Jump to content

Talk:Gender/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

I believe this article may need some looking over

This article in particular has been known for some original research. It has also been guilty of distorting information especially regarding the biological view of the topic.

Like I have an issue with the biological views section. Like hasn’t it already been established that gender is sociological thing while sex is a biological thing.

I’m gonna wait for other editors reply to this and help me find ways to fix this article.CycoMa (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: If you were sincere about wanting input from other editors to help to "fix" this article, it would have been courteous to wait more 20 minutes before making edits yourself, including the removal of major categories and sourced content. Funcrunch (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Funcrunch yeah regarding me removing the biology category. The article well establishes that sex and gender are two distinct things.
regarding that other mention of yours, I merely said more sources for that section. When I removed Joan that section had only two sources, which isn’t really ideal for a section. Until you added three more.
Also what I said about Joan Roughgarden, is that the ideas in that book was criticized by 40 scientists. I mean you have it on her article.
It’s mentioned in this source. Also I didn’t say I have an issue with Wikipedia using Joan as a source in general. It’s just Wikipedia shouldn’t use sources that were heavily criticized by scholars.CycoMa (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Of course I read what you said about the criticism from the scientists; I specifically addressed that in my edit summary. My point remains; if you are serious about wanting to collaborate, then actually do so, rather than impatiently editing almost immediately after requesting assistance. Gender is a level three vital article on Wikipedia, and, like many of the other gender and sex related articles you've been editing, is highly ranked in Google and other web searches. It's vitally important that editors work thoughtfully and carefully on any non-trivial edits to these articles. Funcrunch (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Also, it would be helpful if you paused and reflected more before adding content to talk pages as well as articles, so you don't end up going back and making so many edits like these. Funcrunch (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I understand it is important, but I’m concerned about Wikipedia using problematic sources. Like that source being criticized isn’t my opinion or me POV pushing. It would be more ideal to use a different source by Joan that makes a similar claim.
Also sorry if I wasn’t clear but what I was mainly asking help on was regarding the biological section, because I’m not entirely sure many things in that section belong here.
They would seem more suitable on the article of sex because many reliable sources on this topic and articles on this site say that sex is biological while gender is sociological. It just seems like this article in particular is mixing up two separate subjects or is confused on the matter.CycoMa (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Or maybe I’m confused on the subject of sex being biological and gender being sociological. But in all honesty I don’t know much about the sociological side of this topic so I can’t say much on that.CycoMa (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Joan Roughgarden's rejection of sexual selection and her definition of gender and extension thereof to non-human animals are WP:FRINGE and hence WP:UNDUE. Crossroads -talk- 04:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Seriously stop trying to put Joan Roughgarden’s book in here as a source. Wikipedia isn’t some place to promote fringe ideas. If you revert it again, me and Crossroads will have to get Fringe Theories notice board on this.CycoMa (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

She is literally a professor of evolutionary biology from Stanford and the book in question has been reviewed warmly by mainstream and academic sources, including NYT, APA and Nature. Some sources disagree with her but she is not fringe. Rab V (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Rab V she is a minority on the subject of biology. No mainstream biologist rejects sexual selection.

Also did you read the part on her article where it says 40 biologists criticized the ideas presented in her book.

Fringe sources don’t belong here on Wikipedia.CycoMa (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Also this is one issue I have with this article in general. It contains possible fringe ideas. Like days ago I removed entire subject section because it was full of original research because some editors wanted to claim there is a gender taxonomy.CycoMa (talk) 05:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

She is an eminent professor in her field who shook things up in her field. That she garners lots of attention, some of it critical, is not shocking. Reliable sources take her seriously as an expert so it having her ideas included and attributed to her is due. Rab V (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Rab V nobody is arguing whether or not she’s an biologist. No one is arguing how serious some sources take her.
What I am saying is that particular and the ideas presented in it are fringe. It’s that simple.
I kindly ask you to bring something new to table on the matter. If you repeat that again don’t be offended if I don’t respond to you.CycoMa (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Evolution’s Rainbow is a book full of fringe ideas, it was criticized by mainstream biologists. There is no argument against that.CycoMa (talk) 05:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
At best your argument could support that Roughgarden's book is an alternative theoretical formulation, which per WP:FRINGE/ALT would not require complete removal from the article. Also per WP:FRINGE "For a fringe view to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, independent reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious and substantial matter." Roughgarden definitely meets that criteria. I still do not think you have shown any source that proves she is fringe, just referenced wikipedia articles, but even if she were fringe she meets the criteria in FRINGE for inclusion. Rab V (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Rab V [this source] source literally says 40 scientists criticized the ideas presented in her book.
So I don’t understand why you reverted me removing it.CycoMa (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Have you read WP:FRINGE/ALT? Are you arguing Evolutions Rainbow is something other than an alternative theoretical formulation? FRINGE doesn't say to remove any idea that isn't completely mainstream. Just that they need to be notable as defined by inclusion in reliable sources in a substantial way, which they have. Rab V (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh I found a free version of interested.CycoMa (talk) 06:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't see anything there about the 40 scientists, maybe quote it? But also that would support that "independent reliable sources must discuss the relationship" between Joan's idea and the broader topic which per FRINGE would mean it can be discussed in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rab V (talk • contribs) 06:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
The free version doesn't seem to be the same article that mentions the 40 scientists' criticism. Could someone provide a quote from that article? Or, perhaps, clarify if the criticism discusses Roughgarden's claims about gender in non-human animals? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Firefanglefeathers I don’t understand someone used as a source claiming 40 scientists criticized her book.CycoMa (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Rab V did you forget to sign your comment?CycoMa (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

