meant to summarize, and, per WP:Weasel (not that the wording you added falls under WP:Weasel), can be vague; furthermore, if a source is vague, then we must be vague. We obviously can't go beyond what a source states. A bit on what is meant by "biological influences," if the sources clarify, should go in the "Behavior and personality" section, however. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I have now made this edit. The sentence in the lead we have been discussing is now well-represented in the article content. Further improvements could be made in the body, but I see no need to jump through more hoops to justify the lead, which should stay untagged. It serves as a summary of its most important contents, as WP:LEAD requires. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

So, I think the wording here is an improvement, but is there any particular objection to stating the debate more obliquely here? There's no doubt that the idea of "femininity" is widely varying over time and across societies, but there is some debate about whether biology influences certain behaviors commonly associated with femininity. There may be biological bases for morality and religion as well, but we still don't say morality is "based on social and biological influences". Nblund ^talk 00:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but stating it another way would make it seem like there is a possibility that biology plays no role in any of these traits. This is not what reliable sources, across academic fields, show. I don't think morality and religion are really comparable. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying that there's no one who makes the argument that biology plays no meaningful role in shaping behaviors considered feminine? Can you provide sourcing that supports the claim that there is a consensus on the extent to which biology plays a role? There's three sources above that simply say these concepts are socially enforced. I actually don't think any of the three currently cited sources support this language. If they do, could you quote them? Nblund ^talk 01:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The reason that I think the "Femininity is socially constructed, and is based on both social and biological influences." wording works (although it might be better to say "but" instead of "and") is because what society considers masculine or feminine is usually or often based on what it sees as innate for males or females. I mean, even the female body is termed "feminine" in various reliable sources. Anyway, as we seem to agree, that these concepts are socially enforced doesn't mean that biology plays no role. As seen by the Quartz source, experts say vice versa with regard to biology: "To say it's biological doesn’t mean it’s perfectly binary." Also, "enforced" is a strong word (and isn't the word the aforementioned three sources use), but some gendered social norms, such as people thinking that men generally shouldn't cry, are essentially enforced. To your point, Nblund, I think that, after the "Femininity is socially constructed, and is based on both social and biological influences." sentence, we should add something along the lines of the following: "To what extent femininity is biologically influenced or socially constructed is, however, subject to debate." Or, for possible better flow, we could change "Femininity is socially constructed, and is based on both social and biological influences." to "Although femininity is socially constructed, some evidence indicates that some behaviors considered feminine are biologically influenced. To what extent femininity is biologically influenced or socially constructed is subject to debate." Something like that. The point is that there is some gendered behavior that is considered feminine (or masculine) that is additionally considered to have a biological basis, but debate still exists on the matter, as is clear by the Quartz source. So we should relay this in the lead and in the "Behavior and personality" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying that there's no one who makes the argument that biology plays no meaningful role...? No, I'm sure a few diehards still say that. What I'm saying is that the consensus of researchers is that "attributes, behaviors,...generally associated with girls and women" (or boys and men) are influenced by social and biological factors. It is thus undue to imply that biology may play no role in this at all. This is supported by the three sources. Just a few quotes illustrating this: Risman et al p. 11: In Chap. 8, “Does Biology Limit Equality?” Shannon N. Davis and Alysia Blake also write about the body, but focus on how hormones and genetics influence gendered behaviors and preferences throughout the life course. They find strong evidence that gender difference is not biologically hardwired. Instead, both social and biological forces are complexly interrelated in the formation of gendered selves. p. 113: Both physiology and the social environment impact gendered characteristics. Fausto-Sterling p. x: Anne Fausto-Sterling’s book helps us think about the topics of gender and sexuality in ways that make it impossible to ever consider these subjects as independent from a social-cultural matrix. Yet, Fausto-Sterling also makes it impossible to think of the very same subject as independent from a biological endowment, as well. Wharton p. 23: Like most sociologists, I believe that the biological and the social worlds are interdependent and mutually influential. p. 29: Whether there are biological or genetic contributions to the behavior of males and females is a subject of heated debate. Although researchers disagree on some points, many acknowledge that some sex differences may have biological or genetic contributions. At the same time, however, most sociologists (and many other scientists who study sex differences) insist that the impact of these biological or genetic contributions depends upon the environment or culture in which they emerge. In other words, accepting the possibility that biological or genetic factors may influence human personality and behavior does not imply that personality and behavior can be reduced to these factors. Understanding how biology, genetics, and culture interact to shape personality and behavior, rather than examining each factor separately, is perhaps the best way to proceed as we explore these issues. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn and Nblund, how about this phrasing? "Femininity is socially constructed, and is influenced by interacting social and biological factors, though the impact of each is subject to debate." -Crossroads- (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I prefer the "Although" wording I proposed, with sources specifically for it (which I can look at and then list here). We'll see what Nblund states about your latest comments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I also prefer Flyer22's "although" wording. The "some behaviors considered feminine may be biologically influenced" limits the possibility that readers will conflate observable differences in behavior with normative social expectations about how men and women should behave. Nblund ^talk 14:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so I would like to propose these tweaks to that wording: Although femininity is socially constructed, some evidence indicates that some behaviors considered feminine are biologically influenced. To what extent femininity is biologically or socially influenced or socially constructed is subject to debate.

For the first sentence, I believe on the basis of the sources above, and many other sources, saying "some evidence indicates" is too weak. It's not just some evidence, but many scholars on the basis of a lot of research. It's still just saying "some behaviors", which is not a strong claim. How many behaviors is addressed in the next sentence, because the extent is what is debated.

For the second sentence, I would rather not say socially constructed again and would refer to society's effect as an influence rather than a construct. The reasons are that socially constructed and biologically influenced are not necessarily at odds (something can be both, as "social construct" can refer to social categories no matter the basis by which what it considers distinguishing features came about), and researchers generally look for influences or factors from society, whether parental, peers, media, etc. rather than just "constructs". It's also jargony, so should not be used twice. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The source you cited above says that many acknowledge that some sex differences may have biological or genetic contributions. I don't think that supports treating this as a universally accepted fact. The changes on the second sentence seem fine. Nblund ^talk 19:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

That same source states on p. 23: Like most sociologists, I believe that the biological and the social worlds are interdependent and mutually influential. The other two sources come from an angle of 'it's not just biology, but society too', and there is no indication of any meaningfully widespread belief that biology is totally uninvolved. Other sources support this too, like pages 371-372 of this psychology textbook: [5] -Crossroads- (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

"Most" would be consistent with a view held by a majority, but not a consensus. What if we just follow the construction of the source and say that "most sociologists believe that biology plays some role" or something along those lines? I agree with you that there probably aren't many nurture-absolutists out there today, but I think it would be a fair summary of Kimmel to say that he views biological explanations as non-parsimonious compared to cultural ones. Nblund ^talk 23:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

So are we agreed on the "Although femininity is socially constructed, most sociologists believe that biology plays some role. To what extent femininity is biologically or socially influenced is subject to debate." wording? Even with "most sociologists believe that biology plays some role," I don't see the second sentence as redundant since it's specifically speaking of the extent and that the extent is debated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Now implemented. Thank you. -Crossroads- (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Works for me as well. Thanks all for working on it. Nblund ^talk 14:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking at all the sources presented here, except for Quartz (which we should avoid per WP:MEDPOP at least), I see references to things like gender differences in children's toy preferences (Todd et al., 2017), "theory and research [into] physiology and gender difference" in general (Davis & Blake, 2018) (the introduction by Scarborough seems to misrepresent this chapter's focus), debates about "biological or genetic contributions to the behavior of males and females" (Wharton, 2005), biology's role in "sex-typed patterns of behavior" (Bernstein, 2014), and a brief comment about biology's general role in "gender and sexuality", once again in an editor's foreword (Fausto-Sterling, 2012).

