Talk:Gender/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Article scope and lead

This article appears to be about Gender broadly, meaning that it covers grammatical gender, social gender, and sex. However, last August after this discussion, "biological sex" was removed from the lead sentence, perhaps this was the final removal. Making things more confusing, Gender role or gender identity, depending on the source, may be synonyms for social gender:

• [G]ender gained a meaning referring to the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex, as in "gender roles." "Gender", Merriam-Webster [1]
• One's identity as female or male or as neither entirely female nor entirely male. "Gender" American Heritage Dictionary [2]

It is unclear to me what the scope of this article and the other gender articles should be. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion that may help answer this question at Draft talk:Female (gender)#Nature of this page, particularly the sources cited and discussed. Beccaynr (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

No, that doesn't help. Your draft is about social gender, but Gender is currently not limited to that. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

That particular discussion on the draft Talk page discusses how the draft addresses more than social aspects of gender; the draft also currently includes a Biological section in addition to other aspects, including Legal. And I think there are a wide range of sources that may be helpful for editors generally interested in this article and the lead. Beccaynr (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see how that draft is limited to "social gender", as opposed to gender identity, say, or cultural engendering/engenderment (the cultural construction of femininity). What excess do you believe you have identified at "Gender" that does not apply, say, to Female (gender), Male (gender) and Nonbinary gender? Is it the terminological discussion (usage of the term gender) that this article contains? Newimpartial (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for my imprecision. I would like to focus on this article. I would like to continue this discussion with my comment below with the same timestamp. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Your list, grammatical gender, social gender, and sex, does not strike me as particularly helpful, since it does not include gender identity, which is distinct from all of the above. Your list also seems to posit (as did some prior versions of this article's lead) that "sex" (or "biological sex") can be straightforwardly distinguished from gender, or that a relationship between the two can be simply delineated, while I don't believe that either of these assumptions is widely shared within the relevant literature. Newimpartial (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

This article currently is about grammatical gender, social gender, and sex (all species), at least. Regardless of the nuances of the sex and gender distinction, this article is not just about social or psychological gender. My question is, what should it cover? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

If you think gender identity - a major aspect of gender in the 21st century - can be paraphrased as psychological gender, then I'm not confident that you should be posing content questions about this article, to be completely honest. Newimpartial (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you unwilling to articulate what you think the scope of this article should be? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't find the scope of this article to be especially problematic or in need of further definition. If I were to name a problem with the article, it would be the passages that rely on outdated sources. Newimpartial (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll rephrase: are you willing to articulate what you think the scope of this article is? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

What part of I don't find the scope of this article to be ... in need of further definition seems unclear to you? The article's scope is what it is. Newimpartial (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought by definition you were referring to the clarity the scope in the lead. If by definition you mean articulating the scope in this talk page, "further" implies that you've articulated the scope. Which comments of yours articulated the scope? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

The article's scope is what it is appears to me to be standard English, and reflects my view. Newimpartial (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure the answer will WP:SATISFY you (this particular thread seems like unproductive head-butting), but my interpretation of Newimpartial's remarks here is that the current scope of the articles gender, sex, gender role, and gender identity, and the distinctions between them, are self-evident from the text of the articles themselves, and that (although the concepts may have some overlap, particularly as the term "gender" is used in common parlance) they are already organized and delineated in an acceptable fashion. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 01:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that it is at all fair to cite WP:SATISFY which describes making repeated unreasonable demands for re-explanation of that which has already been clearly explained. The scope of this article should be summarized by the lead, but the lead is not clear. The current lead [3] has a Template:Dubious, and the sources I listed in the subsection below do not clearly support the first sentences. And I began this section asking about the scope by questioning the removal of "biological sex" from the lead. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I added the dubious template [4] to the first line of the lead: Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to femininity and masculinity and differentiating between them. I think Newimpartial addresses this issue with their comment [5] below discussing "characteristics", and the contents of the article seem helpful to consider as well. Beccaynr (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I should perhaps have pointed out previously that the scope of this article does not include sex (all species) (sic.) It includes the use of the term gender to refer to sex in human and nonhuman species, which is not at all the same thing. I'm still really not confident, Kolya, of your competence to formulate questions about the content of this article, based on performance to date. Newimpartial (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead definition sources

We may need to update the sources or the lead definition. Currently there are three sources which state:

• "Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women. ... Some examples of sex characteristics: Women menstruate while men do not. World Health Organization (2017) [6]
• ... I want to give you an integrated theory of gender. Since current usage is so inconsistent, we need a good definition. Gender is the relationship between biological sex and behavior ... Social science explanations of gender depend on three concepts: gender role, socialization, and opportunity structures. ... A gender role is a range of acceptable behavior that differs by sex in a particular behavioral domain (say, parenting) and is supported by gendered norms.. Udry, Richard. "The Nature of Gender". Demography (1994) [7]
• From this beginning, there was a slow but gradual increase in the use of gender through the 1960s by writers, especially in the social sciences and among psychoanalysts, who wished to emphasize the environmental, social, or psychologic determinants of psychologic/behavioral differences between men and women. "The Inexorable Rise of Gender and the Decline of Sex: Social Change in Academic Titles, 1945–2001". Archives of Sexual Behavior (2004) [8]

Are there preferred sources in the article for the lead definition? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Legal definition from the body: The word "gender" has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

WHO definition from the body: The World Health Organization defines gender as the result of socially constructed ideas about the behavior, actions, and roles a particular sex performs.[9] Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be cherrypicking sources that make reference to sex, for some reason. Do you believe that these represent the corpus of sources referenced in this article? I do not believe that they do (and we should not be reaching back to 1994 sources for non-historical purposes, in any case). Newimpartial (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

My question was, are there preferred sources in the article for the lead definition? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

If you're asking for a definition, my starting point would be the WHO's Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed,[10] except that I find "characteristics" to be unnecessarily restrictive. I would prefer, for example, to include gender relations - Gender relations define how people should interact with others and how others relate to them, depending on their attributed gender, and they should be analyzed within the cultural context in which they develop [11] - and similar concepts that cannot be reduced to "characteristics" pertaining to individuals. Newimpartial (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me information. The US Department of Labor interprets a WHO definition of gender as the: "'socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate' based on sex." [12] Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

This feels like one of those marine mammal scenarios where an editor keeps pulling any source or text offered back towards their idée fix (in this case, "sex"). Newimpartial (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I am seeking to clarify how gender relates to sex, so naturally I am analyzing the text and sources to figure out how sex fits in. If you think the US DOL is getting WHO's definition of gender wrong, I think that shows that the average person would be confused by it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

This isn't an article about how gender relates to sex (the article on that topic being Sex and gender distinction), so I'm not convinced that analyzing the text and sources to figure out how sex fits in is the best contribution you could be making to this article. The US DOL has lots to say about gender, and the specific based on sex formulation that you have pulled out of context isn't especially prominent among its statements, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Would you please strike pulled out of context? Below is the context:

Gender Identity: Key Terminology

What is the difference between sex and gender? Sex (i.e., male, female, or intersex) is assigned at birth based on a combination of a baby's biological characteristics, including chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs, and is originally documented on a person's birth certificate. The World Health Organization defines gender as the "socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate" based on sex.[13]

Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not going to do what you ask. You have seized upon the one passage on that DOL page that elaborates briefly on gender in relation to sex, as opposed to the vast majority of that page's text that does no such thing. I would direct your attention, for example, to the following, IMO more interesting, passage:

Discrimination based on gender identity or expression can affect anyone. Policies barring these forms of discrimination not only protect those who openly identify as transgender, femme, masc, or non-binary, but they also protect anyone who might express their gender in any way that does not conform to preconceived notions about how people of a particular gender should express themselves.