But any way I’m just gonna wait this out and see what other editors think on the matter.CycoMa (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I've alerted the LGBT studies and Gender studies WikiProjects to this discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay guys this discussion is over, I may have been mistaken.
I should probably go over to the [Joan Roughgarden] article and discuss this. Didn’t mean to waste people’s time.CycoMa (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Actually wait I think I found an archive version of it right here, her Wikipedia page says 40 scientists criticized the ideas in her book.CycoMa (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
That's helpful, but to be clear it's not the same as the source linked above (a Gender & Society review by Simpson). This source does support 40 scientists critiquing Roughgarden's paper but does not support Roughgarden's view on gender in non-human animals being fringe. All the criticism noted in this source is focused on Roughgarden's views on sexual selection. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
But still I’m concerned about using Joan Roughgarden or her book because it is indeed obvious she has her critics. It’s hard to tell how many people criticized her views that’s the one thing I’m having a hard time finding.
As a matter some of the scholars cited in this article may need some looking over.CycoMa (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Roughgarden's views are fringe

Above, Rab V points to WP:FRINGE/ALT and states, "even if she were fringe she meets the criteria in FRINGE for inclusion." Let's see what WP:FRINGE actually says: A fringe theory is an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. And: a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is....If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. The material reverted back in by Funcrunch and Rab V fails this test.

Joan Roughgarden disputes Darwin’s theory of sexual selection and its implications regarding gender and sexuality. As an alternative, Roughgarden presents her theory of social selection, which focuses on how cooperative and transactional reproduction benefits the social infrastructure of a species. This is her theory which is presented in her book Evolution's Rainbow, and in an article published in Science. The book and two non-peer-reviewed articles based on it (which latter two are disfavored per WP:SOURCETYPES) are the sources for this material in the Wikipedia article. We can see from this quote that her claims about gender in animals are inextricable from her rejection of sexual selection. Roughgarden herself admits that her ideas are not accepted by other biologists (while of course framing it in terms of 'I'm right'). She states Most biologists labor in the hope that Darwin’s sexual selection theory can somehow be extended to deal with [etc.]...Most biologists remain defensive of sexual selection theory. [1]

This book review in a peer-reviewed journal by an academic who is in departments of both biology and gender studies lays it out quite well: her review of the inadequacy of popular stereotypes leads Roughgarden to conclude that Darwin was wrong about sexual selection, and on this point she fails utterly to convince me....it’s Darwin’s ideas on sexual selection that are on trial in Roughgarden’s book, not his attitudes toward women, and his ideas have stood the test of time....The fourth and fifth assertions are the ones I found most intriguing, namely that animals have gender, and that while animals come in only two sexes, based on the size of their gametes, they often come in more than two genders. Do animals have gender?...When asked, my colleagues in the Department of Gender Studies agreed that the term gender could be properly applied only to humans, because it involves one’s self-concept as man or woman. Sex is a biological concept; gender is a human social and cultural concept. But Roughgarden defines it this way: “Gender is the appearance, behavior, and life history of a sexed body”. (Emphasis added.) If anyone wants to claim that there has been any significant acceptance and endorsement of these ideas in the peer-reviewed literature of gender studies or biology, including Roughgarden's peculiar definition of gender, the burden of proof is on them.

