Jump to content

Talk:Gender/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Planetary Assignments of Gender

Planetary Assignments of Gender - As the historical assignment of gender to planets (i.e. Mars as masculine, and Venus as feminine) are prone to errors in interpretation from both the standpoint of Kabalistic and Vedic Astrology, it seems foolish to continue the "plantary gender error" further by ascribing the planetary symbol for mercury as "transgender" or "unisex."

I would be curious to know the source of the assignment, whether it be kabalistic, "new age," jyotish, or any other school of astrology.

Jlazzara (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm more disturbed that the symbols are not discussed at all in the article, but I share the source curiosity. --an odd name 21:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi you guys. Can you please figure out three symbols that are acceptable? I added one for transgender when this story was in the news on 24 December 2009. At the time I realized that it might have opposing views (there is more than one symbol for transgender). The story was that the hijra (South Asia) finally received rights from their government. Any three symbols are fine with me. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know of anyone who uses the mercury symbol as a trans symbol. It would probably offend more people than it would satisfy, because it third-genders/ungenders trans people. 72.66.54.150 (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lead

I have reverted the recent changes to the lead by Masculinty. For one, the other version was the consensus version, as worked on by myself and others. Second, such huge changes should be discussed first. Third, Masculinty's version was too complicated and too long for a lead, per WP:LEAD, and incorporated unsourced material about his objections to "the West's definitions" of gender. I advise Masculinty to discuss what he wants changed to the lead, here first, and to remember that Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted these edits by Facts707 for mostly the same reasons I reverted Masculinity (new consensus for the lead not yet being established, huge changes to the lead without discussion first, and the lead being too long and complicated). Leads just should not be like that. As for the other parts of the article he or she changed, I am not seeing why any of that was changed either. Flyer22 (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Good recent changes, Facts707. But shouldn't we keep something about grammatical gender in the lead, since we have an Etymology and usage section and it approaches grammatical gender there, or should we just remove that section? Flyer22 (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

gender as social role and gender identity in animals?

Somebody inserted text specifying that gender refers to humans and animals in terms of social role and gender identity. I removed this, and now it is back again. I don't want to get drawn into an edit war over this. So, could the last person to change this to include animals give sources that detail the social gender roles and gender identity of animals please. Otherwise it will need to go. Mish (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Mish. This, along with other stuff relating to gender, was extensively discussed on my talk page (which you can still currently see). In short, Darkfrog24 needs to provide a source for this. Flyer22 (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks, he has 24 hours from when I tagged it to do so.Mish (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and alerted Darkfrog to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Not too sure what you guys are talking about. I didn't put anything in this article about gender identity in animals, and if anything that I put there looks like it means that, then it is right and proper that it be changed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Done.Mish (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
[Here] it is. The "and some other animals" got added to the lead May 19 by Facts707 as part of a larger change covering some organizational issues. Don't know where you guys got the idea that it was me. I agree that the assertion should be removed until a proper source can be found, but Facts707 would be the person to ask about where to find one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Darkfrog, I was thinking back when you altered the lead to have gender refer to non-humans as well, and the long discussion on my talk page about gender/gender identity relating to humans or other animals, etc. You added this back after it was changed by Alastair Haines. Yes, the "and some other animals" regarding gender identity part was added by Facts707. I just did not think thoroughly when Mish brought this up. Sorry about that. Flyer22 (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The memory's fuzzy. Lemme see... This change that you've pointed out shows me adding "in humans" so that it is clear that "gender role" and "gender identity" refer specifically to humans and not to other animals. That's the opposite of saying "and some other animals."
I did change "men and women" to "male and female entities," but that was earlier in the lead, where the term's more general meaning is referred to. So yes, fruit flies have gender in the common-speech sense, but no they don't have it in the sociological sense of having different social roles and (as far as we know) gender-related self-concepts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey could this have been it? I gave the edit summary, "Gender in most senses is not unique to humans." However, what I meant by this is that most senses of "gender," literally four out of the five ("most") definitions, either don't apply only to men and women or don't apply to men and women at all. The 1. everyday speech 2. type or kind 3. linguistic and 4. "to breed" senses of gender are like this. Only 5. "gender roles/self-concepts" is limited to humans. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is it, Darkfrog, the same link I provided, LOL. I thought about your "male and female entities"/edit summary addition, and what was stated between us on my talk page, and somehow attributed Facts707's addition to you. Flyer22 (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Glad you sorted that out the. Anyway, the point is, yes gender is applicable to animals as well as humans, and possibly even gender roles, and even vehicles are attributed gender, but to include animals as having gender identity? How would we know whether a bullfrog or a sheepdog has a gender identity? It implies a certain conceptualisation and communication that I'm not sure animals are capable of. We need a WP:RS to say that animals have gender identities, especially in the lead. Mish (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Gender as "sex," "grouping," and "to breed" certainly applies equally to humans and other animals. I am not convinced that what animals do constitutes gender roles in the sociological sense. However, finding an RS that we could quote would render it permissible to say so in the article. I think there might be some in Third gender. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Gender Identity Measurement

On the 25th of July I added a small section on gender identity measurement, which I feel has great relevance to the subject and also is well referenced in Academic journals. Barak Pick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.37.99 (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, IP. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources for gender taxonomy

The section on gender taxonomy 1. seems to be a full copy of gender taxonomy. That's not necessarily bad, but whatever. 2. needs to list its sources. I went to the gender taxonomy article and found [exactly one source]. Would someone who's read the full article (most likely the person who added the gender taxonomy section) do the honors and add this source here? I wouldn't feel right about doing it myself because I don't have access to the part of the source that contains the information used here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Poor presentation