What all this has to do with femininity/masculinity is not stated. In fact, there are hardly any references to femininity/masculinity at all apart from Martin & Finn (2010), who call the concept itself "not clearly focused" and having "serious defects". Describing the nature vs. nurture debate vis-a-vis gender differences seems more appropriate for an article like Sex differences in psychology – extrapolating anything about femininity per se from these concepts seems like a textbook example of improper synthesis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not synthesis. We did not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C. These sources are about femininity. Your criticism of "the introduction by Scarborough" is synthesis, however. The book editor knows what they are talking about more than any of us. The context of all the sources make very clear they are talking about femininity (and masculinity). At any rate, the change has consensus, so I see no need to debate this endlessly. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Easy there, tiger. Not only can consensus change, the particular "consensus" here is not even 24 hours old, and not all participants in this thread took part in it. Where do any of the sources explicitly state that they're about femininity? Alternatively, what context exactly makes that clear? That seems more like a personal opinion than anything else. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that what Crossroads means by "this is not synthesis," "these sources are about femininity" and "the context of all the sources make very clear they are talking about femininity (and masculinity)" is that gender/gendered behavior is usually defined in terms of masculinity and femininity, as made clear by the WHO, this source you edited and this "Introduction to Education Studies" source from the collapse box below. But because I knew that the discussion would come to this (a complaint about the sources not explicitly stating "femininity"), I made clear that I felt that my proposed wording should be supported by "sources [that] specifically [go with it]." The reason I proposed the "Although" wording I first proposed is because I know that there are reliable sources that support it (and that includes the Martin & Finn source that you added to the Sex differences in psychology article). So I stand by the following proposed wording: "Although femininity is socially constructed, some evidence indicates that some behaviors considered feminine are biologically influenced. To what extent femininity is biologically or socially influenced is subject to debate." Of course, Crossroads suggested that the "some evidence indicates that" part be removed. So we might still go for that. He has a point that simply saying "some evidence" is weak when researchers these days are clear that gendered behavior (meaning masculinity and femininity) is somewhat influenced by biology. Either way, the sources in the collapse box can obviously be validly used to support the wording I proposed.

Sources for "Although femininity is socially constructed, some evidence indicates that some behaviors considered feminine are biologically influenced. To what extent femininity is biologically or socially influenced is subject to debate."

This 1997 "Reinventing the Sexes: The Biomedical Construction of Femininity and Masculinity" source, from Indiana University Press, quite clearly explores the biological vs. sociological debate. This 2004 "Feminism and Modern Philosophy: An Introduction" source, from Psychology Press, page 122, speaks of Kant, stating, "Contemporary genetic research deepens the antimony as more and more human traits, including masculinity and femininity, are linked to specific genetic variations, and techniques of genetic manipulation are developed. Genetic explanations both support mechanism as the reality behind all appearance and allow for change subject to human desire." It speaks more of Kant, on page 137, stating, "Related is a possible resolution surrounding essentialism. Following Kant, femininity or masculinity might be retained as substantive ideals. On this view, femininity would not be a thing-in-itself, a natural straight jacket or pre-existing form to which all women must and should conform. Nor would femininity be a genetic mechanism that is necessarily adaptive and successful given the logic of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory." This 2005 "Gender, Nature, and Nurture" source, from Routledge, page 163, in its "Difference in Masculinity and Femininity: Behavior Genetic Studies" section states, "[...] There is a second side to gender: individual differences in masculinity and femininity. Correlation research on sex hormones and human behavior provides information about biological influences on masculinity and femininity. [...] For example, when studies show that high-testosterone men are more aggressive, risk-taking, and nonverbaily dour than low-testosterone men, they indirectly suggest that testosterone is a biological factor that contributes to individual differences in men's masculinity. When studies show that CAH girls and women show more masculine behaviors than non-CAH females, they suggest that androgens contribute to individual differences in women's masculinity and femininity. Behavioral genetic studies provide another route to studying biological contributions to individual differences in masculinity and femininity. [...] Behavior genetic research probes many other kinds of individual differences as well, including traits such as masculinity and femininity. By examining the similarity of traits between twins, among siblings, and among members of adoptive families, behavior geneticists try to untangle genetic and environmental causes of individual differences." This 2005 "Psychology: A Modular Approach to Mind and Behavior" source, from Cengage Learning, page 568, states, "Don't intersexual children imply that biology also plays a role in gender identity? Yes, they do. The fact that trying to assign gender is not always successful suggests that hormones may 'sex-type' the brain before birth [...] Changes in the brain are then thought to alter the chances of developing feminine or masculine traits [...] Direct evidence for this idea is provided by females exposed to androgens before birth. After birth, their hormones shift to female, and they are raised as girls. Nevertheless, the prenatal exposure has a masculinizing effect. During childhood, such girls are typically 'tomboys' who prefer the company of boys to girls. However, their masculinization usually does not persist. After adolescence, the girls' tomboyism usually gives way to female interests and gender characteristics [...] Cases like these make clear that both prenatal hormones and later social factors contribute to adult sexual identity." This 2007 "Introduction to Education Studies" source, from Sage Publications, page 157, states, "Sex refers to our biological make up. It identifies us as male or female. Biological differences include chromosome, hormones and physical sexual characteristics such as sexual organs, body hair, physique, etc. Gender refers to the social construction of masculine and feminine. It is what we expect males and females to be 'like' in terms of behavior, appearance, beliefs and attitudes. There has been continuing debate as to how much of our maleness and femaleness is biologically determined and how much is socially constructed." The source then goes into biological determinist and social constructionist arguments. This 2007 "Understanding Your Health" source, from McGraw-Hill, states on page 441 that "In this chapter, we explore human sexuality as it relates to the dynamic interplay of the biological and psychosocial bases that form our masculinity or femininity." It speaks of how society has reached a better understanding of how both biological and psychosocial factors contribute to complex expressions of gendered behavior (masculinity and femininity) and sexuality. On page 443, it also talks about how society has reinforced rigid masculine and feminine roles for men and women respectively. This 2008 "Battleground: M-Z" source, from Greenwood Publishing Group, pages 172 to 173, states, "Femininity and masculinity, terms that define gendered behavior, are typically tied to understandings of male and female bodies. Defenders of traditional forms of femininity and masculinity argue that gender roles are derived from biology and should not be changed. Critics contend that femininity and masculinity are socially constructed and subject to change over time, both within and among individuals and societies." The source goes on to say that concepts of masculinity and femininity are based on either biologically or socially constructed notions of gender, and reiterates that some (including scholars) believe that masculinity and femininity are innate and others believe that masculinity and femininity are greatly influenced by social environment. Says that the debate continues. Doesn't mention scholars believing in both rather than one vs. the other. This 2010 "Key Thinkers on Space and Place" source, from Sage Publications, beginning of page 82 onward, speaks of Judith Butler, saying, "The essence of her argument is that gender identities (masculinity and femininity) are assumed to be grounded in, and defined in relation to, two 'natural' biological sexes: male and female. This binary opposition is also the basis of heterosexual desire (i.e attraction is towards the opposite sex/gender). However, in 'Gender Trouble' Butler challenges the assumptions that masculine and feminine gender identities inevitably correspond with 'male' and 'female' bodies (e.g., masculine may just as well signify a female body as a male one). " This 2013 "Sex Itself: The Search for Male and Female in the Human Genome" source, from University of Chicago Press, also speaks on the biological vs. sociological debate. On page 10, it states, "In the 1970s and 1980s, Second Wave feminist scientists took on sociobiology, a controversial field that revived biological determinist approaches to human social behavior. Sociolobiological claims in the 1970s professed to explain the biological foundations of male dominance, stereotypical masculine and feminine behaviors, and male and female gender roles, giving rise to misogynist pop science screeds such as Steven Goldberg's 1973 'The Inevitability of Patriarchy: Why the Biological Differences between Men and Women Always Produce Male Domination." On page 12, it says, " 'Sex Itself' analyzes the operation of both traditional and alternative gender ideologies in the models, practices, and language of twentieth-century human sex chromosome research, attending carefully to historical context. Gender ideology is defined as widely held, socially inscribed beliefs about sex and gender difference. These include conceptions of males and femaleness, masculinity and femininity, sex and gender roles, and the nature of relations between the sexes. " On pages 125 to 126, it states, "In the twentieth century, the X and Y were positioned as the genetic pillars of masculinity and femininity. But in recent decades, feminists have challenged these assumptions. This chapter and the next show how gender-critical perspectives have begun to enter into sex chromosome science and are now leaving a pronounced mark on the questions, central debates, and research models of the field." Let's jump years ahead. This 2018 "Gale Researcher Guide for: The Continuing Significance of Gender" source, from Cengage Learning, page 5, states, "[...] Gender refers to the cultural context and social structure that construct the two categories of female/woman/feminine and male/men/masculine. The careful differentiation between sex and gender acknowledges that observed differences between those perceived as male compared to those perceived as female are not determined by biological factors. For many years, scholars debated whether it was 'nature' (that is, biological factors) or 'nurture' (that is, social and cultural influence) that determined human behavior and characteristics. In the twenty-first century, there is widespread recognition that both are involved. [...] Sociologists view gender as a social construction. However, scholars such as Anne Fausto-Sterling realize that biological factors such as genes and hormones affect prenatal development (2000). [...] Sociologists recognize that all humans have both male and female hormones, and that social factors influence the behavior that is often attributed to them."