Really, given that we are speaking of non-human animals, the relevant field is biology far more than gender studies. And here, the rejection of these ideas is even clearer. This article in The Scientist, a professional magazine for biologists, states, Forty biologists have contributed a total of ten letters to Science this week, all critiquing a review paper published in February suggesting that reproductive behavior is explained better by cooperative game theory than by the theory of sexual selection first proposed by Darwin. "The review is a poor piece of scholarship, which is consequently misleading, and from that point of view should not have been published," Kate Lessells, based at the Netherlands Institute of Ecology and lead author on one of the letters, told The Scientist. In the review, Joan Roughgarden of Stanford University in California and two co-authors claim that sexual selection theory, which emphasizes the often-different interests of males and females, is fatally flawed....In response, the journal received a swell of letters from biologists, critiquing the arguments Roughgarden and her colleagues lay forth...."Sexual selection theory is not deeply flawed, and happily includes all of the points Roughgarden et al try and make," letter-writer David Shuker, at the University of Edinburgh, UK, told The Scientist. Moreover, the review does not explain compelling data that support sexual selection theory, some letter-writers note...."Many people felt that this was completely shoddy science and poor scholarship, all motivated by a personal agenda," said Queens University in Canada's Troy Day, lead author of another letter. (Roughgarden is known for her controversial stance on a range of issues, notably those involving gender.) Pizzari added that each of the 17 examples highlighted by Roughgarden in an electronic supplement to their review contains misunderstandings, misrepresentations, or both....Science's editor-in-chief, Donald Kennedy, said in a statement to The Scientist that a certain amount of dissent was expected with this kind of paper. "We knew this was a prospectively controversial Review article," he said. "It's not surprising that we're publishing a number of letters." (Emphasis added.) Here is a link to the series of letters. It is not necessary to quote this in addition to The Scientist, but it backs up what is said there and is worth reading.

It is evident from these sources that Roughgarden's new theory and definition regarding sexuality and gender in animals departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views of biology and even of gender studies, as defined by WP:FRINGE. I shouldn't have to now clutter up this talk page which links to some of the many thousands of sources which define gender as human-only and which explain animal behavior in accord with sexual selection and without any reference to genders as Roughgarden defines them. The burden of proof is on the other side, rather. Where are the secondary, independent, peer-reviewed sources that show that Roughgarden's definition of gender and application thereof to non-human animals has enough endorsement so as not to be WP:UNDUE? Roughgarden continuing to defend her ideas, the occasional book review being charitable and finding some things to compliment or say are interesting, or discussion in non-peer-reviewed sources do not count in this regard.

I will be notifying the Biology WikiProject and the Fringe Theory Noticeboard. Funcrunch already alerted the LGBT Studies and Gender Studies WikiProjects. Crossroads -talk- 20:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

One important clarifying point: not all views Roughgarden holds are fringe, of course. The existence of homosexual behavior in animals, or that animal behavior between the sexes doesn't always match popular stereotypes, aren't fringe. Neither are those ideas unique to her, however. It is the rejection of sexual selection and redefinition of gender that are fringe. Crossroads -talk- 21:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, thanks for the sources and summaries. I don't have acomment on whether Roughgarden's views on sexual selection are fringe or merely alternative. I'll assume for the purposes of this article that those views are fringe.
The text in this article cited and attributed to Roughgarden currently says, "Joan Roughgarden argues that some non-human animal species also have more than two genders, in that there might be multiple templates for behavior available to individual organisms with a given biological sex." This means your assertion that her views on gender are inextricable from her views on sexual selection is an important one. I don't find the quote provided to show that to be true. If others have more persuasive reasons to inextricably link the two ideas, I would agree to exclude the content.
Is her gender view fringe on its own merits? I'll have more to add later on this, but I don't find the book review to push strongly in that direction. The relevant part of the article from The Scientist is far too non-specific to be helpful here.
Even if it isn't fringe, Crossroads is right that we need positive reception and review of Roughgarden's ideas in order to include them here. I am not sure what's currently cited is sufficient and have more review to do. I look forward to the fresh eyes of uninvolved editors and appreciate Crossroads and Funcrunch for reaching out. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I’ll add onto this as well, I have read some bits in Joan’s book. Some things she says do align up with many other reliable sources on biology on many topics
So she’s technically not a fringe scientist, it’s just her view on sexual selection and gender are fringe .CycoMa (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

So who shall we remove it? Who’s in favor of removing animal gender.CycoMa (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment I was notified about this on the Fringe noticeboard. I have not read Roughgarden's book, but I would like to point out that we rarely focus on the views of a single scientist in an article, except for historical figures like Newton or Darwin or Mendel. Where an individual was the first to make a discovery (Higgs, Curie, etc) they deserve mention, but this is often specifically because those discoveries were then confirmed and reconfirmed by the work of many other researchers. Without getting into the details of Roughgarden's claims, it makes very little sense to rely on a single researcher for this. When that researcher's views are clearly not shared by others in the field, it simply becomes untenable.

    And yes, this does mean that if Wikipedia had been around when Margulies first made her claims about endosymbiosis, we would not have included those either, until the discoveries of the origin of mitochondria were confirmed. And in fact Margulies is an illuminating example for why we don't follow the "intrepid investigator" trope: while her views on endosymbiosis were absolutely correct with regards to the origin of mitochondria, there is still no evidence to support (and incontrovertible evidence to oppose) her claims of symbiotic origin of other organelles.