The content separation between "biological gender" and "Sociological gender" sections is quite wrong here. It was John Money who introduced gender as a role, to distinguish it from biological sex, but he is credited in the opposite section! See the paper by J. Richard Udry I added as further reading. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Another fact not clearly conveyed is that in social science today gender means sex most of the time (also said in the same ref). Tijfo098 (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You did a great job on the lead. Darkfrog24 and I have not gotten around to working on the whole article, so your help is appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, Tijfo098, in reference to social sciences, do you also mean anthropologists mostly use "gender" to mean biological sex? Most anthropologists I have come across or read up on usually distinguish between the two. Flyer22 (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
If you can provide a secondary ref that anthropologists mostly use it in a different way than the general trend (which is based on two secondary references) then by all means add it as another significant exception. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
What source do we have that there is a general trend in society to use gender to mean biological sex? I am quite confident that anthropologists uphold a distinction at least between social gender and biological sex, and many also distinguish third genders (and third sexes or more) - at least thats what all the anthropologists that I am reading and being taught by do. Some gender theoreticians also reject the notion of sex as an objectively existing category (Judith Butler for example).·Maunus·ƛ· 18:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that a chronological descrption of the development of the distinction would be preferable and that Money's study would appear much earlier in such a presentation than it currently does.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Did you read Haig's paper? Or Udry's? They're the first two refs in this article. Like I wrote before, I'm not opposed to adding the anthropologists as an exception, although I prefer a reasonably authoritative citation for that. By authoritative I mean someone that discusses how the term is used, as opposed to someone mandating a usage. This page has been the subject of edit wars on material ever since Wikipedia began, particularly material that makes sweeping generalizations from sources that are prescriptive rather than descriptive. Besides there's also feminist anthropology, so the statement about feminism includes some anthropologists. :-) Tijfo098 (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Besides anthropologists, should we also make clear in the lead that biological sex and gender are also often distinguished by the transgender community? To be clear, the transgender community often stresses their biological sex not matching the gender they identify as -- their gender identity. Flyer22 (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Something more needs to be said about gender identity in the lead (and not just in the transgender community, but in the mental health field as well, where the mainstream started to recognize it in the DSM-III). But that's not the same as social role. See the "trichotomy" paper. I'll get to it eventually. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know the difference with social role. It's just that genetic/biological sex, in the transgender community, is clarified as not necessarily equating to one's gender (i.e. someone declared a boy at birth based on "his" genitals doesn't mean "he" will identify as a boy/man later in life). This is often said without the qualifier "identity." Transgender friends and acquaintances of mine have also stressed that "biological sex does not mean gender." I know that doesn't count as a reliable source for Wikipedia, but I'm sure there are reliable sources out there about how the transgender community feels about the terms. I also usually see sociologists distinguishing. Anyway, I look forward to further contributions from you regarding this article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead-in definition

An IP keeps changing the first line which describes gender as "...a set of characteristics distinguishing between male and female, particularly in the cases of men and women." On the IP's talk page, I asked him or her what is problematic about the lead-in. I don't understand why the IP first changed it to this and then to this. I reverted both times because the IP is complicating the lead-in and his or her additions were/are also confusing to me. For example, binary classification has to do with math and science. The lead-in is accurate in describing what gender is about -- distinguishing between males and females (especially in the case of human beings). We go into exactly what we mean by that right after the first line, which is why I reverted the IP for a third time. So, again, I ask the IP what is so problematic about that first line, so much so that it has inspired him or her to engage in a WP:edit war? The IP has also reverted two of my most recent tweaks to the article further below, signaling to me that this IP is familiar with this article and may be a registered editor here. If the IP keeps this up, I will be taking this matter to WP:RfC. Flyer22 (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

As for the IP reverting two of my most recent changes, it seems the IP was simply editing an old version of the article...for whatever reason...which even includes a dead link recently removed by Bonze blayk. I'm not sure why the IP is editing a version days prior to those three changes. Flyer22 (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
gender is not a WP:Set_(mathematics) of the grouping characteristics. the lead is simply wrong. gender is the classification of characteristics distinguishing male and female. binary classification is the perfect example of this 134.219.72.135 (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
No where in the lead do we link Set (mathematics). But let's look at the definition given by that article. It says, "A set is a collection of distinct objects, considered as an object in its own right." If we take a look at "male/man" and "female/woman," they are respectively about a collection of distinct "objects," considered as objects in their own right. Males/Men, for example, are considered to have attributes that are distinct from females/women. These attributes are a collection, and males/men are considered an entity in their own right. Therefore, the lead, in my opinion, is not wrong...because gender pertains to a set of characteristics distinguishing between male and female. Perhaps "sets" would be more accurate. There is a set that is associated with males/men and there is a set that is associated with females/women. So how exactly is it wrong? And how is it vastly different than saying "the classification of characteristics distinguishing male and female"? Which, by the way, is the wording you should have used. I wouldn't have objected much to that. The Binary classification article, however, has to do with math and science. And its lead says that it is "...the task of classifying the members of a given set of objects into two groups on the basis of whether they have some property or not." Members of a given set of objects? (It uses the word "set" too, I notice.) Property? I ask who are these objects? People/Animals? The characteristics? And what is meant by "property"? In reading that article, it just doesn't sound like "binary classification" is the perfect example of gender. Perhaps you are defining it in a different way than that Wikipedia article? Maybe you mean gender binary?
It seems your main issue is with the word "set." If that is the case, I can agree to use your alternate wording: "Gender is the classification of characteristics distinguishing male and female." But I am not for your previous wordings. For one thing, if you mean "gender binary," this article covers those issues a lot better than that one. And "gender" is argued to be a non-human thing too. I feel that "gender binary," is only about humans. It also appears to be more about gender roles and gender identities, while "gender" covers a wider scope (at least it does in this article). But, yeah, I can accept your latest wording -- "the classification of characteristics." Flyer22 (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I just saw the comment you left at your talk page before I even replied here. This is what you stated:
Hi Flyer22
Gender is not the characteristics themselves unless you wish to define masculinity and feminitiy as absolute discreet properties of the object, which according to maybe ~80% of the talk is only true in the biological sense. Your lead is simple yes but tautological; gender -> male and female -> genders.
please don't be close minded because a topic usually finds use in a certain area. Binary classification is not just math and science it is the act of spliting a larger subset by assigning labels due to the attributes related to the group. Assigning gender labels is binary classification first and foremost. Gender may be about distinguishing male and female but it is not the distinction nor the act of distinction and this was the point I was trying to convey.
It's only a small change but yet extends the scope of the article hugely, and if accuracy were a quantifiable scale (instead of a simple binary classification accurate/not-accurate) these few extra words make the lead much more accurate.
In response to that, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Perhaps you can better explain? Were you speaking of "gender binary"? And if so, are you okay with my accepting your latest wording as a compromise? Flyer22 (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Flyer22, for maintaining a reasonable lead for this article...
The concept of gender is not necessarily restricted to a masculine/feminine BINARY... see Third gender. Some cultures provide gender roles which are distinct from the ones they prescribe for male-masculine and female-feminine... for example, from recall the Xanith have a mode of dress distinct from either men or women (though this is not mentioned in the article); and Shamanic roles in society often involve a distinct variety of gender identity and presentation [1].
So, in fact, the existing lead is not exactly correct, but hammering in the notion that all gender roles are "binary" in nature will make it much worse. No "compromise" should be made here. -- bonze blayk (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks you as well, Bonze blayk. Yes, I am familiar with third gender. I have even cleaned up and reverted a few things at that article before. The lead currently doesn't say anything about it (third gender), but it used to. And it does mention that "Some cultures have specific gender-related social roles that can be considered distinct from male and female, such as the hijra of India and Pakistan." I agree that "binary" should not be used. Which is why I offered using the IP's most recent wording of "the classification of characteristics" as a compromise, since I don't see it as too different from the current lead-in. But if you object to that as well, I have no problem with the objection. I suppose the first line isn't perfect (as you stated), but it is representative of what gender generally entails. To balance things out, we could add back in mention of third gender and combine it with the information about the hijra (which is a lone sentence right now). Flyer22 (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
yes the wording "the classification of characteristics" is by far the better wording good call. Though I would request the links since I believe articles should demonstrate the flow of information in their definitions; i.e. male/female->gender->classification of attributes not male/female->gender->male/female this is the tautoloigical loop in wikipedian logic that brought me here and is to date the only example of this.
to clarify the talk of sets, since it is a tricky concept and very hard to put into words. If gender is a set than atributes are always inherent to that set. this is how gender differs from gender binary It's very subtle but very important. The attributes here are a global set that is classified as having a certain likelihood to be either male or female (or third gender) hense the binary classification (splitting of one global set (attributes) into smaller sets (male/female) depending on their attributes) If gender is a set in itself than males and females will each have real and distinct attributes, rather than the attributes having certain elements of masculinity/feminity. This is what gender is, how these attributes are characterised masculine and feminine not the attributes themselves. Am i making this clear or just muddying the topic?134.219.74.251 (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
We'll see what Bonze blayk thinks about using the wording "classification of characteristics" and the other stuff you recently commented on. I can't say that I completely agree with your distinctions or understand them, but I sort of get where you are coming from. As for providing links, the Characteristics page is a disambiguation page. So that's why we don't link that. The same would apply for the Classification page. We also don't link words that are fairly understood. See WP:OVERLINKING. Flyer22 (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Well as for being fairly well understood, I think the fact that we're having this discussion prove how well the classification of sets is. the disambiguation of the classification is why i linked binary classifiction. To define male and female as genders and to define genders as male and female doesn't sit well with me. Gender classifies attributes male/female, gender binary is the attributes male/female.134.219.74.251 (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I've explained why the Binary classification article doesn't sit well with me. It does not appear to be related to this topic at all. If you are going to link something to explain gender, then it should be about gender. To me, that article is not. And the lead-in sentence in this (the Gender) article does not say that male and female are genders. It says "Gender is a set of characteristics distinguishing between male and female," which it is. It's not like "gender" is only used to distinguish between men and women (not to mention, for most people, their sex and gender are congruent). But even for that, the lead continues on with, "particularly in the cases of men and women." The rest of the lead explains how "sex" and "gender" are distinguished and how they are also often synonymous. It seems now (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are saying you don't like sex being called gender and gender being called sex. But whether you disagree with those assignments or not, it is a fact that they are often seen as the same thing. That is why we go over that aspect in the lead. The lead-in (the first line), on the other hand, is simply saying that gender is used to distinguish between the sexes, which it is. It's no different to me than the wording "the classification of characteristics distinguishing male and female." I know you have tried to explain the difference to me, but I just will not understand what you mean on that one. If there are WP:Reliable sources making the same distinctions, then perhaps I would understand after reading those sources. If it's just your personal feeling, then no. Flyer22 (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I added "male (Masculinity) and female "(Femininity)" in the lead paragraph to help provide a hint that there is a distinction involved which is not simply tautological... if that helps ;-) ... as I noted in my edit comment the article on Femininity is dreadful: Cleavage, heels, corsets, OK! Now I TRULY understand the mysteries of The Feminine! -- bonze blayk (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
But, Bonze blayk, "masculinity" and "femininity" have more to do with gender roles and gender identity (and their articles make it seem like the terms only have to do with human beings) than they have to do with sex. Gender covers biological sex too, which is not always indicative of whether or not one will be masculine or feminine. And let's not forget, such traits are often found in both sexes (though usually more acceptable for a woman to display masculine traits). Flyer22 (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I tweaked it to this, which I think helps to not definitively say that "male" and "female" is the same as "masculinity" and "femininity." Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The only difference between us here is our attitude towards the interpretation of parentheses v. the virgule ;-) -- bonze blayk (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