That passage offers a useful articulation of how discrimination based on gender expression is not reducible to gender identity or to minorities based on gender identity - while still remaining a key aspect of gender. None of this explanation requires reference to "sex" for its interpretation, as is typical of the DOL page as a whole. So "pulled out of context" still applies, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The passage I cited is from a list of definitions which includes separate definitions for gender identity and gender expression. The US DOL is apparently citing WHO's definition: "Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women. [14] It might be argued that this definition is out-of-date or the US DOL is misinterpreting it, but I disagree that it was pulled out of context by me. I think we can agree that the lead is dubious and the current sourcing in the lead is inadequate. I find the WHO definitions confusing. The Sex and gender distinction article's lead states, in part, that gender usually refers to either social roles based on the sex of a person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity). That language sounds clear, but not sufficient for this article. I am curious what other definitions folks find helpful. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

this article is quite good.  Tewdar  23:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The authors suggest operationalising gender as consisting of several aspects, which can be divided into the four main facets of: (a) physiological/bodily aspects (sex); (b) gender identity or self-defined gender; (c) legal gender; and (d) social gender in terms of norm-related behaviours and gender expressions (the American Psychological Association refers to this aspect as ‘sex role’; APA, 2015). Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

One of the complicating factors here is the ambiguity about whether the social roles referred to as either "sex roles" or "gender roles" are based on the sex of a person (as Wikipedia states, and as the term "sex role" implies) or are based on gender identity and gender expression (as the term "gender role" implies, and as Lindkvist et al. suggest when writing in their own voice). In reality, these roles can be interpolated based on both or either, but rapid elision to a "based on sex" formulation doesn't do our readers any favours, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Lindkvist et al.: (d) social gender ... (the American Psychological Association refers to this aspect as ‘sex role’; APA, 2015) APA: sex role: the behavior and attitudinal patterns characteristically associated with being male or female as defined in a given society. Sex roles thus reflect the interaction between biological heritage and the pressures of socialization, and individuals differ greatly in the extent to which they manifest typical sex-role behavior. [15] Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I can read, thanks. But that isn't what Lindkvist et al. continue to discuss as social gender in terms of norm-related behaviours and gender expressions. You can keep going back to the interaction between biological heritage and the pressures of socialization all you want, but that is no longer a typical or uncontested characterization of the concept that can be stated in wikivoice much less in an article lead, as you have repeatedly advocated. Newimpartial (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I've advocated for any particular language/idea for nearly two weeks. Part of what I am doing is questioning the dominant POVs here. I don't recall you quoting a single source's definition of gender which you agree with, so it is difficult to collaborate. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• I think consideration of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY is helpful when discussing the lead, but as to the source identified by Tewdar, "What is gender, anyway: a review of the options for operationalising gender" by Lindqvist et al in 2020, it also states Every researcher should reflect upon why they include gender as a variable, how it is connected to their research question, and what aspect/s of gender that best may serve as predictor(s) for the outcome variables. To aid in that process, we provide a systematic deconstruction of gender into four facets, and discuss how to operationalise each facet. The goal is not to make a best practice recommendation, but to help researchers reflect upon the concept of gender and make informed decisions about measuring gender and later on, Both on a theoretical and a linguistic level, the terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ are conflated. In English, physiological/bodily aspects are often referred to as sex which regards genitalia, chromosomes, and bodily attributes, while social aspects are referred to as gender (Frohard-Dourlent et al., 2017; West & Zimmerman, 1987), including cultural meanings associated with behaviour, personality and expressions conventionally labelled as feminine or masculine (Reisner et al., 2015). Despite this conflation, sex seems to be a poor proxy for gender, because it is incorrect to assume that sex precedes and determines gender (Bittner & Goodyear-Grant, 2017; Butler, 1990; Fausto-Sterling, 2012; Westbrook & Saperstein, 2015). There is also the APA definition of gender that could be considered. Beccaynr (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

It was earlier claimed that This isn't an article about how gender relates to sex (the article on that topic being Sex and gender distinction). This is a non sequitur. The relation to sex is a major aspect of the topic of gender and should be included. And yes, it plays a part in the definition. Humans have had sexes long before they evolved the ability to create social constructs. Gender should not and cannot be defined solely in a circular fashion in which "gender" is defined in terms of norms, stereotypes, identity, expression, or what have you, each of which is itself defined as related to a particular gender. You can't define A as based on B when B is defined as based on A. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we should be careful to avoid an appearance of original research or "POV" by carefully working with reliable sources and the structure and contents of the article to help support WP:NPOV. From my view, there are a wide variety of sources discussing gender as a concept, including the above, which notes the conflation of terminology that can happen and states, e.g. sex seems to be a poor proxy for gender, because it is incorrect to assume that sex precedes and determines gender (Bittner & Goodyear-Grant, 2017; Butler, 1990; Fausto-Sterling, 2012; Westbrook & Saperstein, 2015). Beccaynr (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

All that's saying is that some people are transgender, which we all know and provides no help in defining this term. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

This source is titled "What is gender, anyway: a review of the options for operationalising gender", and from my view, even if all it said was that some people are transgender (which it does not appear to do in the context of the quote), this would be helpful for defining gender, because transgender is part of this topic. This source appears to discuss gender as a broad concept, e.g. the source states: "In this article, we deconstruct the concept ‘gender’ as consisting of several facets, and argue that the researcher needs to identify relevant aspects of gender in relation to their research question." Beccaynr (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

We are not social scientists conducting a study and are not engaging in operationalization. What your quote is basically saying is that researchers should not assume that someone's sex matches their gender. No one here is disputing that by saying someone's gender should be defined as always matching their biological sex. We are talking about the concept in general. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

In the context of this concept generally, there are a variety of sources (discussed further in the Broad concept article approach Talk section below) that appear to add more depth to the discussion, including the medical and scientific challenges related to the use of the term "biological sex" when defining "gender."

It appears this article can present history of the development of the concept of gender, and also present a contemporary WP:NPOV understanding. The source above seems to address a variety of general issues, including the conflation of the terms 'sex' and 'gender', with references to a variety of sources that may be helpful, but also seems clear about not making "a best practice recommendation." Beccaynr (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I delight in the abundance of originality you are offering us, Crossroads. Care to contribute to a source-based discussion?

Also, let me explicitly question your major premise: it is simply no longer a constant among the reliable sources on gender that B is defined based on A. In fact, in the 21st century, the sources that now define B based on A are probably now a minority, excluding the screeds and op-eds. Newimpartial (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Care to contribute to a source-based discussion? Again, have you provided a quote of a definition from a single source that you agree with? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I have been reading this law review, which may be helpful for developing the article: Jessica A. Clarke (Nov. 2022) "Sex Assigned at Birth" Columbia Law Review 122 (7). The introduction is also available here. Beccaynr (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much on gender, but transgender is frequently defined in terms of identities, roles, behaviors, etc., which differ from what are typically "associated with" one's "sex" or "expected" for or of their "sex". I would expect the same logic for gender in general, but it would be helpful to find sources which actually address our questions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Statistics Canada's definition of gender distinguishes gender from sex at birth without basing one on (or associating one with) the other; I suspect that this is fairly typical of recent operational definitions of the concept. Newimpartial (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

[G]ender is a multidimensional concept that is influenced by several additional factors, including cultural and behavioural norms, and self-identity. Norms associated with ...? They're really not making it easy for our readers. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

It's turtles all the way down. Newimpartial (talk) 10:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

According to The Psychology of Sex and Gender (SAGE, 2019, pg 31), the central question surrounding gender is what attributes, tendencies and experiences (traits, interests, roles, attitudes, stereotypes, socialization practices, etc.) are associated with my sex? So perhaps Statistics Canada, which is probably not an optimal source for providing us with an operational definition of gender, is not fairly typical after all. If gender is not 'based on' or 'associated with' sex, what is it based on? What is it associated with? What is it?  Tewdar  10:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

ibid, pg 32: we use the term gender to refer to the meanings that people give to the different sex categories.

ibid, pg. 36: Gender identity often (though not always) involves feeling a basic sense of belongingness to a sex category.

etc...  Tewdar  10:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Statistics Canada uses gender operationally in a national census and am ongoing program of large scale national surveys. How exactly does your preferred SAGE paperback use the concept operationally? And by the way, I keep my eyes open, and have get to see a recent, RS operational definition of gender based on sex.