    If Roughgarden is the only source we have for a given set of claims, we should probably remove them until others in the field have followed up with more research to confirm them. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the replies above. In case it becomes necessary in the future to refer back to this discussion, I will add here additional evidence on the subject from an academic source from another article: Roughgarden's papers have received few citations in the scientific literature, and peers have generally not been kind....So far, Roughgarden's model has had few takers....The paradigm didn't shift; the gambit failed. [2] Crossroads -talk- 04:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    I would have used that source to support the gendered animal view. Allen writes, "Assigning sex roles is complicated by the fact that, in some species, a single sex may have multiple, clearly delineated gender roles." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    How odd. The full sentence reads, Assigning sex roles is complicated by the fact that, in some species, a single sex may have multiple, clearly delineated gender roles. Gender roles and genders aren't the same thing, though, and given the use of "sex roles" here and the wider context, it's about variation that everyone agrees exists, and not supporting Roughgarden's specific definition. The author appears to be a book author, but not a biologist as such. It would be a stretch to read into this that these are actually widely considered separate genders within those species - we would expect to see that in the papers explaining those phenomena in detail, not just this brief discussion focused on Roughgarden. Crossroads -talk- 04:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    I think we quoted the same text! We could get into the weeds about whether there can be gender roles without genders, but the spirit of your point is valid: this source is not enough to justify inclusion of the old Roughgarden content. I agree, but would also add that it's not a useful source for discounting her views on animal gender. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry about the requoting, maybe I thought that you had only quoted the part of the sentence that said "gender role" or something. Crossroads -talk- 04:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
    Firefangledfeathers just to throw this out but the article on gender role says this.
    A gender role, also known as a sex role.
    So it appears sex role and gender role are technically the same thing, also the source didn’t say animals can have gender.
    If we want to prove that animals have gender, the source should directly say animals have gender.CycoMa (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    I solemnly swear not to insert the animal gender view into the article without persuasive sourcing, clear expert attribution, and prior discussion. I hope that helps! I am not convinced it's worth mentioning at all, but I'm grateful to this discussion for sending me down an interesting research path. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Also this article says that gender is.
Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, femininity and masculinity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex, sex-based social structures (i.e., gender roles), or gender identity.[1][2][3]
The article also says this.
According to biologist Michael J. Ryan, gender identity is a concept exclusively applied to humans.[102].
I haven’t read everything but I assume when they say animals don’t have gender they mean they don’t have gender identity or don’t have treat sex the same we humans treat sex.(Keep in mind I mostly research on the biological side of sex, so I don’t know much about the sociological or the gender studies view on gender.)
CycoMa (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Also I don’t know much about the gender identity thing either, so I can’t say much on that either.CycoMa (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Text within a Biology textbook

I am holding a Biology textbook by Robert A Wallace (The World of Life) that states verbatim: "If a Y-bearing sperm reaches the egg first and fertilizes it, the offspring will be XY, and thus male. If an X-bearing sperm fertilizes the egg, the offspring will be XX, a female. This is how gender is determined in many animals including mammals." Stating that genetics does not determine a mammal's gender is a farce. -Robtalk 07:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is mostly about the sociology of gender. You can discuss this at sex if you are interested.CycoMa (talk) 07:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Rob, presumably you are looking at page 192 of the 1992 Harper Collins edition. This book first came out in 1975 when in some contexts, the words sex and gender were used interchangeably, but that was almost half a century ago. Even 1992 is three decades away; modern biology textbooks would rarely conflate the terms in this way. In any case, as CycoMa said, that's not what *this* article is about. If you want to know more about the union of male and female gametes in sexual reproduction, that's already well-covered at the sexual reproduction article, and at sex. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I assure you, nothing has changed, Biologically speaking, in the last 50 or so years. "Typically in mammals, the gender of an organism is determined by the sex chromosomes." https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Sex-Chromosome The only thing that has changed is the amount of misinformed people perpetuating that gender is somehow not a part of Biology. -Robtalk 05:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

That bit is casually written, speaking of what is "interesting", and is probably for educational purposes. Because the English language word (sex) for biological sex as a trait is the same as a word for sexual intercourse, people will commonly use "gender" interchangeably with it in casual contexts and because the two align in the vast majority of people. However, we don't do that here. Per WP:Due weight, it is sex that is being spoken of there. Crossroads -talk- 19:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I’ll just say this, regarding the issue of the distriction between sex and gender is mainly a sociological thing. There are still some biology text books that would use the two interchangeable without knowing they aren’t the same thing.
But still this article is mainly a sociology article, so this article is primarily discussing the sociological view on the topic.CycoMa (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that gender should be defined as a set of traits associated with a particular sex, whether it be physical psychological, etc.

I would also go on to state that all chromosomes carry genes that cause an organism to develop traits. An organism will have lots of autosomal chromosomes that do not determine sex, but still carry genes... and along with those genes come traits. There are also chromosomes that carry genes that determine sex. These "sex chromosomes" also carry genes that cause traits just like autosomes. The sex chromosomes literally define the traits associated with a particular organism's sex - ie: its gender. as well as determine the sex itself.

There is far too much psychological "gender identity" bleeding into the "gender" article, and not enough genetics talk, imho. -Robtalk 05:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Should biological sex be in the lead?