race is not a set of black people and white people, race is an attribute given to all people that they may be classified as black or white or any other race. You may have a set of Christians a set of Jews and a set of Muslims but religion is not a set of Christians, Jews and Muslims. Gender is not a combination of male things or female things (that's what it means when you say set) That makes no sense. Gender is an inherent Quality_(philosophy) of attributes that can be either masculine or feminine. It is not the only concept in existence that can only be defined intuitively and it is not a concept so out of reach that it might be described by things outside it's own field (if ever someone asks about binary classification now you know even if you didn't understand the article) please don't be so defensive to refuse to admit that your prievious definition of gender as a grouping as wrong and the current edit 'Gender is a set of characteristics distinguishing between male (Masculinity) and female (Femininity)' particularly highlights this, as it doesn't distingush masculinity and feminity it is the quality of masculinity and feminity in things. Can nobody else see this?!?134.219.74.127 (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

'Gender is an inherent Quality_(philosophy) of attributes that can be either masculine or feminine. A quality that can be used to distinguish between male and female, particularly... ' does this sit well with everyone? no maths or science and no flawed logic either134.219.74.127 (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

By giving the other examples, I understand what you are saying now. But I still feel that gender is "a combination of things." It just happens to be split into two groups that are viewed as independent of each other (which are then further split into groups). You keep stressing the distinction between "set" and "classification"...when even you stated it as a subtle difference in this case. I understand what the Binary classification article is saying, and, in my view, it is not saying what you are saying. If you can find me a reliable source defining gender in that way (the way you describe it), that would be a different story. That said, I am still for a clean and less complicated first sentence. And for that, I still agree with "Gender is the classification of characteristics distinguishing male and female." I'm not for your latest proposal, no. Flyer22 (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I changed it to this, per this talk page discussion. You and I are for "classification of characteristics" and Bonze blayk has yet to object to that wording in particular.
On a side note, it's best to wait until editors are in agreement before implementing the proposed changes. Because all it does is go back to reverting if one editor doesn't agree. Flyer22 (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Section break