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for putting these together. I've added two to the article for now. I'm sure the others will be useful at some point, whether in this article or others. And your explanation of what I meant is correct. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Based on what Flyer22 Reborn just said – Gendered behavior is usually defined in terms of masculinity and femininity – SYNTH applies: Source A says masculinity/femininity apply to gendered behaviors; Source B says gendered behaviors may have biological roots. We can't join these sources together to imply that femininity may have biological roots without a source directly supporting it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no synthesis at all by stating "Gendered behavior is usually defined in terms of masculinity and femininity" when various reliable sources, including this "Introduction to Education Studies" source, state "Gender refers to the social construction of masculine and feminine." or similar. The way you are interpreting WP:Synthesis is odd, and it's already been noted that the WP:Synthesis policy doesn't apply to article talk pages. No one stated anything about "joining [...] sources together to imply that femininity may have biological roots without a source directly supporting it." What editors have proposed is using sources specifically for the socially constructed aspect and specifically for the biological aspect. And employing WP:INTEGRITY (reference integrity) or using a bundle per WP:CITEBUNDLE is not engaging in WP:Synthesis. More below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Introduction to Education Studies is not an ideal source for this content, as I've indicated under "Source quotes" below. The sources you added to the lead, with the exception of Lippa (2014), do not refer to any debate and/or evidence as to the biological roots of femininity/masculinity, but to sex differences in behavior, as I explained above. Your comment that gendered behavior is defined in terms of masculinity and femininity (citation?) does not support using these sources to talk about femininity. Your comments here make clear that you are using disparate sources to support conclusions in the article that are not directly stated in any of the sources, as WP:V requires. Therefore it's WP:SYNTH. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You haven't revealed anything. "Not an ideal source for this content" is your opinion. Your claim that "Introduction to Education Studies" isn't valid for this topic holds no weight, and here's why: That it says that gender is a social construction does not negate the biological aspect of gender. It does not state that gender has no biological component. What it states is no more of an issue than us relaying that although femininity is socially constructed, there is some evidence of biological influence and to what extent femininity is biologically or socially influenced is subject to debate. And judging by your latest edits to this article, you very well know that scientists these days generally do not view gender as only a social construct. They are very clear that there is a biological component to gender, especially given that gender is often equated with biological sex. They are very clear that both biology and social environment affect gender/gendered behavior. The "Introduction to Education Studies" source stating that "there has been [a] continuing debate as to how much of our maleness and femaleness is biologically determined" is not a medical claim. It's a claim about the societal debate. That piece doesn't need to adhere to WP:MEDRS. And if you think it does need to, which seems to be the case, I suggest you ask at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), and see how much they think that WP:MEDRS applies to that statement. And even if WP:MEDRS did apply to it, that guideline is clear that "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies." There is no way that the "Introduction to Education Studies" source isn't appropriate for the statement that "there has been [a] continuing debate as to how much of our maleness and femaleness is biologically determined." And it's certainly appropriate for relaying gender being defined in terms of the social construction of masculine and feminine.

As for the sources in the bundle that were added to the lead, I didn't add those, and you know that. I did provide valid sources above, which speak of gender/masculinity/femininity being socially constructed, there being some evidence that indicates that some behaviors considered feminine are biologically influenced, and that to what extent femininity is biologically or socially influenced is subject to debate. It is not difficult in the least to use one or more of those sources for each piece in the lead. Your statement that I need a source for "gendered behavior is defined in terms of masculinity and femininity" when the "What do we mean by 'sex' and 'gender'?" WHO source you favor so much already does that, when this "Introduction to Education Studies" source states "Gender refers to the social construction of masculine and feminine," and when this 2008 "Battleground: M-Z" source states "Femininity and masculinity, terms that define gendered behavior, are typically tied to understandings of male and female bodies." is nonsense. You are engaging in your own synthesis by acting like "gendered behavior" isn't covered by the category of "gender"/isn't about masculinity and femininity. When not referring to biological sex, "gender" refers to masculinity/femininity and gender identity. The masculinity/femininity aspect also covers gender roles, as is clear by the WHO source. I'm not going to dig up more sources that make it clear that when "gendered behavior" is mentioned, it is (or usually is) in the context of masculinity/femininity, sometimes with mention of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Your comments here make it clear that you still put your own peculiar spins on our policies and guidelines, especially WP:Synthesis, in order to try to win arguments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

[J]udging by your latest edits to this article, you very well know that scientists these days generally do not view gender as only a social construct. What I know is not the issue. I'm following published, reliable sources, as policy requires.

The 'Introduction to Education Studies' source stating that 'there has been [a] continuing debate as to how much of our maleness and femaleness is biologically determined' is not a medical claim. It's a claim about the societal debate. What societal debate? The relevant portion of the body says "Scholars have debated the extent to which gender identity and gender-specific behaviors are due to socialization versus biological factors." There's nothing there about any debate in society writ large. If we're going to talk about a societal debate in the article, then that material should go in the relevant portion of the body first, not the lead section, per WP:WEIGHT and MOS:LEAD.

That piece doesn't need to adhere to WP:MEDRS. And if you think it does need to, which seems to be the case... This is simply a straw man. My objection to this source is that it is not focused on the topic at hand. It has nothing to do with MEDRS.

When not referring to biological sex, 'gender' refers to masculinity/femininity and gender identity. The masculinity/femininity aspect also covers gender roles, as is clear by the WHO source. Perhaps you haven't actually read WP:SYNTH. To wit: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." It literally makes no difference what the WHO or any other source says about gender, masculinity, or femininity if they don't mention the topic under discussion, namely, the scholarly debate about the origins of masculinity/femininity.