I’m not entirely sure biological sex should be in the lead. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex, sex-based social structures (i.e., gender roles), or gender identity.

Two of the sources cited in that sentence are pretty old. Also there are many sources showing that scholars from various fields in academia agree that gender and sex are clearly not the same thing.CycoMa (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

While they can be and are distinguished in much research, it is also true that for the vast majority of people, their gender and sex are the same, and "gender" as a word is often used casually as a polite way of saying "sex", due to the latter's ambiguity in English with sexual intercourse. Crossroads -talk- 03:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
It should be. "Gender" has multiple definitions, including "sex." The article talks about things that have to do with biological sex. Nowearskirts (talk) 05:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Mixing third genders and non-binary

The lead says this Most cultures use a gender binary, having two genders: male (boys/men) and female (girls/women);[5] those who exist outside these groups fall under the umbrella term non-binary. Yes I’m aware that there are indeed cultures that have a third gender or more genders.

But the term non-binary is a recent concept and the term non-binary isn’t even really used for third genders. Like Māhū and Two-spirit are classified as third genders. But they aren’t non-binary genders. Also Non-binary is mostly a western concept in itself.CycoMa (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps adding "may" as in "may fall under..." will fix this. Thus both sorts of non-man non-woman genders are mentioned and neither are treated as all-encompassing. Crossroads -talk- 18:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Crossroads about "may". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Here’s the thing the social sciences have known that there are cultures that have more than two genders for a long time. Also cultures that had third genders or more used them for different reasons, like in some cases these third genders were used for religious reasons, others used them as prostitutes. And some cultures that knew about other genders didn’t even accept them.
While the term non-binary was created by activists, and non-binary is mainly a term used for individuals who self identify as such. But third gender isn’t really an identity case.
It just seems like third genders and non-binary identities aren’t the same thing. Not to mention it feels like we are combining our modern and western views on foreign and ancient cultures.CycoMa (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I can't engage with most of that. Do you feel there's more to be changed besides introducing "may" in your quoted line? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
My point is that things like Two-spirit are classified as third genders but, saying they are non-binary genders is probably misleading.CycoMa (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I think the Non-binary and third genders section covers that distinction fairly well, and I think Crossroads' tweak to the lead will help resolve the earlier ambiguity. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh I saw the change now. Yeah that fixes the problem.CycoMa (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not difficult to find reliable sources that include "third gender" under "non-binary." But the non-binary thing of today is definitely a fairly recent and almost exclusively western phenomenon. Nowearskirts (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I am aware third gender and non-binary do indeed have some connections. However, they differ in cultural contexts.CycoMa (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Stable version?

Discuss? OK. This is "the stable version"? It's a brand new version, and it conflates sex and gender by calling "male" and "female" genders. They're sometimes called genders, of course, but, for one thing, you have a "distinguish" tag telling people to distinguish biological sex from gender. So distinguish, but also call "male" and "female" genders? If you want, I guess. Telling people "Most cultures use a gender binary, having two genders: male (boys/men) and female (girls/women)" is no different than saying "male" and "female" are states fashioned by society. Really, "male" and "female" just exist. What it means to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman is fashioned on top of that. That's the gender binary. The distinguish tag shouldn't be there, and someone else also wondered about that. How can you say "Not to be confused with Biological sex.", and then say "Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex, sex-based social structures (i.e., gender roles), or gender identity." and have sections in the page about biological sex? If you want, I guess. Nowearskirts (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not actually the biggest fan of the "stable" version of the article, but imposing false dichotomies on it would not be a plausible path to improve it, IMO. To start at the end of your comment, I understand the lede as listing biological sex as being among those characteristics that constitute (social) gender, as in attributes used to construct it. Not only is this true, it is sourced in the article, and this does not mean that sex is "confused" with gender.
Second, the sources used in this article do not support your preference for using "male" and "female" for sex and "man" and "woman" for gender. In fact, the source cited for the sentence you altered actually uses "male" and "female" for gender. So your argument that Really, "male" and "female" just exist is essentially POV on your part; to be reflected in this article, even as an organizing principle, you would need to show that this is both reliably sourced and DUE; a BOLD, ILIKEIT edit certainly doesn't show either. Newimpartial (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
For you to say "'male' and 'female' just exist" is essentially POV on my part (and with all the discussion above us) is contradicted by sources in the article. I also think we've read different sources about the gender binary and what it is, because the sources for that topic are usually about the social construction of "boy" and "girl" and "man" and "woman" and roles expected of them. They aren't usually about the idea of sex being socially constructed. The distinguish tag doesn't help when the lead gives biological sex as a definition for gender and the article includes biological components as partly forming gender. I don't think the new "male (boys/men) and female (girls/women)" addition is helpful either. The status quo is better, but do what you want. I'm not invested. Nowearskirts (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, and I shouldn't have to plop down a pile of sources to show that per WP:DUE, male and female are typically terms used for sexes. It certainly isn't the status quo or stable version. And yes, if male and female didn't 'just exist', it would be quite baffling indeed that organisms manage to reproduce at all. Crossroads -talk- 04:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
As any philosophical realist would, I accept that for understanding biological reproduction, "male and female just exist". But this isn't an article about biological reproduction, it is an article on gender, and the reliable sources on gender generally do not say either that male and female "just exist", and they do say that male and female are terms for gender as well as sex. So that is the DUE balance of sources to be reflected in this article. Newimpartial (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, I realize that my edit summary referring to the "stable version" was misleading - I was thinking of the "distinguish" template when I wrote that. For the usage of "male" and "female", I should have referred to the source cited (as I now have). Newimpartial (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Newimpartial. The idea that 'male' and 'female' refer to gender also falls in the bucket of "I shouldn't have to plop down a pile of sources". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Plopping down a pile of sources? I don't mind.