Another quick note: I think if anyone ever removes "classification" from the current lead because they feel it's complicating things to state "classification of characteristics" ("classification" being an extra, unneeded word or whatever), saying "is the characteristics" works. Or rather "are the characteristics" (whichever is correct grammar). We could also use "pertains to the characteristics." We don't need "set/sets" or "classification." But if the IP insists on "classification," I am okay with leaving it at that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the old definition, "Gender is a set of characteristics...", was clearer than the current version. Also, I think third gender should be mentioned again in the lead. The fact that gender isn't always just male/female is important for understanding what gender is and how it varies between cultures. --Aronoel (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Adding back the word "set" will put us right back at opposition with the IP, though. Perhaps we should use the word "range" instead? "Gender is a range of characteristics..." The IP may find some problem with "range" also, related to math or whatever, I don't know. But "range" sounds good and accurate to me, and I understand math pretty well. The lead does give off the vibe that there are only two genders (man and woman), but we do mention that "some cultures have specific gender-related social roles that can be considered distinct from male and female, such as the hijra of India and Pakistan." I ask where that line says "male" and "female," does it mean "distinct from man and woman"? I understand that people use "sex" and "gender" interchangeably, but while there are more than two genders, there are only two sexes -- male and female. Unless one considers intersex people to be "third sex." But, yeah, I agree to add back "third gender" (as I stated higher). Flyer22 (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Honestly I don't agree with the IP's objections to "set." I don't see the tautological problem, and I disagree that gender is an inherent philosophical quality. As far as I can tell, these are just the IP's opinions. Maybe I'm not understanding the IP's objections though, because honestly their comments are a little confusing.
Here is the WHO's definition of gender: "'Gender' refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women." To me, "set" makes more sense based on this source. --Aronoel (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
It's clear that Bonze blayk and I also disagreed with the IP. I was trying to compromise, however, to avoid the continuation of an edit war. If we can compromise with the IP, I don't see a problem. We might as well try "range" since the IP objects to "set." The word "range" was also used in the past (clarified in my second paragraph below).
Yes, we already use the World Health Organization definition in the lead. I was the one who put it early on at one point, after specifying that gender has a range of definitions. This was discussed at User talk: Darkfrog24# Change in lead of the Gender article, and a note about the Biology of gender article. And due to that discussion, it's not used so earlier on anymore because they have a restrictive definition of gender -- that gender is only socially constructed. The lead was also expanded by the editor who started the #Poor presentation section above, because of restrictive and "poor" presentations, and he downsized the WHO definition even further. You see, while I often distinguish between "sex" and "gender," many others do not, and enough people feel that gender has to do with the biological as well. This is what the lead currently makes clear, just as the article always did. If we are going to add a source for the initial definition of gender (that first line), then the source needs not to make the term restricted to a social construction, even though, as much as I have studied on the matter, gender is mostly about that. Flyer22 (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't mean to suggest that we add the wording from the WHO definition. I think "range" is good, but if "set" is still better, then I don't think a compromise with the IP is necessary. The clear consensus here should be enough to stop an edit war if it comes to that again, I think. I'm fine with either "set" or "range" though.--Aronoel (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't necessarily think you were saying we should use the WHO definition first. I just wanted to explain why its importance in this article has been pruned. Anyway, I'm fine with you going ahead and changing the lead-in to "Gender is a range of characteristics...." I'd rather you do it since I've edit-warred with the IP enough and am not sure how he or she will take it (no matter how small). Flyer22 (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Will do.
Also, Bonze blayk pointed out here how horrible the article femininity was. I've been trying to fix it somewhat. Maybe people can take a look and give some feedback on the talk page. --Aronoel (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"23 different" ones

There is something incomplete about this sentence since it omits plain vanilla heterosexuals, and maybe (?) plain vanilla homosexuals as well. So 99+% of humanity is absent from this list, is that correct? Varlaam (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Gender and Poverty

I feel like the the Gender and Poverty section needs to be expanded. First, we can have a more specific, updated statistics on women and poverty around the world and what defines poverty (and below the poverty level). Also, it would be useful to have the side effects of poverty on women, including domestic violence, illness, and nutrition issue. Also, we can explain in more detail about the microfinance and its effect on women, which will be cropped from the previous section of gender and development--it's about two sentences. 76% of the clients of microfinance institutions are women and they have a better repayment record[1]. However,microfinance can also impose more suffering for women because they might be forced to give over their loans to male relatives and pressed to repay the loans that were not used for their entrepreneurial work[2]. If this is too specific to microfinance, then there can be another section underneath the Gender and Poverty named 'Microfinance and its effect on women.' Chloe.s.kwon (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestions, but I must point out that your suggestions are focused on women. Is there not a lot to state about men in this regard? I wouldn't say that there should be a Microfinance and its effect on women section...unless the section is substantial enough to stand on its own. Flyer22 (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

So why no mention of male poverty? Is this about gender or womans issues? Some people claim that society shows lack of concern and care for underclass males. Most work related deaths are males. This section needs to be removed, or to be made more ballanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.207.182.205 (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Refs for prior usage being uncommon

I note that the refs for this assertion in the article ' Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word "gender" to refer to anything but grammatical categories. ' both explicitly define the periods and context they're referring to it being uncommon, and wondered if in light of this the statement above might not be too broad if resting solely on them. The first states the term was not used in 'marriage and family litarature' between 1900 and 1964, the second that academic titles didn't use the term in this sense between 1945 and 2001. Both also rely on exclusively formal contexts. However the entry for Gender here at the online etymology dictionary, which has the first attested use of gender in the 'male or female sex' sense in the early 15thC (with the grammatical sense from the late 14thC). It also states " As sex took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the common word used for "sex of a human being ". Which might make a better ref for it being more common, but perhaps with something noting that while less common the sense was extant prior to this.Number36 (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

According to John Money, his use of the word "gender" to denote differences in psychological gendering (associated with hormonally-variant development paths) distinct from genital sex was entirely novel, and I've never seen this contradicted elsewhere ... Money was doing original work assessing intersex individuals, and this involved challenges in categorizing these individuals which drove him to develop new terms to characterize them. (Money coined a number of neologisms to describe his systematizations of more general social/behavioral role theories, so this was merely his first venture into the field.)
With respect to the Online Etymology Dictionary, I don't really trust it myself, and it's a WP:SPS condensation from other sources, so I believe it's not really suitable as a citation. -- thanks, bonze blayk (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic" which this falls under; The Online Etymology Dictionary is a very well known reliable source on etymology, the fact that it is a well-referenced work itself makes it all the more so, if you review its article here, under Reviews and reputation, the citations there amply demonstrate this.
But you appear to have misconstrued my point, which does not contradict that Money's specific usage was novel (quite the contrary), nor does it really even really rest on the OED reference, but that the two refs currently provided do not support the above assertion that the word gender itself was not usually used at any point before this in anything but the grammatical sense, both being explicit in the context and periods they define, strictly limited to formal usage in specialised fields in the 20thC. In point of fact the OED supports the assertion concerning it being less common in other usages prior the 20thC better than the current refs.Number36 (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Gender versus Sex

This entire article needs to be rewritten to distinguish that which is a gender performance (e.g. how "clothes" or "haircut" is performed) and that which is based on biological sex, such as brain size. Sex preference (of mates) and gender-performance preference, if any (of mates), are also different phenomena that are incorrectly labeled here as gender. Moreover, in any case where the brain size of males (penis) and females (vagina) is discussed, there would be much benefit from ensuring that all FOUR sexes are represented by adding brain characteristics of intersexuals (penis and vagina) and asexuals (no penis or vagina). 110.165.229.242 (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