The reason we should be wary of such common-sense ideas of what masculinity/femininity are is stated by the very sources in this article: that there is little scientific agreement about what they are, that the concept has diverse meanings among scholars, as well as among the general public. Therefore we should only cite sources that directly support the text. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Therefore we should only cite sources that directly support the text. Am I understanding correctly that you feel that sources that don't specifically say "feminine" or "femininity" should not be used anywhere in the article? -Crossroads- (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Not exactly. They shouldn't be used in the lead section to support statements about femininity itself. Beyond that, some may be useful for background information in the relevant sections. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep debating your odd interpretations of WP:Synthesis (which you've already been told does not apply to talk pages) and other matters. I know how these things with you go. Despite people always agreeing with me on matters such as these, including your interpretations being overly strict or just plain off, you always try this with me. Furthermore, I extensively replied below as well. Employing WP:INTEGRITY, I can easily add sources (the ones I listed) supporting each of the points -- that "Although femininity is socially constructed," "some evidence indicates that some behaviors considered feminine are biologically influenced," and "To what extent femininity is biologically or socially influenced is subject to debate." And with quotes within the references. And via an RfC, we can then see how many people think that the text along with the sources is WP:Synthesis. But I'm not wasting anymore time debating you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to add those sources anytime. As for the rest, see WP:GRUDGE. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Bend over backwards for you and unnecessarily list more sources for you to spin to your liking? No thanks. You are simply playing games, with statements such as "What societal debate?" Do you not know what society means and that scholars also fall under "society"? And regardless, scholars on this topic also specifically address society at large when it comes to the biological/sociological debate. I could have stated, "It's a claim about the scholarly debate.", and it wouldn't have changed anything. By stating "It's a claim about the societal debate.", it is easy to see that I was distancing the statement from your comment that "A source focused on education studies is not ideal for biomedical claims." You used that bolded word (biomedical) in your collapse box below when speaking on the "Introduction to Education Studies" source. And WP:MEDRS also uses the term biomedical. So, no, my statement about WP:MEDRS was not a straw man.

As for the rest, your WP:Synthesis claims with regard to anything I've stated are off, for reasons I've already noted. And to add on to that as an example, your "It literally makes no difference what the WHO or any other source says about gender, masculinity, or femininity if they don't mention the topic under discussion, namely, the scholarly debate about the origins of masculinity/femininity." comment is just more of you being disingenuous and twisting my words because nowhere did I state or suggest the WHO source (or any sources not commenting on the scholarly debate about the origins of masculinity/femininity) should be used for the scholarly debate about the origins of masculinity/femininity. I specifically mentioned the WHO source and other sources that tie gender or gendered behavior to masculinity and femininity to challenge your nonsense with regard to what is meant by gender or gendered behavior. Your "WP:GRUDGE" statement is hilariously hypocritical. I mentioned that you have been behaving the way you have been behaving with regard to me due to your grudge, which is also clear when considering how you focus on me vs. how you focus on Crossroads. And now you speak of my supposed grudge toward you? Move on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you not know what society means and that scholars also fall under "society"? Yes, they do. So does my aunt Fanny. That doesn't mean any debate among scholars (or my aunt Fanny) is a "societal" one. See Fallacy of composition. The text under § Behavior and personality (which we are supposedly summarizing, remember?) refers to a scholarly debate. Adding a source to the lead that (maybe?) is discussing a "societal" debate does not contribute to verifying the article's contents. If the source is citable in the body (dubious), then it should be cited there, not shoehorned into a completely different issue in the lead.

...scholars on this topic also specifically address society at large when it comes to the biological/sociological debate. This is debatable; scholarly journals/textbooks are generally read by other scholars/students, not the general public. In any case, addressing society is not the same as society having a debate with itself.

You used that bolded word (biomedical) in your collapse box below when speaking on the 'Introduction to Education Studies' source. Granted. However, I could have said gender/sexuality instead and the point would still be the same for the purposes of this article.

...nowhere did I state or suggest the WHO source ... should be used for the scholarly debate about the origins of masculinity/femininity. Have we not been debating the addition of exactly that to the article? Your whole point in repeatedly stating gender/gendered behavior is usually defined in terms of masculinity and femininity, as made clear by the WHO, etc. has been to argue because of that definition, sources talking about sex differences, such as most of these, are necessarily talking about masculinity/femininity. If that's not the case, why mention it at all? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

See? More nonsense from you. The point with regard to your arguments and behavior is how you misinterpret words (including my words) and sources and present nonsensical arguments or rebut things I never argued (straw man). You've done this for years, to various editors, and it's not WP:GRUDGE to point this out and that it's been problematic. These are clearly still problematic aspects of how you argue and edit. Your argument about my "whole point in repeatedly stating 'gender/gendered behavior is usually defined in terms of masculinity and femininity, as made clear by the WHO" is blatantly false. You've asked why I've mentioned this, as if it's not clear that, like I noted, I've mentioned it to "challenge your nonsense with regard to what is meant by gender or gendered behavior." I never stated that I was okay with all of the sources presented in the bundle in the lead. In fact, I've consistently been clear that I have argued for using sources I have listed to support each aspect of the text I proposed. I was clear about that early on, with my "19:34, 25 October 2019" post. And I never stated that we should use all of the sources I presented. And even more recently above, I stated, "Employing WP:INTEGRITY, I can easily add sources (the ones I listed) supporting each of the points -- that 'Although femininity is socially constructed,' 'some evidence indicates that some behaviors considered feminine are biologically influenced,' and 'To what extent femininity is biologically or socially influenced is subject to debate.' And with quotes within the references. And via an RfC, we can then see how many people think that the text along with the sources is WP:Synthesis." So to repeat, "I'm not going to keep debating your odd interpretations of WP:Synthesis (which you've already been told does not apply to talk pages) and other matters. I know how these things with you go. Despite people always agreeing with me on matters such as these, including your interpretations being overly strict or just plain off, you always try this with me." It is always a waste of my time debating you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I gather by that non-answer that indeed, the idea of the WHO and others defining gender/masculinity/femininity a certain way is the basis of some SYNTH with the other sources discussed here. Good to have that confirmed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Good to have more of your pointy/disruptive behavior confirmed. One would think you would have recently learned your lesson at the Wikipedia talk:No original research. But, nope, even there you cry about why the matter is being discussed when it was being discussed because of you and your nonsense. Also updated my above "08:34, 30 October 2019" post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

...with regard to what is meant by gender or gendered behavior – not sure how many different ways we can describe SYNTH before it becomes obvious, but "what is meant" by one source is not necessarily (or usually) what is meant by another. Hence my comment It literally makes no difference what other sources say about gender/masculinity/femininity in this case. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

More of the same "WP:SYNTH applies to talk pages" and "I'm going to repeatedly misinterpret things you've stated, present nonsensical arguments and rebut things you never argued" behavior. Wow. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Not going to keep going round and round on this, but if someone clearly states that they think Source A and Source B are talking about the same thing (when the wording does not explicitly support it), then proceeds to add Source A to the article alongside wording taken from Source B, then SYNTH applies. As I said above, feel free to add those sources supporting each of the points. As I recall, my encouragement of just such an action was received poorly last time. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Says "Not going to keep going round and round on this.", and engages in the same "WP:SYNTH applies to talk pages" and "I'm going to repeatedly misinterpret things you've stated, present nonsensical arguments and rebut things you never argued" behavior anyway. Then throws in some more of the usual condescension, as if I need a lesson on WP:SYNTH. As is clear by the recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research, the one who needs a lesson on WP:SYNTH is you. I get that you want the WP:The last word, but you need to learn when WP:Drop the stick is relevant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

As far as context goes, Martin & Finn say there is little scientific agreement about what masculinity and femininity are. They do indeed go on to say masculinity/femininity may be "at least partly biologically determined", but this should be viewed skeptically for the purposes of this article given their earlier caveat. (Just for the record, I'm contrasting these different parts of the same source in order to argue against including something in the lead section, which isn't SYNTH.)