Hey, Crossroads, since Newimpartial said that all you need is a different source to remove the sex and gender conflation on a page that has a distinguish tag telling people not to confuse biological sex with gender, but then goes on to say "gender" may mean "biological sex", and then uses the sex categories "male" and "female" as gender categories, and then talks about the sex and gender distinction, here are a few relatively recent sources for you:

That should help. The distinguish tag should still be removed. Its presence is hardly the stable version either. The gender page and the sex and gender distinction page tell people that "sex" and "gender" aren't very easily or always distinguished. But this article has a "distinguish them tag" anyway. Talk about a way to confuse readers. Everyone knows that "male" and "female" are also used as gender categories and there's reliable sources for this (although sociologists today still distinguish), but that doesn't mean the page shouldn't try to avoid confusing readers with a contradictory outline. Now, I mean it when I say I'm not invested in this dispute, but since the challenge of sources was invoked, I didn't see why I shouldn't list a few. Do what you want with them, or not. Nowearskirts (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Nowearskirts, are you trying to assert that "male" and "female" are terms for sex, not gender, and that using those terms for gender is somehow "confusing" sex with gender? Because if you aren't, then I don't understand why you're trying to remove "male" and "female" from the text. In fact, I don't see the article text confusing sex with gender at all.
Also, are there any sources suggesting that sex and gender are not, or should not be distinguished? If there are, I'd like to see them and if not, then why the objection to the tag? We don't put a distinguish tag between things that are obviously completely different, but rather for relationships that people do actually find challenging. Newimpartial (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Newimpartial, hi again. I don't think I was asserting anything that the sex and gender distinction page doesn't assert, or the distinguish tag didn't assert. I think the sources I plopped down show my meaning. I looked at the gender page's outline on sex and gender as certain to confuse some people because sex and gender are often conflated and the terms for sex and gender categories are often used interchangeably, but the page had a distinguish tag telling people not to confuse biological sex with gender while it also acknowledges that "gender" may refer to biological sex, used the sex categories "male" and "female" as gender categories, and also talks about the sex and gender distinction. That's not a presentation unlikely to confuse. You asked me if I'm trying to assert that "male" and "female" are terms for sex, not gender, but I said, "Everyone knows that 'male' and 'female' are also used as gender categories and there's reliable sources for this (although sociologists today still distinguish), but that doesn't mean the page shouldn't try to avoid confusing readers with a contradictory outline." Telling people not to confuse biological sex with gender, but then defining gender as also meaning biological sex in a sense and using sex categories as gender categories is contradictory and confusing. You asked if there are sources suggesting that sex and gender are not distinguished, but sources on the gender page and sex and gender distinction page include sources saying they often aren't distinguished. Many (and I think we can say most) people don't distinguish, but some (such as sociologists) do. And a good way to not confuse is to be consistent when explaining a topic. Because many don't distinguish and people's sex usually aligns with their gender, I actually think it's non-neutral for the sex and gender distinction page to say, "A person's sex is distinct from their gender." But that's something to bring up another day. Nowearskirts (talk) 07:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I suspect the crux of the issue is your claim that in this article sex and gender are often conflated and the terms for sex and gender categories are often used interchangeably. I see both of these claims as false, but for different reasons. I don't see sex and gender "conflated" or confused at all in this article, and have previously explained the relationship between the two that the article presupposes (which is not one of "conflation").
As far as the "terms for sex and gender categories" being used interchangeably, I don't understand what you mean. "Female" and "woman" (and "male" and "man") are all, according to the mass of recent, reliable sources, terms for both gender and sex. When context does not specify, the terms "female sex" or "female gender", etc., are required to give us these "terms for sex and gender categories", because English simply does not otherwise provide them. Newimpartial (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
So...I looked at this talking point and this talking point at the sex and gender distinction talk page, and now I know that you agree with the sex and gender distinction. Good. So do I. I was under the impression that you are against it and this is why you objected to the statement that "male and female just exist" and were opposed to removing the sex and gender conflation. And it is a conflation when subscribing to the sex and gender distinction outlook. Some sources listed there in a discussion are of that outlook. In that discussion, you say "sources that say, essentially, that there is a distinction between sex and gender, but that other sources ignore or misuse that distinction." So you think the sources there aren't saying that sex and gender are conflated? I observe sources in that discussion even using the words confused and confusion. I don't think I need to plop down sources also saying "often conflated", especially when sources like Social Problems: Sociology in Action essentially do that for me. I'm trying to work out how you are for the distinction but insist on using sex and gender categories to mean the same thing or interchangeably. A huge component of the sex and gender distinction is using sex categories for sex and gender categories for gender and to distinguish in language, as to not confuse. This is repeated in different sections in the sex and gender distinction page.
With all these talking points, and The Psychology of Sex and Gender source in my pile separating sex and gender by speaking of sex categories and gender categories, and the Psychopathology: Foundations for a Contemporary Understanding source in my pile speaking of "two corresponding gender categories", you say "As far as the 'terms for sex and gender categories' being used interchangeably, I don't understand what you mean." So, OK, I don't know what more to say about that. There'll be times when using sex and gender categories interchangeably is fine, but I don't think this was one of those times. I didn't say that sex and gender are often conflated and the terms for sex and gender categories are often used interchangeably in this article. I said they were conflated and used interchangeably in this article. The word often wasn't about this article, but rather about what's generally the case. Nowearskirts (talk) 07:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks. I have inserted a couple of these and tweaked the text per WP:DUE. I didn't cite all of these per WP:REFBOMB, but my statement of DUE is based on all of them. Crossroads -talk- 22:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