See what the lead says, and what is stated in the section right above this one -- #The lead -- about the uses of "sex" and "gender." But the Gender identity section, for example, is separated from the Biological views section. And as for the General studies section, which includes the Genes, Brains, and Society and behaviors subsections, that's not confusing sex with gender. "Gender studies" is also about biology; in many contexts, as the lead says, "gender" has expanded to include "sex" or even to replace the latter word. It's not called "Sex studies." And while intersex individuals can be considered a third sex, science doesn't typically describe a third sex...since intersex individuals are [physically] male and female (not a new sex, unless you consider the combination to be a different sex). Scientists/researchers do describe a third gender, however. And an intersex person usually identifies by either the gender category man or woman. And, finally, there's more to asexuality than "no penis or vagina"; in fact, when referring to humans, the term usually means the lack or absence of sexual attraction and/or lack or absence of interest in sexual activity. Flyer22 (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

POV in Biological gender section

The 3rd from last paragraph in the "Biological gender" section makes some rather extreme claims. Specifically, it states that thanks to technology, "differences in behaviour between men and women [can now] be adequately explained solely on the basis of the limited observable physical differences between them". It also states that it is now implausible that gender differences can be explained by cultural influences. While these opinions certainly have currency among some groups, the idea that gender is 100% biological does not represent the majority of reliable sources on the topic. These statements either need to be dialed down significantly, or attributed to specific authors. Otherwise they are violating WP:NPOV. Kaldari (talk) 07:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed this paragraph for now. Feel free to add it back with less POV wording if you feel it is important to the section. Kaldari (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Kaldari. Also, why is the "Sexual reproduction" section in this article!?--Taranet (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I personally believe that a lot of non-empirical philosophical feminism etc. have over-emphasized the role of social and cultural construction of gender behavior differences etc. but still, to say that culture has no impact on Gender is ridiculous. 88.114.154.216 (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"Systemic bias" in regard to putting "male" before "female"?