Also, BTW, I have already answered your final question - it is, in this mainstream view, turtles all the way down. You just aren't satisfied with that answer for some reason. Newimpartial (talk) 10:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Turtles all the way down - you got a source for that one? Even Statistics Canada would do.  Tewdar  10:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

"Turtles all the way down" is a traditional rhetorical gesture for "it has to be based on something else"/"no, actually, it doesn't". Many, many sources refuse to base gender on something else (although other sources, like your SAGE, obviously do so). Newimpartial (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I am familiar with Hindu mythology and Terry Pratchett. Most sources, rather than expanding 'turtles all the way down', just simply don't really bother to provide a definition.  Tewdar  10:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

So you are disputing that sources offering a definition like Statistics Canada's are "bothering to provide a definition"? If so, you appear to be headed for semantic trench warfare, and I'll be needing to drag out my gas mask soon, I expect. If you're willing to accept only a certain form of definition as a definition, then your goalposts are likely to exclude many RS definitions IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not turtles all the way down. We already know that gender is defined by gender roles, which are defined based on sex, the question was just whether that extra step was needed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Who says "gender" is defined by "gender roles"? The APA? That is hardly a neutral or complete definition - gender identity is not typically defined by gender roles at all, for example. Perhaps this is the origin point for your difficulty in understanding the breadth of this arricle's topic. Newimpartial (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Who says "gender" is defined by "gender roles"? The WHO, everybody? And as I've said, gender identity leads to the same thing. We wouldn't have the concept of transgender without associations with sex. Transgender: An umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or expression is different from cultural expectations based on the sex they were assigned at birth. [16] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know who your everybody consists of, but it doesn't inclide either Statistics Canada or most of the sources this article actually cites. And the idea that gender identity leads to the same thing because We wouldn't have the concept of transgender without associations with sex - well, that tells me that you aren't really registering "gender roles" as a concept at all - recognizing it as a concept distinct from "gender identity" and "gender expression" within the overall scope of gender - but rather you are simply using it as a convenient intermediate leading to "based on sex". But the way in which gender roles might be "based on sex", which is typically understood as a kind of cultural encoding, is entirely different from the way gender identity operates, as a variable intersecting with sex. Transgender identity is defined by that intersection, but gender identity per se (e.g., male female or nonbinary) is not. Newimpartial (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

[M]ost of the sources this article actually cites. You haven't expressed support for a single source in the article as far as I recall on this talk page. [T]hat tells me that you aren't really registering ... but rather you are simply .... I'm really not confident, New, of your competence to empathize with other people's thoughts, based on performance to date. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, let's try an exercise, then. I have the impression that you believe gender ought to be defined in this article in terms of something outside of gender (even outside of culture), and that the "something" you currently have in mind is "sex". I also have the inpression that the nuances distinguishing gender roles from gender identity and gender identity - and gender identity from gender expression - are less important to you than the priority of defining gender in a "non-circular" way.

Any failures of empathy this far? If you believe my competence in mentalization is already demonstrated as inadequate by this partial reconstruction, could you let me know in some detail why you think that? Then we might actually get somewhere. Newimpartial (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

[Y]ou believe gender ought to be defined in this article in terms of ... "sex". I have not made that conclusion. I think that if we can appropriately define gender in terms of sex that would clarify the concept. I also have the inpression .... I don't know where this is coming from. This just sounds like a separate issue which isn't my focus, not that it's less important or I don't see the differences between the concepts. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

So do you have any other explanation why you keep substituting definitions of gender roles as though they were intended to define "gender" as a general concept, or as though the concept of "gender role" could be interpolated as the basis for that of gender identity? If these distinctions and relationships are not your focus, then why do you keep insisting on proposing changes to the lead of an arricle where they represent a crucial issue? I floated my impression that this is less important to you than offering a definition of gender based on something other than gender, but if that's not it then I'd really like to know what your motivation is. Newimpartial (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like you're discussing proposals I haven't made for two weeks. [17] Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

You repeated the same conceptual error here, about 12 hours ago. No gaslighting, please. Newimpartial (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

If you'd like to discuss my motivation or this misunderstanding, you may invite me to your talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I should also have included this diff, where you stated quite emphatically that gender is based on gender roles (which in turn are related to sex). Saying that you haven't made certain proposals for two weeks when you were still re-articulating the mistaken logic of those proposals repeatedly, in the previous 24 hours - well, that kind of behaviour makes collaboration difficult. Newimpartial (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Gender is based on gender roles, among other things. Your inability to empathize, lack of self awareness and humility are what make collaboration difficult. This is a discussion for your talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

In the diff I linked from yesterday, you stated the following: We already know that gender is defined by gender roles, which are defined based on sex - no "among other things" (with without italics). Please stop with the gaslighting and WP:NOTTHEM behaviour. Newimpartial (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion continued at User talk:Newimpartial#Disruptive editing.

Also, while I'm not a fan of the current opening sentence, the one thing it does achieve by situating gender as a spectrum, rather than a binary, is to allow for it to be something other than ancillary to ("based on" or "associated with") "sex". What sense would it make to say that nonbinary gender, androgynous gender expression, or third gender concepts are "associated with sex" anyway? That seems absurd, and yet such identities are fairly central to 21st-century understandings of gender. Newimpartial (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

It is still possible to create a lovely gradient from just two colours. 😁👍 Tewdar  10:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I dont think that "shades of grey" approach is the sole, mainstream understanding of gender. And even if it were, why does the gradient have to be "based on" something other than the colours themselves? Newimpartial (talk) 10:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Because if gender is not 'based on' something, where does the spectrum end? What's to stop me, for example, saying that 'being old' or whatever is part of my gender identity, rather than part of my age identity? It would be like a gradient that goes from masculine, to red, to hot, to old. The whole concept becomes meaningless and unintelligible with the 'turtles all the way down' approach.  Tewdar  11:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a rehash of every foundationalist response to every social constructivist argument, ever. Gender as a discursive field of identity construction doesn't include age, or attack helicopter status, or for that matter otherkin identity because those are not aspects of gender identity. I'm confident that you would accept that, say, political identities can be defined without recourse to non-political concepts, so I don't see any cogent reason why you won't accept that for gender. Newimpartial (talk) 11:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

What I most certainly would not accept, would be a 'definition' that sounds like: Political identity refers to an individual's identity as a Communist, Nazi, or National Bolshevik (a person who claims to be a combination of a Communist and a Nazi).

Since you brought up attack helicopters, I thought I'd introduce Nazis. I believe that scrotums usually follow.  Tewdar  11:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see how that comment makes any positive contribution to the discussion of this article's topic (although perhaps you did mean something by selecting a non-representative and extreme set of examples - is that what masculinity and femininity mean to you?).

In any event, it smells of mustard gas. Newimpartial (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I what also certainly would not accept, would be a 'definition' that sounds like: Political identity refers to an individual's identity as a conservative , socialist, or liberal (a person who is sort of in between a conservative and a socialist). Such a crappy definition resembles the equally crappy Statistics Canada definition of gender. That was my only point. I'm pretty sure you knew that.  Tewdar  11:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Right, but the Statistics Canada definition doesn't have that problem either. You just don't like it. Newimpartial (talk) 11:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Gender refers to an individual's personal and social identity as a man, woman or non-binary person (a person who is not exclusively a man or a woman). - they are 'defining' gender by giving me a list consisting of three examples, and informing me that it's 'personal' and 'social'. So yeah, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You got anything better that I might WP:LIKE? I'm very open to suggestions.  Tewdar  12:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

That isn't the whole definition they offer, as you really oughta know. Newimpartial (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

This is their 'definition' of the broad topic of gender, which forms the unfortunate basis for the 'definitions' that follow. I'm not sure what sort of audience this is intended for, but it ain't a very good starting point for an encyclopedia article. Why wouldn't we use proper academic sources for this, instead of unlikely candidates like Statistics Canada, the WHO, etc.?  Tewdar  12:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

All I am seeing there is an emotive ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT diatribe, "supported" by the use of scare quotes and contractions and based on by nothing but the force of your own opinion. I can't see a way to respond to that constructively. Newimpartial (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Constructively? What, like cherrypicking, marine mammal, idée fix, I can read, thanks, I delight in the abundance of originality you are offering us, You just aren't satisfied with that answer foe some reason,attack helicopter, and You just don't like it?. I've provided two high quality sources for discussion so far, perhaps you would Care to contribute to a source-based discussion?  Tewdar  14:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

What happened to this civility? [18] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how this is any less civil, tbh. Newimpartial (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I am referring to the context of Tewdar's quotes of yours, and let's add word salad to it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Balderdash. Newimpartial (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Pulling word salad out of context from my my various comments isn't really taking you anywhere, you reckon? Newimpartial (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Gender is a multidimensional construct that links gender identity, which is a core element of a person’s individual identity; gender expression, which is how a person signals their gender to others through their behavior and appearance (such as hair style and clothing); and cultural expectations about social status, characteristics, and behavior that are associated with sex traits.

"Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation", National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

That is a lovely source text, and one that does not support any of your prior proposals for lead text (e.g., this one) - it does not define gender as gender role/sex role, which you have proposed ad nauseam (e.g., [19] [20][21] [22][23]....) Newimpartial (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Please strike your comment because it is a strawman. As I stated previously, and as is consistent with your diffs, I haven't advocated for any particular language/idea for nearly two weeks. [24] Consider it an entirely new potential basis for the lead definition. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I will not be doing that. The diffs I included all represent various versions of you arguing that "gender in this article's lead should be defined in relation to sex using sources that define gender roles". If you now recognize that gender also refers to gender identity and gender expression, which cannot be reduced to gender roles - as Mathglot pointed out some time ago, and as I have repeatedly insisted with no acknowledgment from you whatsoever - then all I can say is, thank goddess. Newimpartial (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

No acknowledgement? This was addressed two weeks ago [25] and is an irrelevant distraction. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

You were literally still doing it yesterday, per my diff above. No gaslighting please, and try not to WP:OWN article Talk pages.

Also, labeling the opinions of other editors with which you disagree an irrelevant distraction is not a great way to build consensus for article text. And if you can't see that the reason this quoted text improves on others you've proposed is because it treats the relationship between gender identity, gender expression, and what is essentially gender role more carefully - well, that blind spot won't help us move forward until it is addressed. Newimpartial (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure that calling pretty much anyone who presents sources that disagree with your eeday feeks a "cherry picker" and anyone who fails to eff right off after they been told The Truth According to Newimpartial a couple of times a "sealion", is also not a great way to build consensus for article text. Perhaps these and other blind spots could be addressed this year, so that the article talk pages you frequent look more like... well, talk pages, and less like a no-holds-barred football match.  Tewdar  11:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious what idée fixe you might be interpolating to me re: this page, as I'm not aware of having one. Refusing to sloppily reduce gender to gender roles and thereby to something "associated with sex" could scarcely be termed an idée fixe as it represents, more than anything else, a kind of epistemological modesty. (Which makes your comment about The Truth According to Newimpartial seem unintentionally ironic, in addition to the more serious objection of it being inappropriately capitalised.) Newimpartial (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The continual accusations of cherry-picking and sealioning, and never-ending efforts to convert what could probably be fairly reasonable discussions into a Cornish hurling match, are probably more important points to focus on improving this year. I'm sure that many of your criticisms are reasonable and your Chelonian (sic) epistemology exceedingly modest.  Tewdar  14:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The Chelonian comment would seemingly apply to my ontology rather than my episteme. :) Newimpartial (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

In the absence of a profile pic, unfortunately this is my mental image of you. Maybe we can try and change that to something a little more fluffy this year? 😊  Tewdar  14:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Refusing to sloppily reduce gender to gender roles, more like refusal to stop arguing straw men. Let's get back to the actual source I just provided. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Simplified definition

Would a simplified definition be: Gender is a social construct which encompasses gender roles, gender identity, and gender expression? Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

From my view, reliable sources and the article contents do not appear to support framing gender as only a social construct. I am also not sure how helpful it is to continue trying to develop a "definition" of gender. This is a lead for the article, so I think it would be more constructive to review and discuss sources and the article contents, and work to develop a lead per MOS:LEAD. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I think identifying those three (non-exclusive) core elements would be a step forward from what the article lead currently contains (the formulation has to be non-exclusive because other aspects of gender, like gender dynamics and gender power dynamics, are not encompassed in those three elements).

I am less convinced by "social construct" , however - employing that term as though it means something, without saying what it means, seems to unnecessarily introduce an empty signifier into the "definition". Newimpartial (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Based on article contents and sources, MOS:LEAD might support something that includes this: "Gender is a concept that can refer to a grammatical category; the social, psychological, and cultural experience of being a man, woman, or another identity; or a legal status. Gender includes gender identity, gender roles, and gender expression, and is typically considered distinct from sex assigned at birth." Beccaynr (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Are we sure we want to be including so much information on grammatical gender in this article? Seems like a bit of a coatrack to me. It has only marginal relevance to the rest of the article, and is very different to gender identity, roles, expression, etc., which, unlike grammatical gender, are usually treated as related concepts by the relevant literature.  Tewdar  15:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a section on grammar is within the issues described in the WP:COATRACK essay. There also appears to be a fair amount of discussion in sources about how the term "gender" is used, and issues related to conflation with the term "sex", so it may be that more attention is needed to help develop this aspect of the article. I also think a focus on the historical development of the concept, as the term moved from grammar to its present understanding by science and academia, is supported by sources and the contents of the article. Beccaynr (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah sure, we can briefly talk about these things for a bit of historical perspective, but a whole section on grammatical gender, on the intricacies of Nilo-Saharan languages and their gender categories consisting mainly of fruit or whatever (a lot of which was written by me, I think) should probably be shunted over to the grammatical gender article where it belongs, unless we actually want this to be a 'broad concept article' or whatever it's called.  Tewdar  16:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that grammatical gender, as well as the use of "gender" as a polite term for "sex", are essentially out of scope for this article. However, both ought to be mentioned within the article to clarify the scope of the concept "gender" for readers, and presenting them historically may be the best way to do this. Newimpartial (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree - quick, where are the checkusers, Newimpartial's account has been compromised! 😂  Tewdar  16:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

We have been in agreement before, Tewdar, but don't worry - I'm confident this unseemly situation cannot last long. Newimpartial (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

What about Gender is a category which usually encompasses gender roles, gender identity, and gender expression? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Simplified definition 2

Any thoughts on:

• Gender is a social category which usually encompasses gender roles, gender identity, and gender expression? Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the attempts to construe gender narrowly as "social" has been discussed at length on this Talk page. Beccaynr (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Please add suggestions. (Or, let's remove social since my goal is to start the simplest.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion is to use MOS:LEAD as a guide for developing an introduction to the article, instead of a definition. Some general ideas were discussed in the section above. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic. WP:DICDEF#Good definitions

If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition. MOS:FIRST Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the WP:DICDEF supplement is helpful because it provides guidance on avoiding the dictionary definition trap as well as discussion about handling problems. I think a focus on creating an explanation of the subject of the article is appropriate for this concept and this article, which also seems to track the guidance of MOS:INTRO and MOS:OPEN.