OK. Also, as just something to throw out there, the source I included about sociologists today still distinguishing (Social Problems: Sociology in Action) says what we were saying about male and female just existing, but perhaps more eloquently: "Gender is a socially constructed concept that we learn through socialization within a specific culture. Gender is not something we innately are (like our sex) but something that we do." Of course, this depends on how the term gender is used. Nowearskirts (talk) 07:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I would like to note some irony here. There is nothing in this quoted passage with which I disagree. There is also nothing in this passage that would weigh against the "distinguish" template, or against using "male" and "female" to designate gender (which many, many reliable sources, including those used in the lede, evidently do - there is nothing at all unusual or confusing about it). Newimpartial (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
That's disagreement. Not irony. Sources in two discussions you were involved in at the sex and gender distinction talk page use words like confuse and confusion when talking about sex and gender being conflated or sex and gender terms being used interchangeably. My outlook is still that "a good way to not confuse is to be consistent when explaining a topic." Consistent here means using sex and gender categories in a consistent way when introducing the topic in the lead and not telling people not to confuse sex and gender with a tag when sex can also mean gender. Nowearskirts (talk) 07:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Isn't it marvelous how sex "is distinct" from gender, and yet can also be completely identical with it, and additionally can be a sub-category of it? Tewdar (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Neither this article nor its sources state that sex is either completely identical to gender nor a sub-category thereof. Hyperbole, much? Newimpartial (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
That is *exactly* what this article states. Sex, in this article, is distinct from, and the same as, and a subcategory of, gender. You don't need to read very much of it to see this, either. Tewdar (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Are you sure? I don't the article stating anywhere that sex is the same as gender - saying that certain authors don't distinguish them is non-identical to stating that they are the same. Also, I don't see anywhere in the article any kind of semantic hierarchy that would make sex a subcategory of gender. So, again, are you sure? Newimpartial (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Why not get someone else to take a look? Tewdar (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure what the locus of this dispute is anymore. If it helps, I don't believe the article states (nor should it) that sex=gender or that sex is a subcat of gender. The article does have to contend with varying definitions of the two, with some definitions equating the two. We should continue to attribute the differing definitions to groups/cultures/disciplines/sciences that hold or promote them, and we shouldn't privilege one over the others without reasoning based on WP:DUE. If this is still about the "distinguish" tag, I support inclusion. Some readers may come here but actually want to read about Sex. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
The problem, is that some definitions / descriptions state that sex and gender are 100% distinct and have *no* relationship, others that they are 100% distinct with some relationship, others that they are somewhat distinct with some overlap, some that they are pretty much used as synonyms, and others that sex is included within gender. And one of those definitions is indeed "privileged" here, both on this page and related articles, with no room for nuance, even when the article itself does not support it entirely. Tewdar (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with your analysis of the differing definitions—the differences do indeed make writing this article problematic. I also agree that one definition of gender is given more room in this and other articles; I believe rightly so, based on how common that definition is in the best sources. I am happy to talk more about that, but I want to refocus on the goal of this discussion. What are we proposing to change/add/remove? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind one definition being given *more room*, quite the opposite. What I mind, is an article that says, basically, "it is 100% statement of fact, with no room for dispute, that biological sex is distinct from gender. Now, here are some people for whom sex and gender are synonyms. Oh, and these folks over here state that sex is a subcategory of gender". Tewdar (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Which is exactly what this page does. Tewdar (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I still don't see anywhere in the article or its sources where sex is a subcategory of gender. Where are you detecting that?
As far as usage as synonyms, this is obviously common as a causal usage, and the article also does a reasonable job of depicting the vagaries of sex and gender as labels in health sciences literature. What I don't see is any incompatibility between recognizing this informal/sloppy usage, and privileging the more formal - and more generally agreed-upon - definitions. Newimpartial (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
It's not "privileged". It's exclusionary. And inaccurate. Tewdar (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
"Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, femininity and masculinity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex" Tewdar (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
If we accept that "gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, femininity and masculinity", then obviously biological sex is a subset of this. Sounds reasonable to me. Tewdar (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Recognizing that Gender is the range of characteristics... differentiating between ... femininity and masculinity and that these characteristics may include biological sex does not make sex a subcategory of gender, in any sense I can understand. But at this level of detail, I do see a problem with Gender is the range of characteristics, which was arrived at to resolve a 2012 edit war, as best I can discern. I have attempted a BOLD improvement to the lead sentences. Newimpartial (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Hatnote alternatives