I don't understand this edit by Tyranny Sue. As I stated in this edit, "I don't understand this [aspect of] 'systemic bias.' I am female, and I have no problem with 'male' being first. Isn't it just as biased to put 'female' first?)" That is why I reverted Tyranny Sue on this. Yes, I have often been confused about my gender (especially when growing up), but, either way, I have always preferred "male" being before "female." I prefer this because it seems more orderly to me, the "fe" part being an add-on to the word "male." The same goes for the words "man" and "woman." I have never seen it as meaning that males are more important than females and females are sort of like a sub-part of "male." However, some of my feminist friends or acquaintances have seen it as offensive. I don't understand this, and thus brought it to this talk page to discuss. I am okay with some instances of having "female" or "woman" first, but why should it be carried out throughout the article? Flyer22 (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Flyer, first of all, your claim that I have put "female" first all the way through is incorrect, as anyone who looks at the edit can see by reading it. I agree that it would be biased to always put either gender first, however, what I have actually done is I have balanced out the instances of male-related terms coming before female-related terms, so that there is a roughly equal number of "female/woman/femininity" coming before "male/man/masculinity" as vice versa.
Therefore, since your revert was clearly made on mistaken grounds, I will be undoing it.
To answer the rest of your post, the compulsive prioritization of male-related words for no good reason except out-dated politics (and in spite of the fact that the only other obviously objective ordering rationale is the alphabet, which would put "female" before "male") is an obvious instance of systemic bias, and comments along the lines of "it seems more orderly" don't provide us with any kind of helpfully objective ordering rationale.--TyrS (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
p.s. Before reverting, it's a good idea to make sure you've read the edit properly, and if you don't - as you admitted above - fully understand it, try to discuss it first.--TyrS (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Tyranny Sue, I did not misread your edit. I clearly saw that you did not put "male" before "female" in every instance, but it seemed to cover most instances to me. And certainly the most predominant ones, such as the lead (intro). My asking, "... but why should it be carried out throughout the article?" was a figure of speech. Wikipedia articles should not start conforming to this, simply because you feel that it represents systemic bias. If this was in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, then I would be okay with it, but it's not. All it represents to me is feminism, like some of my feminist friends and acquaintances. I cannot help it that I like things "orderly." I also am not for inconsistency in articles. If a character is called Jack in most of a Plot summary, it makes more sense to me to call him Jack throughout, instead of suddenly by his nickname. The same type of thing applies here. Since two are for the "orderly view" and two are not, I say we take this to Wikipedia:RFC, because I am not interested in edit-warring over something as trivial as whether or not to put "male/man" first. Though I am clearly interested in discussing it and there being WP:Consensus about this. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Flyer, the very first sentence - surely the "most predominant one"? - at the top of my edited version of the article has "male" before "female". You have now twice reverted my edits based on your own misreadings.--TyrS (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you think yourself smarter than everyone else here, Tyranny Sue? Surely, if the "most predominant one" were the About/Distinction tag or the picture caption, then you would have changed that as well. I am not speaking of the picture caption! I said the lead. Intro! You know, the place where most people look first. I doubt that most pay attention to the distinction tag first. But you go ahead and believe that. However, stop twisting my words to suit your need to inject a feminist/political aspect to this article's wording. Your version of the lead states: "Gender is the wide set of characteristics that are seen to distinguish between female and male." That clearly has "female" before "male." And that is what I meant and said. Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that's reading too much into it. Like Flyer, I have a full complement of X chromosomes (that being two) and have no objection to this convention. The custom of saying "male and female" is just that, a convention of modern formal English. It might have gotten there back in the days of patriarchy, but right now, it usually doesn't make any particular political statement.
Here's the only thing that's wrong with saying "female and male" or "women and men" instead: If it occurs where the reader will be expecting to see "male and female" or "men and women," then it can be distracting. In that instance, it would make the article look political and self-conscious. "Gender" isn't here to make a political statement; it's here to inform in a neutral way. For this reason, I believe that we should only reverse the standard order when the structure of the surrounding text makes it feel natural, graceful or intuitive to do so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, than let's be impartial and use the old alphabetical order: "feminine and masculine", "female and male", but "he and she" and "man and woman" so no one would get distracted anymore. --Dia^ (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, that would be logical, but alas the English language is not. The standard is "male and female," "his or her," etc. Fortunately, it's not like "second and first," so we can get away with a "female and male" where the surrounding text supports it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Darkfrog, your notion of there being a "standard order" or some kind of authoritative "custom" is exactly where the systemic bias occurs. These notions translate into personally preferred order. You say that the compulsive prioritizing of all male-related terms before all female-related ones "doesn't make any particular political statement". It actually does, just not in an overt way. Political statements are often made covertly. As far as what "the reader will be expecting", I assume that by "the reader" you mean yourself, unless you've conducted some kind of large-scale poll. I personally find it distracting when either gender is consistently put in second place for no good reason.--TyrS (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Call it a custom, call it a standard, call it whatever name. The fact of the matter is that formal English tends to say "male and female" to the point where "female and male" sounds a bit odd. It doesn't sound as odd as "second and first," but it could potentially draw the reader's attention away from what we're saying and onto the way we're saying it.
This word order occurs on a case-by-case basis. English does not actually prioritize all male words over all female words: Here's an example: Someone just changed "yang and yin" to "yin and yang." Yin is female and yang is male, and in English it is customary/conventional/etc. to say "yin" first. If we were to say "yang and yin" it would sound off. People would wonder why we were doing it.
It is deviating from the standard, whatever that standard may be, that makes a political statement. This article should send its message by relaying facts from reliable sources in a neutral tone, not by rearranging expected English conventions.
Years ago, it was standard to say "he" and it was accepted that "he" could refer to a male or female subject. In the 1920's, using "he" in English in this way was no more political than saying "ellos" in Spanish. Then there was a big upset, part of feminism, part of the natural progression of the language, combination of factors, etc., and the standard changed. In 2010, saying "he" in that way is sexist. Now, saying "he" in that way makes a political statement because the standard is "he or she." In order for this change to occur, a bunch of people had to get up there and write in a way that looked awkward and distracting and made a political statement for a long time. I am not saying that it would necessarily be bad to do this for "male and female"; I am saying that Wikipedia is not the place to do it. We are not here to make our own political statements or reinvent the English language (even if that reinvention would be an improvement). Wikipedia must use the English we have, not the English any of us wish we had. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
For such a small side detail you are writing an awful lot! Anyway, as for your answer to my proposal: is there any law or at least rule that the English language used in Wikipedia need to be illogical?
Could you please cite few reliable sources that affirm that reading "female and male" instead of "male and female" is distracting (by the way, I always heard that the unexpected is more likely to grab attention that the expected) and some that affirm that there is a recognized convention in 21st century English language that affirm that "male and female" should be preferred to "female and male"?. Now I'm getting really curious.--Dia^ (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Of course the unexpected grabs attention, but it grabs it onto itself, not necessarily onto the article's main point.
Yes, there are lots of rules about English that are illogical. Some of them change over time and some don't. We should use correct English anyway. I'm not saying that you're necessarily wrong to want English to be more logical, but Wikipedia is not the place to push a linguistic agenda.
WP:GNL covers policies on gender-neutral language. That policy's talk page would be the place to raise and discuss this issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I replied to Tyranny Sue above.. As said there, I say we take this to Wikipedia:RFC, because I am not interested in edit-warring over something as trivial as whether or not to put "male/man" first. Though I am clearly interested in discussing it and there being WP:Consensus about this. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Darkfrog, so, if I'm understanding correctly, there is no written rule in English that says the "male" goes before "female" and, although there is no rule, we should ask the opinion of the wider community to change a rule that didn't exist in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against asking the opinion of wider community, here I'm merely try to understand the logic behind your thought, just as a matter of curiosity. --Dia^ (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Dia^. I wouldn't say we're asking to change a perceived rule, just to get consensus on what is better for this article. If we do ask. After all, most articles, not just on Wikipedia, use the wording "male and female," "man and woman," "he or she," etc. For example, if you do not know someone's sex/gender, do you say "she or he," or do you say "he or she" and "their"? Why should we start having our articles putting the feminine aspect first, halfway or all the way through? Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. It's not a rule per se, but it is a standard convention. We should only deviate from it where the surrounding text makes it natural to do so, as in, "The female reproductive system involves many stages, while the male reproductive system involves only a few. This accounts for some of the difference in availability of female and male hormonal contraception." Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Darkfrog, one of the problems of your argument is that you keep trying to present your personal feelings (e.g. "sounds a bit odd") as if they were universal. You have also managed to give the impression that it's some kind of 'rule' for all terms associated with maleness to be always placed before all terms associated with femaleness. Of course that's not true and of course there's a linguistic agenda involved in insisting on one gender always being put first. Another problem with your argument is that you're assuming readers are so easily distracted that reading two words in an order that you contend they won't be used to will make those reader less able to process information. In other words, dumb down the wording of our articles based on the dubious assumption that most readers would be thrown off the track by reading "women and men" or "female and male". That's nonsense.--TyrS (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It is also nonsense to insist we word this article with the awkward "female and male," "woman and man," "she and "he," "her and his" text as though that will make people less inclined to word things that way in the future. There is no precedent for this at all on Wikipedia. There is precedent for the other way. Are you going to go around to all Wikipedia articles and do this? I have seen that you have gotten some rejection in this regard in the past; that is only likely to continue. This is not going to become standard, even if made a "rule" at Wikipedia:Manual of Style. But you should take your concerns there, not here, for whatever you are expecting to accomplish with this wording. Wikipedia is not the place to take your stand. Darkfrog is trying to present personal feelings? So are you!! I'm tired of this and your edit-warring, as if that will solve anything. Taking to RFC, as stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Darkfrog, thanks to clarify that you didn't mean that there was a rule. Still even for a convention, if it exists, should be written somewhere. If not in texts for native speakers, at least for foreigners that learn English. So far I didn't see any citation anywhere that confirms that what is yours and Flyer's personal opinion, is actually a recognized convention that would be broken in writing "female and male" instead of "male and female". --Dia^ (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
From what I see all around, it is not simply my and Darkfrog's "personal opinion." It is extremely common, which is the whole point of Tyranny Sue's claim of systemic bias. Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
While "seeming a bit odd" is indeed a feeling, it is not only my own. Many writers, readers and English teachers share it, to the point where we could consider it a majority feeling, though you yourself demonstrate that it is not universal. And it is not unique to cases of gendered language.
Using standard conventions isn't dumbing things down. It's neither up nor down. It's standard. And while "female and male" is not as distracting as, say, "second and first," why distract people at all? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: "Systemic bias" in regard to putting "male" before "female"?

An editor, Tyranny Sue, feels that constantly putting "male" before "female," "man" before "woman," etc. creates systemic bias within the article. Tyranny Sue would prefer parts of the article be worded as follows: "female and male," "woman and man," "she and "he," "her and his."