In the MOS:OPEN section, the first line says The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific; a focus on identifying this multifaceted concept with extensive history seems to best serve readers in understanding what the article is about, and seems most appropriate per WP:NPOV due to the breadth and depth of available sources. For this article, I think it would be better to focus on how to introduce this concept and this subject matter, instead of how to define it. Beccaynr (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Based on your draft at Female (gender), I assume you would support the logic: Gender includes the human experience of gender roles, gender identity, and gender expression. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The Female (gender) draft is not mine but it is a different article, and perhaps a good opportunity to reaffirm why it is so important to focus on the content, not contributors. But the first line in that draft currently says Female gender includes the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral experience of being a woman or girl, such as gender roles, gender expression, and gender identity, with additional context afterwards; it is also a draft of a spinoff concept that is continuing to be developed. While there are sources, structure, and text that may be helpful to consider for this article, I continue to think it is most helpful to focus on how to introduce this topic in an encyclopedic manner and per WP:NPOV. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

"Gender is a category" -grammar has 436,000 Google results, [26] about equal to the seemingly more broad "Gender is a concept" -grammar at 438,000. [27] Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure how these Google results may relate to developing an introduction, but there has been some discussion of whether and how to include grammar and usage of the term in the subsection above. In the section below, Mathglot has started a discussion that I think offers a constructive foundation for evaluating the article as a whole, which generally relates to developing an introduction. Beccaynr (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that deciding whether, for purposes of this article, "gender" is a category or a concept is about as helpful as determining whether the angels on the head of the pin are dancing or practicing tai chi - that is, not very helpful. Newimpartial (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand. I would like to remove the first sentence discussed at Talk:Gender#"pertaining to masculinity and femininity" and come up with language we can agree on for a first sentence. We might agree that Gender ... gender roles, gender identity, and gender expression, so I was considering what language to use in between. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Gender... etc., but perhaps importantly I don't agree with the sentiment expressed earlier, that the sentence to be added should take the form of a "definition". To me there is a non-semantic distinction between "defining the topic" and "providing a definition for the term", and I don't believe that the former can only be accomplished by doing the latter - nor that it should, in this case. To me this affects what should replace the "..." Newimpartial (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why we shouldn't begin with a definition when MOS:FIRST states If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Because providing a definition of the term appears to me, from many discussions on this Talk page and others, to be an unnecessarily contentious way of defining the topic. It also runs the non-trivial risk of creating a definition a priori that does not fit the scope of the actual article (which is a concern I've been yammering on about for weeks now). Newimpartial (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand that. Yes, we must identify the topic, but that's separate from the part of the policy that if the subject is definable it should begin with a definition. A definition being contentious does not make it undefinable.

It also runs the non-trivial risk... We don't need to immediately insert a definition once we figure it out. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

MOS:OPEN says The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, and for this topic, the 'identify' approach seems best suited, per WP:NPOV, for presenting this broad topic fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The current lead has multiple paragraphs, so per MOS:FIRST, we can use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. I do not think a simplified definition will work well for this complex topic, but I think we can make forward progress on the lead if we consider how to introduce the topic to readers. Beccaynr (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Please start by providing a single example of an article on a definable topic which does not begin with a definition to show that this actually represents an existing practice. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Appropriately enough, an epistemologically modest lead sentence that does not attempt a specific or restrictive definition of the title of the article 's topic may be found at Knowledge. Newimpartial (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Re: A definition being contentious does not make it undefinable - if multiple, conflicting definitions are documented in recent RS, none of which are uncontentious, I think for all practical purposes it does. Newimpartial (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Citation needed for this interpretation of policy. Regarding the lead of Knowledge, would you be ok with a lead for Gender which similarly begins with Gender can be defined as? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

If it presents multiple, non-exhaustive, competing conceptions, as Knowledge does? Sure, if it's done well. But based on the history of this article and Talk page, don't expect me to hold my breath. Newimpartial (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I also note that in the original version of your reply, you were allowing a worked example to stand in for the interpretation of policy, but now you appear to be asking for both. It always seems funny to me when goal posts move like that. Newimpartial (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I also note that..., Let's not go down that rabbit hole. Please focus on content, not contributor. You're inaccurately representing what I was communicating. I was referring back to my 02:42, 6 January comment above. An example will do as a start. Be charitable please.

I don't find Knowledge to be a strong example. That lead was just added last August [28] after a short discussion and the can be defined as language was not a focus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Asking for an example, and then rejecting the example for reasons that have nothing to do with your own original criteria, strikes me as a potential behavioural issue - if this was your idea of the start of a discussion, then let's not start.

I promise that, per WP:SATISFY, I am not going to come up with a series of examples to fit your evolving requirements. That way madness lies, IME. Newimpartial (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, noting that you shifted the goal posts from your original comment - to which my original reply was lost in an edit conflict - to your revised comment, is a comment on your contributions and not on you as a contributor. I am not the one who is inappropriately personalizing the discussion in that instance. By contrast, your Be charitable please crosses the line into WP:ASPERSIONS, IMO (and that is also a comment on the contribution). Newimpartial (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I did not shift the goal posts. But that would be a user talk page discussion at this point. But I don't think that's the battle to pick. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

You rejected the Knowledge example because the lead sentence has only been there for a few months, and because it had not been extensively discussed on that article's Talk page. Neither of these is relevant to the question you had originally asked, which was whether enwiki contains such articles. Newimpartial (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not confident in you to represent my questions accurately. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Unless you offer a plausible alternative construal of your own question, I'm not sure how that comment is relevant. Also, please resist the temptation to comment on contributors, as it makes it more difficult to have WP:CIVIL discussions on article Talk pages. Newimpartial (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't ask a question. I asked for information to start a discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:AGF, I construed Please start by providing a single example of an article on a definable topic which does not begin with a definition to show that this actually represents an existing practice as a question, asking for an example that this represents an existing practice. Should I have interpteted it as something else? Newimpartial (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a question I'll only discuss at your talk page. I've complained on your talk page that I feel you hold me to a standard of precision that you do not practice yourself. [29] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that your assumptions about my intentions and expectations are not in scope for this Talk page. I expected you to be aware by now that you are no longer welcome at my Talk page[30], but I would be happy to discuss any emerging behavioural issues and misunderstandings at yours.

I would say, however, that resolutely refusing to clarify your prior statements, while insisting that you meant some (unspecified) thing other than the understanding I offer as feedback, does not contribute to clarity at this article Talk page, IMO. But YMMV, of course. Newimpartial (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• For concept articles such as Human sexuality, the lead cites references that describe the concept broadly in its first sentence. The Disability article also appears to introduce the topic broadly in its first sentence. There appears to be flexibility in how a lead is structured to introduce a particular topic, so I think it would be most constructive to consider this lead in terms of this topic and WP:NPOV, because every topic is different. Beccaynr (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. Human sexuality, in particular, does a great job of indicating what the article is about while recognizing the multiplicity of definitions of and aspects to the topic. Let's not immediately rewrite that lead to offer a more mechanical fulfillment of MOS:FIRST, okay everyone? :) Newimpartial (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  Those two articles begin with definitions, so I don't see a problem. Unlike Knowledge, I'm not seeing a potential WP:ISAWORDFOR violation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  I don’t read the opening sentence of Sexuality as a "definition" in the way you propose for this article. It points to the article's topic in extremely broad terms. Newimpartial (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion

• This is a suggestion for the first paragraph of the lead, although please note I excluded citations from the article and elsewhere for now to start with a focus on possible language, and consider this a rough sketch of an idea:

Gender is the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral experience of being a man, woman, or other identity. It is distinct from sex classifications assigned at birth. Gender includes gender identity, gender roles, and gender expression. Most cultures use a gender binary, in which gender is divided into boys/men and girls/women, and people may be one or the other, while people outside of the binary may be within a non-binary identity. Some societies have specific genders besides "man" and "woman", such as the hijras of South Asia; these are often referred to as third genders (and fourth genders, etc.). Most scholars agree that gender is a central characteristic for social organization.

Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

My immediate reaction is that this formulation unduly restricts gender to the "experience of" gender identity, thereby seeming to exclude aspects of gender like gender roles and gender power dynamics that exist outside of individual experience. (I know the proposed paragraph introduces gender roles later, but only after having apparently ruled out most of what gender roles involve that does not fit a unit of analysis at the level of individual experience). Newimpartial (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I have been thinking broadly and perhaps similarly about how to clearly incorporate societal aspects of gender, and whether this is adequately reflected in this sketch. My use of the term 'experience' is an attempt to communicate how gender has both internal and external features. For example, people experience sexism when they are subject to biased language or actions. But maybe there is a more clear way to express the breadth of the concept, without making it seem more restrictive than intended. Beccaynr (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Two problems with this: (1) What "other identit[ies]" does it mean? There are lots and lots of social identities that are not genders. (2) It mentions being distinct from sex, but never says how sex is related. It's also distinct from age, occupation, race, and so on, yet we obviously see no need to distinguish those. So what is that relation? Also, "people may be one or the other" is a redundant addition. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

As to (1), "other identity" is wikilinked to the List of gender identities article, which are not described as social identities, so I am not sure what you are referring to and how it relates here. The phrase "man, woman, or another identity" is also quoted in the Talk section below from The Routledge Handbook of Social Work and Addictive Behaviors (2020) at 383.