See also International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. (ISBN 978-0-08-097087-5): "femininity cannot be understood as a fixed set of essential traits that characterize all women. As a scholarly concept, femininity can carry diverse meanings with numerous interpretations"; and Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia, p. 238: "masculinity and femininity [are] among the muddiest concepts in the psychologist's vocabulary".

Most of the quotes presented don't explicitly support the proposed text:

Source quotes

Reinventing the Sexes: The Biomedical Construction of Femininity and Masculinity on pages 47–49 seems to be talking about a specifically 1970s controversy over the roots of male and female behavior. On page 1 it states that "biomedical scientists reinvented the sexes [and] assigned new and different meanings to gender, masculinity, and femininity in their investigations of the effects of sex hormones". What these "meanings" are and what this has to do with biological influences isn't clear since most of the source isn't in the preview; since it seems to focus on a specific body of research, it may also be out of date. Gene Worship is not the source for the following quotes, which come from a different book, Sex Itself: The Search for Male and Female in the Human Genome (2013, U of Chicago Press): Page 10: "Sociolobiological claims in the 1970s professed to explain the biological foundations of ... stereotypical masculine and feminine behaviors" doesn't say anything about evidence. The focus of this quote is the feminist critique of the "controversial" field of sociobiology; it's not focused on the topic at hand, and so the views presented would be unduly weighted in the lead section of this article. Page 12: "Sex Itself analyzes the operation of both traditional and alternative gender ideologies in the models, practices, and language of twentieth-century human sex chromosome research" is an overview of the book itself; "conceptions of males and femaleness, masculinity and femininity" refers here to beliefs ("gender ideology"), not evidence. Page 125: "In the twentieth century, the X and Y were positioned as the genetic pillars of masculinity and femininity" refers to an obsolete theory, not evidence; "leaving a pronounced mark on the questions, central debates, and research models of the field [of sex-chromosome research]" once again comes from an introductory overview, and is not necessarily about debates over femininity per se. (Didn't see this source was removed by Flyer22 Reborn before posting. —07:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)) In Feminism and Modern Philosophy: An Introduction: "more and more human traits, including masculinity and femininity, are linked to specific genetic variations" is vague; "linked" how? A source on philosophy is not ideal for biomedical claims. Page 137: "femininity or masculinity might be retained as substantive ideals..." is another statement about philosophy. Gender, Nature, and Nurture seems to support "some evidence indicates..." In Psychology: A Modular Approach to Mind and Behavior: "Changes in the brain are ... thought to alter the chances of developing feminine or masculine traits ..." weakly supports "some evidence", but the example is one of hormonal masculinization, implying that later social influences are the "feminizing" ones. Overall, not a great source for the proposed text. In Introduction to Education Studies: "There has been [a] continuing debate as to how much of our maleness and femaleness is biologically determined" comes right after explaining that sex (male/female) is distinct from gender (masculine/feminine) and saying that gender is a "social construction". What the source means by "continuing debate" is therefore somewhat vague. A source focused on education studies is not ideal for biomedical claims. Understanding Your Health seems to be about general health for undergrad students. As such, its coverage of masculinity/femininity is likely to be oversimplified; "biological and psychosocial bases that form our masculinity or femininity" is vague. What biological and psychosocial bases is the source referring to? In Battleground: Women, Gender, and Sexuality: "Defenders of traditional forms of femininity and masculinity argue that gender roles are derived from biology and should not be changed. Critics contend that femininity and masculinity are socially constructed and subject to change over time, both within and among individuals and societies" is not a statement about evidence. Where do they mention a debate among scholars? Key Thinkers on Space and Place isn't focused on this topic, but is talking specifically about the philosopher Judith Butler. We can't generalize from this anything about scholarly debate, or about evidence for biological influences. Gale Researcher Guide for: The Continuing Significance of Gender curiously treats "female/woman/feminine" as a single category, in contrast to other high-level sources. It refers to the nature/nurture debate in very general terms of "human behavior and characteristics". It's difficult to know which "factors" and "characteristics" they mean, since most of the source isn't in the preview. Likewise, we can't assume "the behavior that is often attributed to [sex hormones]" refers to anything normally called femininity. Overall, the reference to femininity seems too fleeting to be given much weight.

There might be other material in these sources that better supports the text. However, To what extent femininity is biologically or socially influenced is subject to debate is far too vague. Virtually everything is "subject to debate" in one way or another. Also, given the vagueness of the concept itself, I think we should look critically at any source discussing femininity/masculinity without defining what the term(s) mean, being especially cautious when femininity/masculinity is referred to only in passing as in many of the sources above. –Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Specifically, I don't see any support for most sociologists believe that biology plays some role. This seems to be based on Wharton's (2005) remark about "biological and social worlds". Besides being framed as a personal opinion, this is far too general to support any specific claims about femininity per se, and the reference to "most sociologists" is just a passing remark. Where the phrase "most sociologists" is used again on page 29, the focus is on the importance of culture and environment over biology. I'm also dubious given that neither Encyclopedia of Sociology (Macmillan, 2000) nor International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Elsevier, 2015) say much about biology in their respective entries on femininity/masculinity. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I reverted your removal of the text from the lead and replaced it with "Although femininity is socially constructed, some evidence indicates that some behaviors considered feminine are biologically influenced. To what extent femininity is biologically or socially influenced is subject to debate." Your claim that "most of the quotes presented don't explicitly support the proposed text," if you mean my proposed text, is odd. Sources I presented above clearly support the text. It's simply a matter of choosing which sources to use for the sentences in question. Is there evidence that indicates that some behaviors considered feminine are biologically influenced? Yes, as is clear by the 2005 "Gender, Nature, and Nurture" source. Do sources make it clear that to what extent femininity is biologically or socially influenced is subject to debate? Yes. Sources don't need to use the exact wording that we use. And we don't need to use the same exact wording that sources use. Otherwise, plagiarism would abound. And WP:Plagiarism is clear. We put content in our own words. WP:Synthesis relaying "explicitly stated by the source" does not mean "word for word."

So what we have left is the following: We have you and you alone seemingly objecting to any mention in the lead that was is considered masculine or feminine is to some degree biologically influenced, or at least to what I proposed, despite sources making this clear. We have you doubting what "gender" or "gendered behavior" means and pointing to WP:Synthesis when it's stated or implied by an editor that "gender" or "gendered behavior" means masculinity and femininity despite sources defining gender/gendered behavior in terms of masculinity and femininity. What else do you think "gendered behavior" means (other than "gender" at times being used to refer to biological sex)? We have you disregarding consensus and making it seem as though consensus means unanimity when WP:Consensus is clear that it does not. Before I reverted you, Mgasparin is the latest editor to weigh in by reverting you, and asked you to discuss first. We have you pointing to one source that says whatever to argue that other sources should not be used. You focus on things like that, but ignore the other articles in the source other sources that don't use whatever word you've taken issue with. You are stating that we should not use the Martin & Finn source to state that masculinity and femininity may be "at least partly biologically determined", but you then used that same source to add the following: "Despite the terms femininity and masculinity being in common usage, there is little scientific agreement about what femininity and masculinity are."