The concern with Tyranny Sue's request is that it reads awkwardly, tries to send a political message, and there is no precedent for Wikipedia articles needing to follow such a format. Thus, is it better to leave the article as "male and female," "man and woman," etc. or go along with Tyranny Sue's view? This has been discussed on the talk page, and two (Tyranny Sue included) are for the change, and two (myself included) are against it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I support Sue's suggestion but only when it's in alpha order. In other words, "female and male" and "her and his" are fine. But "woman and man" and "she and he" are not okay. This happens often, for example, in ITN. There is probably residual systemic bias that from time to time makes an ordering that needs to be corrected (I try to send those to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors when they happen). -SusanLesch (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your swift reply. While I still disagree with Tyranny Sue's view, your suggestion is more of a compromise and is what Dia^ said as well. In fact, this shows that Dia^ is not truly for Tyranny Sue's version...rather only part of it.
Still, my questions are: "What does this mean for other Wikipedia articles? If this one, then why not all others? Do we take this to Wikipedia:Manual of Style?"
I am waiting to see what others have to say. Hopefully, Tyranny Sue will wait as well. I certainly cannot revert Tyranny Sue again, any time, soon without violating WP:3RR. Flyer22 (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, SL. I don't feel that alphabetical order is a good standard here. It's artificial and arbitrary. There's no logical virtue in saying "her and his" and not "woman and man." At least standard English conventions like "his and her" and "male and female" flow well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Flayer, you reporting of TyrS is totally wrong!! I have to say, I'm quite speechless! She wrote: Flyer, first of all, your claim that I have put "female" first all the way through is incorrect, as anyone who looks at the edit can see by reading it. I agree that it would be biased to always put either gender first, however, what I have actually done is I have balanced out the instances of male-related terms coming before female-related terms, so that there is a roughly equal number of "female/woman/femininity" coming before "male/man/masculinity" as vice versa. Therefore, since your revert was clearly made on mistaken grounds, I will be undoing it. I think I'll take the matter to an admin or who else. Your way to deal with the matter is absolutely inexcusable.--Dia^ (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean. Totally wrong? Speechless? Absolutely inexcusable? All I did was report what Tyranny Sue feels. Tyranny Sue feels that constantly putting "male" before "female," "man" before "woman," etc. creates systemic bias within the article. Tyranny Sue also said he or she would prefer parts of the article be worded with the feminine aspect first, to balance out the article, such as female/male. Therefore, my report is not wrong in any way. If it were, Tyranny Sue would have "corrected" me. And an administrator cannot settle this alone. Their opinion has no more weight than ours about this. Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't say totally wrong, but Flyer should not have mentioned TS by name, nor stated or implied that said user changed every instance, because she did not. The RFC should have been phrased neutrally so that commenters could come in, look around and make their own decisions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I kept it neutral. In fact, I went into it with neutrality in mind. I did not state or imply that Tyranny Sue changed every instance. I said Tyranny Sue feels that constantly putting "male" before "female," "man" before "woman," etc. creates systemic bias within the article, and that Tyranny Sue would prefer parts of the article be worded in a way which would "balance" this out. I clearly said "parts of," not "all of." So I do not understand the complaint about how I approached this RFC. I presented both sides in a completely neutral way, stating Tyranny Sue's view and then mine. I do not see the problem with mentioning Tyranny Sue by name either. It is simply a clarification, just as it is clear that I am one of the editors against Tyranny Sue's view. Flyer22 (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Tyranny Sue's request is that it reads awkwardly, tries to send a political message, and there is no precedent for Wikipedia That is not what I consider to be neutral. These are the sorts of conclusions that commenters should draw for themselves. I'm not saying you were 100% out of line, Flyer, but it could have been better. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
That is not what I said. I said, "The concern with Tyranny Sue's request is that it reads awkwardly, tries to send a political message, and there is no precedent for Wikipedia articles needing to follow such a format." Meaning...the concern you and I expressed over Tyranny Sue's view. Presenting Tyranny Sue's problem with the current wording and then our problem with Tyranny Sue's wording is neutral. Again, I do not understand the misreading of my RFC report. RFC reports are done that way all the time with no complaint, because that is neutral. Flyer22 (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Those words are not neutral. A neutral way to say it would have been to say something along the lines of, "One editor believes that saying 'male and female' etc. constitutes systemic bias and wants to alternate with 'female and male.' Other editors believe that this would read awkwardly. Both sides believe that doing things the other side's way would send an inappropriate political message." Don't say who's on which side or which side is right. Just let people come and see for themselves. RfCs might be done in biased ways all the time, but not because it's neutral. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm still not getting how it was not neutral simply because I named Tyranny Sue. After all, my name was right there for all to see as well. I should not let editors know which side I am on? Not getting that. Especially since they were going to find out either way. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
It is not just because you named T.S., although that doesn't help. You said, "There's no precedent for X on Wikipedia," and "X reads awkwardly," and "X sends a political message" (which implies that the alternative does not). These are not objective facts. They are opinions and conclusions. So you included three arguments against X and only one argument for it, if we count "Tyranny Sue [the accused] believes not doing X sends a political message." That is not neutral.
In addition, people who read what you've written will be primed to agree that Tyranny Sue is wrong before they even get here and look at what she did and didn't actually do. Now, you did sign your name to these comments, and voicing your views isn't bad, but that doesn't mean it's also neutral. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I cannot see what I did as wrong in any way. Yes, I stated how I feel (how you feel as well) about Tyranny Sue's view, but that is expected, and I also stated what Tyranny Sue feels is wrong with the current version -- systemic bias. I stated three concerns, you're right about that, and I can see how that may be a little slanted compared to just listing systemic bias as Tyranny Sue's concern, but that (including the political statement accusation) is the only concern Tyranny Sue has with the current version. The "There's no precedent for X on Wikipedia" comment is a fact, which has been backed up by other editors' comments. And the political aspect was not denied by Tyranny Sue; it was discussed. Tyranny Sue even said to you: "You say that the compulsive prioritizing of all male-related terms before all female-related ones 'doesn't make any particular political statement'. It actually does, just not in an overt way. Political statements are often made covertly." So we'll just have to agree to disagree. And at least I understand what you are saying a lot better than Dia^'s complaint of my being "totally wrong" when Dia^ actually got my report totally wrong. Flyer22 (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say it was wrong. I said it wasn't neutral. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know. And I said I disagreed. Flyer22 (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Speaking here in my capacity as an ordinary user (not wearing my admin hat). I don't think there is any enforcable policy reason to alter phrasing in this way (she/he). Articles should be recording what sources say and when they have 'she' before 'he' it's fine to put it here that way, and vice versa. Changing the phraseology of a sentence is akin to changing between British and American spellings - we just don't do it.
    However if there is a consensus to do what Dia^ has done proposed that's fine (per WP:IAR).
    Speaking with my admin hat on but recusing myself from action, this is a bit of a mess: Flyer22 and Tyranny Sue are talking at each other. I suggest they both disengage, assume good faith and wait till this RFC is completed. If the problem persists after that then try mediation--Cailil talk 18:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Cailil, I actually didn't do any "female/male change" on the article page, just offer a compromise on the talk page.--Dia^ (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Striken and corrected - if people find it an acceptable compromise I'd see no problem with it. But it would need consensus--Cailil talk 18:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, following this postat WP:EAR, I came here and I must say my reaction is: haven't you got anything better to do? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I frankly don't understand the calling of systemic bias. To say that placing "he" before "she" in the phrase "he and she" (and similar) generates systemic bias smacks of the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which does not have much support in linguistics anymore. As such, I don't think there's much reason to follow such an argument. I do not see this as being a serious problem.
    Furthermore, I would oppose the alternating of "male and female" with "female and male" throughout the article to "balance" things because it introduces inconsistency, which is one of the basic things a manual of style seeks to prevent. Wikipedia's usage is dictated by the common usage, and in English this would be "male and female". To me, the opposite would only be appropriate in limited circumstances, for instance where the topic of the discourse was a female person, and there was a male person incidentally connected to the discourse. If of course, we're directly quoting a source that does otherwise, we follow the source. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose we should not force an alternation of gendered words and pronouns but rather use the word order that works most naturally in the surrounding text. Most of the time, that will be "male and female," "his and hers," "yin and yang," etc. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. I thought Tyranny Sue's edits were just fine. I seem to be in the minority here and do not plan to come back to this argument. (I don't agree with Darkfrog24 in any way shape or form, sorry. I think your preferences perpetuate some kind of bias.) -SusanLesch (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Placing "male" before "female" and "his" before "hers" is the natural form of the English language. We should not fundamentally alter our deployment of so natural a format based solely on the effected offence of some overly sensitive members. An alternation of grammar will alienate readers, and will lower the tone of the entire site, should it be adopted. We should retain the system that has served adequately thus far. I,E • Wouldst thou speak? 16:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think a standard needs to be written to address this. Just follow the way of Wikipedia. In the case that this becomes an issue for an editor (like Sue), then she/he should freely edit and reverse the word order. If an editor doesn't agree (like Flyer), then she/he should freely revert. If it becomes a dispute (like this RFC) then it should just fall back to how the original version was written. The same way we handle color vs. colour and theater vs. theatre. Granted, the "he before she" convention would be more prevalent throughout the Wiki, simply b/c that is the way most people write. All in all, I don't see how the work order of she/he can in any way effect the content of the article, much less create a systematic bias, and this whole issue seems like a waste of resources that could be better used in improving articles found on WP:BACK. The Eskimo (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment My 2 cents, I think alpha sorting is the only way to ensure no bias is present, if someone is worried about that they can do it in this article- however I might remind them that the last one mentioned in a list is usually the first one remembered. Batvette (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Forcing an artificial and/or arbitrary system, such as alphabetization, on this type of prose is bad writing. Even people who don't find it awkward may agree that alphabetization wouldn't remove the bias (or alleged bias, depending). "He" would still occur before "she" and "hers" before "his," and it is highly likely that each instance would cancel out another. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The idea is that saying "his and hers" and "he or she" all the time, both of which conventions place the male pronoun first, creates an anti-feminine bias. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. To me, bias implies "influence." I guess I don't understand how the word order influences the reader or the article. Are some people taking offense that male pronouns conventionally come first? Couldn't this be looked at as an AGF issue? I'm not anti-woman just because I usually put "him" in front of "her" when I edit an article.The Eskimo (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Following up on that, I am curious if someone familiar with a matriarcal society can comment whether their writing conventions reverse the order to "she and he" etc. I think that would shed some light on this. Thanks! The Eskimo (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment
    - The comparison above to British spelling debates is apt. This type of issue will only be a problem on a few articles, particularly those related to gender, feminism, radical politics, etc, and in those few cases it might work best to allow proportional evolution based on the instincts of editors. Where standards are mixed or evolving, a rule is not always best.
    - Appealing to common practice or 'natural' language is not persuasive here, since the basis of feminism is more or less that common practice is biased. If rules about language reflect that bias, then Wikipedia must consider breaching the norm to establish neutrality. Moreover, standards about language, particularly those relating to political equality are continually evolving as social standards change. Gender-neutral language is a recent but not exactly radical development, and Wikipedia can at least consider incorporating it.
    - The wording of this RFC was accurate, and I believe in good faith, however it was not neutral, per se. The best way to write an RFC is as if you are not involved at all, mentioning no names, and biasing potential commentors as little as possible. Often just phrasing the domain of the issue itself (when to use she and he vs. he and she), and nothing more is ideal. Then the 'involved' editors can present their own case up front. Trying to characterize another editor's logic is fraught with the potential for unintended bias--hey, kind of like language!
    - Recommendation. Use this article as a test-case. Mix up the gender. Don't do it by every single phrase; alternate paragraphs so that reader-flow is minimally disrupted. Perhaps even include a hatnote to educate and inform readers that, "This article uses gender neutral language, alternating between 'his and her' and 'her and his', for example." Ocaasi 22:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Standards are neither mixed nor evolving. The policies apply even when it hurts a very vocal minority's feelings.Clinton (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE All of these 'feminist' persecution-junkies really need to find somewhere else to put their energies. Should we also change all the Romance languages because they are 'systemically biased' by using the masculine for any mixed-sex population?
For the record, 'gender' is a 100% grammatical term, and the correct title of this article would be 'sex'. Deal with it.