As to (2), a wikilink to the sex and gender distinction article is included, which is part of the relation with sex; in the Talk section below, there is discussion with sources about medical, scientific, legal, and academic recognition of the social construction of sex, and the wikilink to the sex assignment article for the "assigned at birth" text is an introduction. This is the first paragraph, and additional text can be developed to introduce the topic.

As to age, occupation, race, and so on, there are intersectional aspects related to gender, but I think it may be too much to try to include every detail in the first sentence and paragraph. MOS:FIRST says Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.

Also, "people may be one or the other" is a slight revision of the current article, edited in an attempt to make the language more clear and concise. Beccaynr (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

(1) would need to be explained in the mainline text, not with a wikilink. Compare WP:EASTEREGG. Regarding (2), your proposal still never says what the relation with sex is or why it is being brought up at all. Those sources below in no way establish that sex is a social construct too, and such a view is WP:UNDUE and out of step with the vast majority of sources, whether in biology and medicine, or the social sciences. With such logic one could argue that anything is a social construct. One could say that the planet Earth is a social construct because humans have affected it and our definitions of what Earth is have improved with time. It's obscurantist and confusing. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I think there is room to workshop how to clarify the relation with sex, and I think contemporary medical, scientific, legal, and academic sources can help us. The sources cited below include in-depth review of medical, scientific, and legal views on the assignment of sex, and perhaps it is not helpful to use the shorthand "social construct" to summarize this for the purposes of this discussion. For example, the Boston Medical Center glossary entry for Assigned Sex at Birth includes: It is not valid to use “biology” or “science” to claim assigned sex at birth and/or gender are a fixed, concrete concept and/or binary. Science favors the fact that sex and gender are more complicated and involve much more than one’s sexual organs. So I am not sure what the basis is for stating that this is WP:UNDUE - this is a source-based assessment, so contributions of reliable sources to this discussion are appreciated. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

At least we do agree that "social construct" is not a helpful shorthand for that. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

How do you feel about "social category"? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

There appears to be a broader distinction that medical, scientific, legal, and academic sources discuss, so "social category" does not appear to clearly describe what is commonly referred to as "sex assigned at birth." My understanding is that when sources are discussing a "social construct" of sex, it is similar to how the BMC describes it, i.e. a lack of a scientific basis for a fixed, concrete and/or binary concept. Beccaynr (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I was asking Crossroads or others who have not weighed in what they thought of beginning the article with "Gender is a social category..." I already know you do not support this. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Can that discussion please happen in a previous or separate section where that is the proposal, instead of changing the subject from the suggested lead paragraph in this subsection? It seems off-topic for this section, and my proposed sketch is a source-based attempt at a compromise. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I am not seeing strong support in sources for experience.Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster definition of "experience" seems to support the word as a summary of the broad concept, and e.g. The Routledge Handbook of Social Work and Addictive Behaviors (2020) at 384 (and quoted in the below section) uses this word in its discussion. I am not sure what aspect of the word seems to need support, but if you could clarify your concern with the term, that might help. Beccaynr (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The Routledge Handbook doesn't choose to use experience in its opening definition. I'm not sure why we'd choose that word over others. It sounds like it could potentially be controversial, as Newimpartial said above. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to The Routledge Handbook at 384 quoted below, which includes "...gender is a socially constructed and personal experience..." in discussion of the concept.

'Experience' has a broad definition, and seems appropriate for this broad concept. I do not understand why it seems potentially controversial - the earlier discussion, as I understand it, is about whether the use of the word conveys the intended breadth.

In the current female (gender) draft, the sentence structure is different, and may work better for the broad concept, so restructuring the paragraph may help with positioning the word 'experience' so it is not inadvertantly restrictive, and the meaning is more clear based on the overall sentence. Beccaynr (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

For the record, Beccanyr, I don't interpret the Routledge handbook as offering a definition of gender in the passage about experience. Gender can be a personal experience (as in something everyone experiences personallly) without being defined as a personal experience (in being defined only in relation to its subjective aspects). Rutledge actually defines gender as a personal and social construct (emphasis added) - the social half of this is not IMO included in an "experience"-based definition. (And no, I do not see anything in the M-W definition of "experience" that would challenge my view that it reflects an essentially subjective concept.) Newimpartial (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

For example, this structure may be less restrictive:

Gender is the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral experience of being a man, woman, or other identity, which includes gender identity, gender roles, and gender expression. It is distinct from sex classifications assigned at birth.

Beccaynr (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I am opposed to a lead definition based on man and woman. I think that's confusing and I think based on the sources that's not what should be given weight. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I would appreciate more information about how it seems confusing, and which sources support your view on weight. From my view, it is at least more clear than using the term 'gender' to describe the broad concept of gender, such as in the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. quote above [31]. Also, the Merriam Webster's usage guide quoted above [32] discusses how for "those who study gender and sexuality", the terms masculine/masculinity, feminine/femininity, woman/girl, and man/boy relate only to psychological and sociocultural traits (gender). There is also [33], e.g. The WHO, "Gender" refers to [...] for men and women, and "The Inexorable Rise of Gender and the Decline of Sex: Social Change in Academic Titles, 1945–2001". Archives of Sexual Behavior (2004), discussing a slow but gradual increase in the use of gender [...] to emphasize the environmental, social, or psychologic determinants of psychologic/behavioral differences between men and women. These sources seem to offer some support, in addition to The Routledge Handbook definition at 383. Beccaynr (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

From my view, it is at least more clear than using the term 'gender' to describe the broad concept of gender, such as in the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). I wouldn't say the NASEM source defines gender using the term gender. They define it in terms of gender roles, gender identity, and gender expression. Lindkvist's defintion is similar. This seems to be the definition best supported by the sources. As previously discussed, I think defining gender based on men and women is confusing because it's circular. But I think the current third sentence [34] which discusses boys/men and women/girls is enough. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Identification of sources to support your view would be helpful, including what you are referring to by 'Lindkvist's definition'. A variety of sources refer to gender in terms of men, women, and other identities (including in the current lead, which discusses non-binary and third genders), so it does not appear to create a circular definition, including because this is an attempt to describe a topic, not define it.

Various sources (including e.g. NASEM, the APA, Merriam Websters, the WHO, The Routledge Handbook, etc) describe gender in terms of social, psychological, cultural, and behavioral aspects, so a broad description of the topic seems more reflective of the article contents. Due to the nature of this topic, it seems best, similar to the Human sexuality article, to describe the broad concept. Beccaynr (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

For one thing, I would like to register my disapproval for other identity, no matter what the Routledge Handbook of Social Work and Addictive Behaviors (which does not seem to be a particularly definitive source) has to say. They mean other gender identity (and no, I would not support this suggestion if you insert the word 'gender' between 'other' and 'identity')  Tewdar  09:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

From my view, this reflects the contents of the article and the current lead. The Routledge Handbook recognizes a similar overview, but mostly seems helpful because it calls attention to content that already exists. How people identify and how they are identified is not limited to "man" or "woman", and the contents of the lead and article reflect this, so this seems to be a fairly minor structural modification to help introduce the broad concept of gender. But it is not clear to me what the specific basis of your objection is, so maybe you could further explain. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Eh?! I am not talking about limiting anything to 'man' or 'woman'. Without the qualifier 'gender', 'other identity' might include any number of things that are not gender idenities. Hopefully this won't need any further clarification of other things I might identity as, other than a gender...  Tewdar  17:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a helpful clarification, and this issue can probably be addressed by the use of the phrase "such as" followed by e.g. nonbinary and third gender to help make the terminology more clear. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