Per WP:Lead, the lead is meant to summarize the article. Considering that the "Behavior and personality" section notes the biological aspect with regard to masculinity and femininity and says "scholars have debated the extent to which gender identity and gender-specific behaviors are due to socialization versus biological factors" piece, the lead should include the text I proposed or something similar. Stating "is subject to debate" is fine, as the lead is meant to summarize. And when sources like this "The Sociology of Gender: An Introduction to Theory and Research" source used in the article states "Whether there are biological or genetic contributions to the behavior of males and females is a subject of heated debate.", that is us simply following the sources, as also mentioned by WP:Weasel, which states, "The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source." Yes, we could state a bit more on the topic in the lead, but more should not be stated in the lead than what is stated in the "Behavior and personality" section. Your use of "may be partly biologically determined" in that section, with regard to masculinity and femininity, is too soft and it's contradictory, given the "while social and biological influences are thought to be mutually interacting during development" piece in that section and what sources like "Gender, Nature, and Nurture" (which I cited above) state. "Gender, Nature, and Nurture" does not state "may." Your use of "may" should be "are." Or the text should be altered to use the word "indicates" or "suggests" (like the "Gender, Nature, and Nurture" source). I'd also be fine with the lead using "suggests" instead of "indicates."

As for the rest, I'm not addressing that, except that your opinion on what is "not a great source" is your opinion and your "in passing" argument holds no weight considering that most of the sources are taking the time to comment on and analyze gender/masculinity/femininity in the context of social and/or biological influence. I've done my part by providing reliable sources for the text I proposed. If this matter needs to go to an RfC, so be it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, on top of Flyer22 Reborn's cogent points above in support of the text in the lead, and her tweaks to it which are reasonable, I want to emphasize that mentioning this in the lead does have consensus, as established above by the discussion between me, her, and Nblund; as well by the fact that your removal was reverted by Mgasparin. I am hereby warning you that attempting again to remove it from the lead, or alter its decided upon meaning, without first establishing a new consensus to do so, would constitute edit warring, as well as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior.

You alone asserting that it is SYNTH or UNDUE in contradiction to other editors' feelings does not automatically make it so, and so does not justify removing it again.

Claiming it has been "already discussed", when you are really unilaterally declaring victory less than two hours after your talk page comment [6] even though two other editors less than 48 hours before had specifically supported the text you removed, [7][8] does not justify removing it again.

Follow Wikipedia's processes, please. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC) updated -Crossroads- (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Crossroads: following the "consensus" of three other editors, which was based on less than a week of discussion (the default for an RfC is thirty days), I provided additional arguments for excluding the text. If you have specific rejoinders to the issues I raised, please state them. Claiming consensus was "established" as an involved participant in the discussion is not how it works. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources I presented above clearly support the text – with the exception of Lippa (2014), they do not, as I explained above under "Source quotes".

Sources don't need to use the exact wording that we use – they do need to refer to the same topic. Most of these sources refer to topics covered under Gender inequality or Sex differences in psychology, not to femininity per se. If other material in these sources explicitly references femininity/masculinity, please provide a quote.

We put content in our own words – this does not justify putting words in our sources' mouths. If any of the reliable sources cited wanted to comment on biological roots of femininity, they could have. Instead, most refer to gender and gender differences in more general terms, or simply in terms of "males and females", as in Wharton (2005).

As Vetterling-Braggin (1982) states, the meaning of "femininity"/"masculinity" varies by author. We can't assume that an author writing about "physiology and gender difference", "gendered behaviors and preferences", "sex-typed patterns of behavior", or gender and sexuality in general are writing about femininity/masculinity unless they directly say so.

[M]ost of the sources are taking the time to comment on and analyze gender/masculinity/femininity in the context of social and/or biological influence – see RSCONTEXT: Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. "Focused on the topic at hand" here means we should cite quality sources that primarily deal with gender and sexuality, not education or philosophy. Even a general psychology textbook is likely to be oversimplified here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

following the "consensus" of three other editors, which was based on less than a week of discussion (the default for an RfC is thirty days) So what? If you have specific rejoinders to the issues I raised, please state them. Nope. You are not going to filibuster or WP:WIKILAWYER this endlessly. There is nothing more to say on those sources. You've said your opinion and others do not agree. Refusing to concede is not winning. Claiming consensus was "established" as an involved participant in the discussion is not how it works. It is actually, because most discussions are not closed by an administrator in the formal sense, so the consensus is understood by the participants. Should be, anyway. How it definitely does not work is a lone participant totally ignoring everyone else's comments and insisting their way of seeing things is correct.

The Shehan source is very reliable and relevant, and your criticism of it above is yours alone and is quite frankly a tortured one.

You have now four times tagged the other sources as SYNTH and/or removed them in blatant contradiction to their support by other editors in this talk page discussion: [9][10][11][12] That is edit warring. Stop it.

This is much like what you did at the beginning of the discussion, when you removed an existing sentence, [13] you were reverted by me and I cited WP:BRD, [14] and you reverted back anyway [15] bizarrely on the grounds of BRD. [16] It's Bold, Revert, Discuss, not Bold, Revert, Revert back, Discuss.

It certainly also did not escape my notice that in this edit [17] you added "in Western societies" even though you made no indication that any of the pre-existing sources restricted themselves to the West. And the two I checked did not say "Western" ([18] p. 563 and [19] p. 63), and this one ([20] p. 563) doesn't say "feminine/femininity" either. You also claimed that epigenetic and evolutionary research was from a sociobiology perspective and that this was the same as biosocial, [21] even though the source ([22] p. 29) says nothing of the sort. Pretty odd for someone so worried about SYNTH. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Raising good-faith objections, including those based on WP:RS guidelines, is not "wikilawyering". I'm not going to respond to accusations, but I'll wait for others to weigh in on my comments/changes. Nblund, any thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Your arguments and editing on this matter are questionable. Regarding this and this, it is easy to validly use one or more of the sources for "Although femininity is socially constructed." It is easy to validly use one or more of the sources for "some evidence indicates that some behaviors considered feminine are biologically influenced." It is easy to validly use one or more of the sources for "To what extent femininity is biologically or socially influenced is subject to debate." Again, sources I provided explicitly support all three aspects. You state that they don't. The "socially constructed" part is already covered. So let's move on to the "some evidence indicates that some behaviors considered feminine are biologically influenced" part. This is supported by the 2005 "Gender, Nature, and Nurture" source, which you also admit supports it. It's also supported by the 2005 "Psychology: A Modular Approach to Mind and Behavior" source, which states, in part, "Changes in the brain are then thought to alter the chances of developing feminine or masculine traits [...] Direct evidence for this idea is provided by females exposed to androgens before birth." Above, you stated that this source "weakly supports 'some evidence'" while giving your opinion that "Overall, not a great source for the proposed text." The "some evidence" aspect is also supported by the 2007 "Understanding Your Health" source, which speaks on the biological and psychosocial bases that form masculinity or femininity. And the "to what extent femininity is biologically or socially influenced is subject to debate" piece? It is supported by the 2008 "Battleground: M-Z" source. You asking, "Where do they mention a debate among scholars?" is disingenuous. The 2010 "Key Thinkers on Space and Place" source also speaks on this debate. That it discusses the matter by also speaking of Judith Butler does not negate that. The 2013 "Sex Itself: The Search for Male and Female in the Human Genome" source also speaks on this debate despite your complaint about it "[coming] from [an] introductory overview" and your claim that "it is not necessarily about debates over femininity per se." The way you question sources as vague, when we can only go by what they state regardless of what we find vague, makes me want to call your "per se" pieces vague.

You stated, "Most of these sources refer to topics covered under Gender inequality or Sex differences in psychology, not to femininity per se." What? The gender inequality claim is inaccurate. And as for the sex differences in psychology claim, under what categories do you think the topic of gendered behavior, the topic of masculine and feminine behaviors, are studied? What fields do you think make up the "Sex differences in psychology" title we use for the Sex differences in psychology article? If we are going to address masculine and feminine behaviors and what impact biology and society have on them, as we should, then we are going to include sources that are also relevant to the Sex differences in psychology article. Your point on "sex differences in psychology" (a title chosen by Wikipedia) makes no sense.