Clinton (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Etymology and usage section is out of control

Per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage guide. While the usage of "gender" is a complicated subject, Wikipedia is not the place to analyze it in minute detail for every language on the planet. This content needs to be condensed and summarized so that the section is actually readable. Kaldari (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Flyer22 (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. Because the word "gender" has so many correct definitions, it can cause a lot of confusion with respect to the concept of gender. The etymology section and its discussion of the word's history is merited. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree. WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It can't have detail for every language on the planet.--Taranet (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the underling problem is that this article is trying to be both about Gender itself (i.e being a man or a woman) and the word "Gender". I think the solution is to split off a Definition of Gender (or maybe a Gender (word)) article from this one, and have this article be primarily about gender itself.
I should make one thing clear, this is not an excuse to say that Transsexual people are "really" their biological gender. How you would assign someone's gender would depend on weather the definition used was the biological or self-identity definition. This article shouldn't pretended that ether is the only legitimate definition of gender, but the definition shouldn't be the the primary focus of this article. There are cases where one's gender is ambiguous such as Transsexualism, and Intersex conditions, but in the vast majority of cases one's gender is not ambiguous, so there no need for this article to have such heavy coverage of the definition. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ microcredit summit. 1996. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ Goetz (1996). Who takes the credit. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender/Archive_3&oldid=1142761767"