No, something does not become 'more clear' by chucking a bunch of examples after 'other identity'. Why wouldn't we write 'gender identity'?! You've got it linking to 'list of gender identities' anyway!!!  Tewdar  18:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to Lindkvist's suggested operationalization of gender. [35] Various sources ... describe gender in terms of social, psychological, cultural, and behavioral aspects. Gender roles, gender identity, and gender expression are the main social psychological, cultural, and behavioral facets given by the sources. NASEM and Lindkvist provide synthesis for us. Merriam-Webster's 2.b. defintion appears to be gender role, and 2.c. is gender identity. [36] We might incorporate WHO's defintion into the third sentence of this article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The Lindkvist source offers a similarly broad umbrella under which more than gender roles, gender identity, and gender expression fit. The MW 2b definition is another example of the broad approach: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex, which is broader than gender role. The current WHO gender and health overview seems to be a good example of the breadth of the topic as more than gender roles, gender identity, and gender expression, and I can access the first page of "Conceptual complexity of gender and its relevance to pain", Pain online, which also appears to approach the topic broadly. There seems to be a substantial encyclopedic benefit from following the broad approach of sources for describing this broad topic, including because it allow us to incorporate related concepts identified by sources. For example, the WHO begins discussing gender-based discrimination and intersectionality in the second graf. We also have a wide range of related articles that are incorporated or could be incorporated. Beccaynr (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• Newimpartial, I was thinking the part of the MW "experience" definition that includes "the events that make up the conscious past of a community or nation or humankind generally" might be broad enough, especially with a change to the sentence structure, to help address the critical concern about the word coming across as more restrictive than intended. From my view, the word 'experience' is also useful for a grammatical issue in the first sentence, but if a word such as "aspects" better communicates the breadth, my preference is to have a clear meaning. Beccaynr (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  "The events of which one is conscious" is still restrictive of "events", and structures or dymanics seem to be entirely excluded. Also, lawyering over a dictionary's tertiary definitions of a word is unlikely to provide a strong rationale for a word choice, since readers are unlikely to read the term in that way. And your insistence on this formulation, while arguing that it has a more inclusive meaning than a plain reading would suggest, borders on WP:SYNTH IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  I am sorry for seeming as if I was trying to insist on it - it was redundant for me to explain why I thought the word 'experience' might work, when my goal is to figure out an alternative. After I wrote my reply to you and other comments, I removed the word 'experience' from the female (gender) draft and reworked the lead to include 'aspects', because my preference is clarity. Beccaynr (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion interpretation

Is this consistent with the suggestion above?

Gender includes the social, cultural, behavioral, or psychological aspects typically associated with one sex; or the personal sense of self or self-expression as man, woman, or other gender. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you not see that you are offering an opening like that foregrounds "sex" in a way the BALANCE of the sources - and the previous discussion section - does not? This appears to derive gender from aspects typically associated with one sex, and I am unaware of any quality, 21st-century sources that do this. Newimpartial (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me to be have essentially the same meaning as Gender includes gender identity, gender roles, and gender expression, which is supported by recent quality sources. Gender roles does seem to be foregrounded before gender identity and expression in the sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

To me it doesn't have the same meaning at all. To say that gender identity or gender expression have any particular "association" with "sex" seems tenuous and poorly supported (if at all), and that is two of your three key elements. Newimpartial (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that the sentence associates gender identity or expression with sex more than Gender includes gender identity, gender roles, and gender expression? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

That seems obviously true to me. The second phrase doesn't refer explicitly to sex at all, and of the three terms only gender roles carries any implicit "associations with sex" IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

From my view, this suggestion does not appear consistent with the suggestion above and a variety of sources. For example, the Lindqvist source notes [37], ...sex seems to be a poor proxy for gender, because it is incorrect to assume that sex precedes and determines gender (Bittner & Goodyear-Grant, 2017; Butler, 1990; Fausto-Sterling, 2012; Westbrook & Saperstein, 2015). The Conceptual complexity of gender and its relevance to pain source discusses the conceptual relationship between gender and sex, and there are sources discussed recently with regard to using the terminology men, women, etc. [38], which seems more clear for this topic, particularly according to scholarly sources. Beccaynr (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel that your comment relates to my sentence. As I said above, I feel that my sentence means the same thing as Gender includes gender identity, gender roles, and gender expression, which was included in your proposal. Also, Lindkvist states that Gender consists of key aspects, including what the APA refers to as sex roles: Sex roles thus reflect the interaction between biological heritage and the pressures of socialization. (See comments above beginning at 23:12, 30 December 2022. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

KB, I'm not seeing it at all. Your proposal and the sentence from Beccaynr's suggestion are non-synonymous. I can't read your mind on this, so perhaps you could explain further. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Gender includes gender roles (the social, cultural, behavioral, or psychological aspects typically associated with one sex), gender identity and expression (personal sense of self or self-expression as man, woman, or other gender). Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I see. The least controversial of my objections are grammatical. Is the semicolon supposed to indicate that a complex list is happening? Absent any further semicolons, or any obvious indicators of a list format, it seems like the sentence fragment after the mark is meant to be a restatement of what comes before. I can't think of how to reword this to make the list of three items clearer, as your proposal requires a bundling of "personal sense of self" with "personal sense of self-expression" as both are modified by the ending. More controversially, I agree this proposal foregrounds sex in a way that is uncommon in the best sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is a complex list. What do you think of the NASEM source discussed on this talk page? Pasted again below:

Gender is a multidimensional construct that links gender identity, which is a core element of a person’s individual identity; gender expression, which is how a person signals their gender to others through their behavior and appearance (such as hair style and clothing); and cultural expectations about social status, characteristics, and behavior that are associated with sex traits. [39]

Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that would best be summarized with something like "Gender includes gender identity, gender expression, and gender roles" with explanations of each to follow. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Gender is a multidimensional concept that links gender identity, which is a personal sense of self as a man, woman, or other gender; gender expression, which is how a person signals their gender identity to others through their behavior and appearance (such as hair style and clothing); and gender roles, which are the social, cultural, behavioral, or psychological aspects typically associated with one sex. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

That formulation tells me that gender roles are always typically associated with one sex, which is a more simplistic and reductionist formulation than is found in the best sources, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

This definition of gender role appears to be original research and contrary to the sources that describe the concept of gender as much broader social, cultural, behavioral, or psychological aspects. In my reply in the subsection above about gender roles, gender identity, and gender expression [40], I offered sources that introduce and describe the concept of gender in terms that are broader than gender identity, gender roles, and gender expression, and I think a comprehensive approach to the topic more clearly reflects the article contents and scholarly sources which discuss the concept in depth. Beccaynr (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Using the definition of gender roles from Gender roles:

Gender is a multidimensional concept that links gender identity, which is a personal sense of self as a man, woman, or other gender; gender expression, which is how a person signals their gender identity to others through their behavior and appearance (such as hair style and clothing); and gender roles, which are the social roles encompassing a range of behaviors and attitudes that are generally considered acceptable, appropriate, or desirable for a person based on that person's sex. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

This narrow description of the topic does not appear to be supported by the article contents nor a variety of scholarly sources. For example, the NASEM source does not appear to support such an undue synthesis, along with the contemporary scholarly sources discussing the concept of gender in depth that have been referred to repeatedly in this discussion. I think a broad approach is the most workable route for applying WP:NPOV to this article. Beccaynr (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I would add my strong suspicion that links in this proposal is not only UNDUE on its own, but may in fact be, properly speaking, WP:OR. Newimpartial (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break a

How about, " Gender is defined by the reproductive organs of a man or a woman. ". Full stop? Metro2fsb (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

But what about cultural genitals?  Tewdar  10:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I will point out that the differences between this defined by proposal and Kolya's typically associated with language may be smaller than they appear. Newimpartial (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

That's quite unfair. What a shitty comment.  Tewdar  16:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I call 'em as I see 'em, Tewdar. Consistency is key.