You stated that "they do need to refer to the same topic." Sources I provided are referring to the same topic. By this, I mean they are specifically referring to whatever aspect regarding my proposed text.

You stated, "If any of the reliable sources cited wanted to comment on biological roots of femininity, they could have." Yep, and enough of them do, certainly for the statement that "some evidence indicates that some behaviors considered feminine are biologically influenced."

You relayed, "As Vetterling-Braggin (1982) states, the meaning of 'femininity'/'masculinity' varies by author." Vetterling-Braggin is a very old source. The understanding of gender/gendered behavior (meaning why some people are more masculine or feminine than others) has significantly improved since then. Scientists significantly better under the transgender topic because of it. As for "we can't assume that an author writing about [so and so]," I'm not assuming anything. I'm going by what the sources state. And like I told you, if sources are vague, we are vague.

You stated, "see RSCONTEXT." I don't need to. Like I already stated, "Most of the sources are taking the time to comment on and analyze gender/masculinity/femininity in the context of social and/or biological influence." That aligns with RSCONTEXT. Most of these pieces are not passing mentions. And, indeed, some of the sources revisit the topic on other pages. Nowhere does RSCONTEXT support the notion that the sources I've listed shouldn't be used. And "may not be reliable" is not the same thing as "is not reliable." Furthermore, femininity is overwhelmingly a social topic, and that includes education and especially psychology, political arguments, and philosophy. So your complaint on this aspect aligns with your other odd arguments. You are trying awfully hard to keep out content you personally don't like. Education sources take the time to devote chapters to different aspects of society. Using such a source that devotes time to femininity is perfectly fine. And we do use education sources in a number of our medical articles and not just for our "Society and culture" sections. A number of sources in this article are not primarily devoted to the topic of femininity.

On a side note: I'd already corrected the "Gene Worship: Moving Beyond the Nature/nurture Debate Over Genes, Brain, and Gender" quote matter, before your reply. So I don't see why you felt the need to note in your collapse box that "Gene Worship is not the source for the following quotes, which come from a different book, Sex Itself: The Search for Male and Female in the Human Genome (2013, U of Chicago Press)." It seems you typed this up before I altered my post, but you certainly could have changed your post once you saw that I had corrected my post. If you didn't see that I had corrected by post, then whatever. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The above is mostly a rehash of previous arguments, and much of it is simply personal opinion. ([I]t is easy to validly use one or more of the sources for [X]? Easy how? Valid how?) Frankly these walls of text are getting disruptive. Can you not try to present your thoughts more succinctly?

[F]emininity is overwhelmingly a social topic, and that includes education and especially psychology, political arguments, and philosophy. Then why is there such a thing as gender studies or the study of human sexuality? You're dancing around the actual point, which is that we generally cite focused sources. Works like this one and this one are highly generalized on purpose. The fact that some aspects of education, philosophy, and psychology are affected by discussions about masculinity/femininity doesn't mean that any source from those fields is appropriate for this article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Replied above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

And "Frankly these walls of text are getting disruptive." is just plain silliness. Well, except for when applied to your behavior. Your posts are also walls of text. There wouldn't be walls of text if not for your disruptive behavior and faulty arguments that need thorough rebuttals. Characterizing my posts as disruptive is just more of your pointy behavior. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

And "doesn't mean that any source from those fields is appropriate for this article" is just more of your straw man tactic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Then what is your argument for why this source and [23] this one are specifically reliable here? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding less than a week of discussion (the default for an RfC is thirty days): in other words, the "consensus" was hastily reached without allowing sufficient time for others to comment. It may have escaped others' attention, but I started the thread we're on now. So the "consensus" did not include all participants of the discussion, let alone all editors' legitimate concerns, as required by WP:CON. The fact that discussions of contentious topics routinely take much longer belies any claims of "endless" debate. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

As as required by WP:CON? WP:Consensus is clear: "'Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Editors have taken your arguments/concerns into consideration. Editors disagree with your arguments/concerns. WP:Consensus does not mean that we must continue to debate you and then construct a lead that you agree with, especially when a source such as the "Gender, Nature, and Nurture" source quite clearly supports the "some evidence indicates that some behaviors considered feminine are biologically influenced" piece. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

If I thought my concerns had been substantively addressed, believe me, I wouldn't be arguing about it. Feel free to point out where my concerns about the article were actually addressed with reasons rather than outright dismissals or personal criticisms. Consensus ... is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies. Where is the "compromise" happening here exactly? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Crossroads, Nblund and I compromised. We presented alternative proposals and worked together. Where exactly did you do that? All you have done is insist on removing material from the lead that should clearly be there per WP:Lead and is clearly supported by sources presented on this talk page. All you've done is complain about sources being vague when we can only go by what the sources state. A number of your concerns are not legitimate concerns. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

It's difficult to "work together" with users who respond to concerns with flat dismissals. A number of your concerns are not legitimate is a perfect example. As for where I've compromised, I agreed that Lippa (2014) was a valid source and even added it to the relevant section, along with fixing the citation to Martin & Finn (2010) to point to the correct page, despite my reservations about that source for the statement "femininity and masculinity may be partly biologically determined." —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Instead of coming right to the talk page and proposing that certain sources be removed and why, you continued to remove the entire agreed-upon text from the lead. When it's clear that many sources state that femininity is socially constructed, the Lippa source supports "some research indicates that some behaviors considered feminine are biologically influenced," the Martin & Finn source supports the biological aspect, and that there are sources (including the Martin & Finn source) that speak on the debate, how is there a need to remove the entire text and/or all of the sources from the lead? I can accept that the first and second time you removed all of the material, you hadn't examined the sources and that you were concerned about the "and is made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors," as this post indicates. That was a poor addition that should not have been agreed on to begin with. But it's what you did and a lot of what you argued after new wording was proposed and implemented. Yes, I've dismissed and/or argued against a number of your points after having considered them. I didn't dismiss you wanting the sources to specifically state "femininity"; in the #Text removed section, where I included sources in the collapse box, I even stated, "Because I knew that the discussion would come to this (a complaint about the sources not explicitly stating 'femininity'), I made clear that I felt that my proposed wording should be supported by 'sources [that] specifically [go with it].' '" This is because I knew that you would make the complaint you did. It has also seemed that while you are okay with the "some biological influence" aspect being lower in the article, you are not okay with it being in the lead, arguing WP:Due. But, given the "Behavior and personality" section, I see including this aspect in the lead as WP:Due. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Moving forward

Moving forward and employing WP:INTEGRITY, instead of using the bundle, we can add sources supporting each of the points -- that "Although femininity is socially constructed," "some evidence indicates that some behaviors considered feminine are biologically influenced," and "To what extent femininity is biologically or socially influenced is subject to debate." And with quotes within the references if that is desired. There is already agreement that the "Gender, Nature, and Nurture" source is decent for the "some evidence indicates that some behaviors considered feminine are biologically influenced" piece. Now it's just a matter of agreeing on which additional source or sources to use for that part, or agreeing to not use any additional source for that part, and agreeing on which sources to use for the other parts. Of course, other sources can also be presented for the other parts. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

This approach of "here's a statement, now let's find sources for it" is backwards, in my opinion. Per WP:NOR, "The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly." Note that the first step there is finding sources, then drafting statements. Neutrality also means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Looking through sources for the one part that happens to support a given statement is exactly the kind of thing that leads to a biased article. This approach of attaching a source to each part of a statement is also likely to lead to WP:SYNTH. Unless a source explicitly connects "socially constructed" and "biologically influenced", the word "although" implies a false comparison. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Enough of the pontificating and wikilawyering. I'm sure Flyer22 Reborn has been reading reliable sources on gender and psychology for ages. I know I have. We know that what is POV is claiming femininity is socially constructed only, like you preferred. [24] The only reason we keep looking for sources is because of your personal interpretation of SYNTH (which of course applies only to content you don't like - when it comes to claiming certain things are just Western culture, or that certain research is just sociobiology, [25] SYNTH goes out the window). The sources which we removed from the lead were nonetheless perfectly acceptable, as everyone not named Sangdeboeuf understood - indeed, I checked, and they all used the term "feminine" or "femininity" for female gendered traits elsewhere in their pages. Whatever. The sources now there are just as good.