To be more precise, perhaps, the difference between characteristics typically associated with ... sex and defined by ... reproductive organs seems to me to be mostly a matter of politesse, rather than denotatative meaning. Newimpartial (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

No, saying gender is 'defined by reproductive organs' is obviously an attempt to claim that gender is a load of old bollocks (sic) and only biological sex exists, by an editor who I would bet good money will be TBANNED within a month tops. This is not what Kolya (who has presented plenty of sources) is doing, and you really shouldn't be implying that these suggestions are in any way comparable.  Tewdar  18:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

In many of my comments referring to sources, many of these are sources that have been offered by Kolya Butternut, which do not appear to support text proposed by KB. I think greater weight should be assigned to sources with in-depth discussion, to help avoid original research and introductions to a broad topic that do not reflect WP:NPOV policy. For example, sources that do not clearly specify how the term "sex" is being used have less weight than sources that explain the meaning, because of the scholarly sources that warn us about the challenges with the terminology and the risks of misusing the term when describing this topic. Beccaynr (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

This comment appears to have only marginal relevance to my point, which is that it is unfair to compare Kolya's approach, which seems to be a good faith attempt to improve the lede, even if they are somehow failing to correctly interpret or summarize sources (like plenty of others round here, possibly myself included) with an apparent troll making dubious suggestions with no sources. And please, please stop saying 'WP:NPOV' all the time...  Tewdar  21:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

From my view, it would be helpful to have clarification of the basis for proposed definitions of gender limited to "gender roles, gender identity, and gender expression", and with what appears to be an unsupported or at least unclear usage of the term "sex", especially after so much discussion of sources, article contents, the MOS, and core content policies.

And I am sorry that my references to NPOV seem excessive - I think attempts to craft a narrow definition do not reflect this policy, and it is my hope that referring to this policy can help us discuss how introduce this broad topic. I think we can develop a way to describe the conceptual relationship between "gender" and "sex", but we are not going to get there without sources that discuss these concepts in an in-depth manner. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Here's an auld favourite: gender is the activity of managing situated conduct in light of normative conceptions of attitudes and activities appropriate for one’s sex category - it may have been written before everyone started snorting too much Butler, but you can't really say that this definition can be completely ignored...  Tewdar  19:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

They are massively different meanings, and the continued resistance to drawing any connection to sex other than to meaninglessly say 'they're different things' is baffling. What is the connection then? Please, Newimpartial, Beccaynr, explain in your own words rather than simply shooting down everyone else's attempts.

"Defined by" makes an assertion about the world, whereas "typically associated with" is describing social reality. What exactly is incorrect about that? Crossroads ^-talk- 22:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I look forward to discussing this more, although not in a discussion squished into the midst of this subsection, and probably not today so I can take some time to consider this more. As an initial matter, I think some of the issue is about the placement of terminology and the context in which it is used, but there may be some source-based editing of article content that may help add depth to this complex topic, which then may help us determine whether and how to clarify the lead. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The thing that strikes me, Crossroads, is that "defined by" and "associated with" depict social acts (definition, association) and some acts of "association" - like those I have seen Kolya perform over recent weeks - are in fact acts of definiton. Only yesterday Kolya presented proposed lead text[41] that tied all of gender back to aspects "typically associated with one sex" (which is even more restrictive than "associated with sex", since it presupposes binary sexes).

Gender is not only about already-sexed bodies, and cannot be reduced to behaviours or attitudes relating to sexed bodies. To speak only for myself, nonbinary identity for me cannot be reduced to a place in the middle of a masculine-feminine spectrum, nor can it be reduced to a meaning associated with an already sexed body. The relationship between sex and gender is complicated because it is one set of social processes that produces sexed bodies, another set of social and psychological processes that gives rise to gender identities and gender expressions, and a third set of socio-political processes that creates gender roles and gender relations - using both the material that produces "sex" and that which produces "gender identity and expression". (This is part of the reason why there are parallel and overlapping concepts of "gender roles" and " sex roles" - depending on the context, either may apply more directly, or both may apply).

I know testimonial is not how we write articles, and I also know that Butler - who has written a lot about this - meets with a great deal of hostility from the editors on this page. But you asked me to explain in my own words, and this is the earnest explanation that fits my own lived experience as well as the most up to date (and not necessarily queer theory or Butlerian) scholarship on the topic. Newimpartial (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Only yesterday Kolya presented proposed lead text[58] that tied all of gender back to aspects "typically associated with one sex". That's not an accurate representation of my sentence, as discussed. [42] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the diff you just linked was intended to clarify this proposal, which is more recent than and substantially different from the one I quoted and linked above. But surely we have both moved on since then? Newimpartial (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Your link doesn't seem to go to any particular proposal. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

You're right; weird. I have fixed the link (I hope). Newimpartial (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

No, my link is clarifying my sentence which you linked to at 03:06, 11 January. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

If you did intend your or as offering two alternative definititions of gender, your formulation achieves your aim poorly if at all, since "or" used in this way generally indicates a synonym. But if this is your intention, then my objection shifts from tied all aspects of gender back to, to the simplistic and reductionist emphasis on aspects "typically associated with sex". Newimpartial (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• I am not sure where to add this, but I think it is related to scholarly sources that discuss the conflation of the terms "gender" and "sex", particularly as it relates to our need to be careful with how we approach the lead: FAQs for Assisting LGBTQ+ Individuals with SSI/SSDI Applications (SAMSHA)

Can individuals change their gender (sex) in their records with Social Security?

Answer: Yes! As of October 19, 2022, individuals can self-select their sex on their Social Security number (SSN) record. To make an update, they will need to apply for a replacement SSN card. They will still need to show a current document to prove their identity, but they will not need to provide medical or legal documentation of their sex designation. Additionally, documentation that reflects an “X” gender marker is acceptable identifying documentation.

I also continue to believe that a lead for a topic this broad is best served not by trying to develop a definition, but instead by developing a broad description of the topic, based on the article contents and according to scholarly sources. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

This passage is interesting: what I think it illustrates primarily isn't anything about the complexity or ambiguity of "gender", but rather the less frequently noted point that legal sex (in this case with reference to "sex designation") means something other than biological sex or sex assignment (and that sometimes sources use "sex" to mean "legal sex" - which is, of course, clearly a "social construct"). If I wanted to offend some participants at this Talk page, I would point out that this illustrates on a material level some of what Butler elaborates theoretically in their work. Newimpartial (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yet another suggestion

Recent proposals for lede rewrites are making me think that Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to femininity and masculinity and differentiating between them (or something similar) isn't so bad after all. There's loads of high-quality sources using similar fuzzy definitions, and the various suggestions above seem to be headed to the same place as the recent Cornish space shuttle launch i.e. nowhere.  Tewdar  11:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Here's one (a bit old, but 21st century at least), for example:gender (socially produced differences between being feminine and being masculine) - What is Gender? Sociological Approaches, Mary Holmes (2007)  Tewdar  11:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Defining it in terms of Femininity and Masculinity is circular. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I rather think that's the idea! Gender is turtles all the way down, and here's some examples...  Tewdar  12:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Kolya, if the definitions in the RS are typically circuluar in this way, is there a reason this article shouldn't follow the sources?

I have reasons not to prefer "masculinity ... femininity" formulations, but that sure isn't one of them. Newimpartial (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe the definitions in the RS are typically circular in this way. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Those formulations that define gender as comprising gender identity gender expression and gender roles (possibly among other aspects) appear to contradict you. Enough of these have been presented in this discussion that it seems reasonable to regard them as typical. Newimpartial (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I do like Triple-F's snappy summary Gender includes gender identity, gender expression, and gender roles, though. Perhaps we can use that instead of the waffley "depending on the context..." sentence?  Tewdar  11:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I regard any "includes" formulation like this to represent a massive improvement on the "is" formulations (or "consists of", or whatever) that have been proposed elswhere on this page. Newimpartial (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yet another, another suggestion

[43]

Seems a reasonable compromise to me and gets rid of that tag. Plus, the wording is heavily modeled on one participant's wording elsewhere, so I hope they will not have a problem with it.

I would hope nobody reverts this unless they think it is actually worse; if it's an incremental improvement then let's leave it be. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Crossroads. I think your revision reflects the trend of this discussion and a broad overview of the topic, and is an improvement from the previous opening sentence. Beccaynr (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I love it. Quick, someone get the old one click archiver out so we can all move on with our lives.  Tewdar  08:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The compromise does overcome several irritants of the status quo without introducing major new ones, so I regard it as an improvement. Newimpartial (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)