If I thought my concerns had been substantively addressed, believe me, I wouldn't be arguing about it. And you'll apparently go on claiming your concerns are unaddressed until the sun burns out. Can't put it any better than WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT: In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you. Make a strong effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with". -Crossroads- (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what Sangdeboeuf is going on about. There are clearly reliably sources that support each of the points, and WP:INTEGRITY is clear that adding a reference for each point in a sentence is fine. A sentence can include multiple points. And it's not automatically WP:Synthesis when it does include multiple points. Employing WP:INTEGRITY and doing it right is sticking to the source. That other sources disagree with each other doesn't make following what a source says and citing it WP:Synthesis. And that other sources disagree in this case is covered by "To what extent femininity is biologically or socially influenced is subject to debate." That other sources define masculinity and femininity differently does not take away from the common definitions for those terms/concepts and that we go with those common definitions first and foremost per WP:Due weight. Outlier definitions don't get nearly as much weight. That femininity is commonly defined as being socially constructed doesn't mean that we can't also note that the behaviors people categorize as feminine behavior is or may be biologically influenced. The "is or may be biologically influenced" aspect is not a definition; it's an aspect. And this aspect is already covered lower in the article. And, like I noted before, it should also be in the lead per WP:Lead.

Furthermore, when sources repeatedly and consistently define gender or gendered behavior in terms of femininity and masculinity, it's odd to then question what is meant by "gendered behavior" because one or more sources state that masculinity and femininity have meant different things to different scholars. That masculinity and femininity have meant different things to different scholars doesn't change the common social construction definition of gender. It doesn't change the fact that gender/gendered behavior is repeatedly and consistently defined in terms of femininity and masculinity. And I've already pointed out that "explicitly states" is not the same thing as "word for word." WP:Synthesis is not saying that sources must use the same exact words that we use or that we must use the same exact words that sources use. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to cite sources that use synonyms or explicitly support text with different wording that clearly means the same thing as whatever text we have proposed or used, and WP:Plagiarism would be a problem because we wouldn't be able to use wording that is different from the source's wording.

The "Gender, Nature, and Nurture" source explicitly supports "biologically influenced", which is why, in Sangdeboeuf's collapse box above, Sangdeboeuf stated that it "seems to support 'some evidence indicates...'". Another source that supports "some evidence indicates" is this 2008 "Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior" source, from Cengage Learning, page 363, which states, "Sex hormones may 'sex-type' the brain before birth, altering the chances of developing feminine or masculine traits (LeVay & Valente, 2006). Evidence for this idea is provided by females exposed to androgens before birth. After birth, their hormones shift to female, and they are raised as girls. Nevertheless, the prenatal exposure to male hormones has a masculinizing effect. During childhood, such girls are typically 'tomboys' who prefer the company of boys to girls. Although it would be a mistake to ignore this biological biasing effect, most human sex-linked behaviors are influenced much more by learning than is the case for animals (Helgeson, 2005)."

Other sources that support "To what extent femininity is biologically or socially influenced is subject to debate." are the following: This 2009 "Men and Feminism: Seal Studies" source, from Basic Books, pages 66 to 75, goes into the nature vs. nurture debate with regard to masculinity/femininity, and also refers to masculinity/femininity as gendered behavior. This 2011 "Encyclopedia of Women in Today's World, Volume 1" source, from Sage Publications, pages 602 to 603, speaks of the debate, clearly using the words debate and femininity. The 2010 "Masculinity and Femininity in the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A" source, from the University of Minnesota Press, that is has been cited on this talk page and is cited in the article also addresses the debate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hidden text removed

I removed three paragraphs of hidden text from the lead, placed there^[fixed] in 2011. Although it can sometimes be helpful, I'm generally not a fan of hidden text as it tends to exist in isolation, unsigned, and without an expiration date, and ends up sticking around way beyond its usefulness, as was the case here. It also smacks a bit of ownership behavior, especially at this point many years later. If there is a reason to place hidden text in the article now, then it should be discussed and a consensus sought for it. You can view the state of the article at the point it was added, in this permalink.

The talk subpage "Archive of common concerns" was created by the same editor around the same time, and expresses their views at that time; a link to the subpage is still shown in the Talk page header at the top of this page. Whether that link needs to live forever is another question, but even though it is quite stale, it doesn't seem to detract much, so I left it. Mathglot (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC) updated to fix diff; Mathglot (talk) 09:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Your "placed there" link needs fixing. I'm a fan of hidden text, especially in the case of contentious matters that have been debated over and over again. In those cases, a hidden note encourages editors to take a matter to the talk page first, which is line with what WP:CAREFUL and WP:CAUTIOUS state, especially when referring to contentious articles. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hidden text#Inappropriate uses for hidden text is clear about how hidden notes should be worded as to not assert ownership. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

But it does make sense to either remove or adjust it considering that were discussing changing the lead. Nblund ^talk 14:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that. I thought to mention that, but ultimately didn't see the need to do so. Still, the note that was there (the first note, not all of that other stuff) is mostly general and can apply to any case. I mean, "the subject of femininity is so contentious" and "in some cases the exact wording of a given sentence in the lede has been chosen to appease all concerned" still ring true. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Oops; diff is now fixed. The removed text simply wasn't useful, one had no idea what wording was being referred to, or how many years ago it might all have been rejected for something else. I agree that it could apply to any case, which is another reason why I don't find it useful. Controversial articles abound. There are other ways to influence future editors: a talk page FAQ is one way; see for example, Talk:Jesus, which transcludes Talk:Jesus/FAQ. Another way, is through an Edit notice; for an example, go to Leslie Feinberg, and click the Edit button. Another way, is through a pinned talk page discussion (using Template:DNAU) at the top of the page. Another way, is spanning the inviolable text with a template, such as {{as written}}; although I'm not really a fan of that method. (The previous sentence contains such a template in the wikicode.) There are probably other methods as well. If we go back to a hidden text message, we should come up with a consensus draft before placing it, in my opinion. Mathglot (talk) 09:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The other options, such as a FAQ, don't reach editors as quickly and sufficiently. Many people, especially newbies, don't check talk pages for FAQs. A hidden note reaches editors right there in the moment when they are about to edit the article. More discussion of hidden notes at controversial articles is seen here. Hidden notes are usually brief and vague, such as "NOTE: This image was chosen as the lead image as the result of a discussion in August 2019. If you want to use a different lead image, please discuss the matter on the article talk page." I agree that if we use one for the Femininity article, it should be different than what you removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that FAQ notes aren't as effective, especially with new editors. But what about an edit notice? Already mentioned Leslie Feinberg; another example is Faizabad district. Mathglot (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Just a note: edit notices don't seem to show up on mobile; I just tried it at Fienberg's article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, they most certainly do. If they are not showing up for you, please raise a discussion at WP:VPT or file a report in Phabricator. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)