I am swayed by arguments that the distinguish tag overstates the certainty and universality of the sex-gender distinction. I do still feel that readers will benefit from a hatnote directing them to Sex. Could we compromise one a custom hatnote? Or do others feel that no hatnote is necessary? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

"Overstates the certainty and universality of the sex-gender distinction" - please, I beg you, for the love of Perkwunos, go to the Sex and Gender Distinction page and fix it, NewImpartial guards it like Cerberus... Tewdar (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I can't say I agree with you on NewImpartial's conduct. Could we maybe roll this back and start fresh on the content issue at hand? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, what I am really referring to is the first sentence, which is "A person's sex is distinct from their gender", and any attempt to add nuance is insta-reverted. But, I'm happy to discuss something else. Tewdar (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Please don't insta-revert my attempt to add nuance to this article, then. Thanks! Newimpartial (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Too late :(. (And no, that was not a joke; it was an improvement. FFS.) Newimpartial (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
And in case people need a formal reason for the change, the problems with the first two sentences are (1) they are not supported by the rest of the article and (2) they represent WP:SYNTH - I have looked at a lot of definitions of gender today, and the "range of characteristics" definitions all exclude sex from the characteristics listed, while the definitions that do refer to "sex" use other formulations (like the one I just proposed). Newimpartial (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
You didn't "add nuance", you changed the lede so that it no longer reflected the article or the discussion that is literally ongoing on this page right now. Tewdar (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Actually, it is the old lede that didn't reflect the arricle; please see my immediately preceding comment. Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Newimpartial says the first two sentences are not supported by the rest of the article and they represent WP:SYNTH, but then, below us in a section about the first sentence, Newimpartial makes suggestions that amount to WP:Original research.
Of course, the first sentence reflects many parts of the article.
On further consideration of the hatnote, "sex" is introduced and linked in the first paragraph. Nowearskirts (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentences

For reference: Newimpartial's proposed opening sentences, as seen in this edit, are:

Gender is the range of identities, roles, and forms of expression that define and represent femininity and masculinity. Depending on the context, such characteristics as biological sex, social structures (e.g., hierarchical gender roles), gender identities and forms of gender presentation are used to demarcate and define gender categories.

The previous version:

Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, femininity and masculinity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex, sex-based social structures (i.e., gender roles), or gender identity.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like we need a new section for this. Pinging Newimpartial and Tewdar. Tewdar, can you lay out your objections to Newimpartial's edit? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe start with my case "for":

And in case people need a formal reason for the change, the problems with the first two sentences are (1) they are not supported by the rest of the article and (2) they represent WP:SYNTH - I have looked at a lot of definitions of gender today, and the "range of characteristics" definitions all exclude sex from the characteristics listed, while the definitions that do refer to "sex" use other formulations (like the one I just proposed).

Newimpartial (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
It lost clarity. I would support adding "hierarchical" to "gender roles", and adding "gender presentation". There was a lot of unnecessary waffle ("range of identities, roles, and forms of expression", "used to demarcate and define") which I don't think are useful in the intro. Tewdar (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Go ahead and take out biological sex if you want. Tewdar (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Whaddabout "Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, femininity and masculinity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex, social structures (e.g., hierarchical gender roles), gender identities and forms of gender presentation." Tewdar (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Compared to the old lead, my edit was a beacon of clarity IMO. Maybe pretend someone besides me had written it, and read it again? It isn't just a matter if removing sex as though it were irrelevant (it isn't; the current lead just obscures the most prevalent relationship unnecessarily). Newimpartial (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
My problem with the "gender is the range of characteristics" formulation runs a bit deeper, you see. I know some sources - especially pre-2010 sources - use it, but simply describing gender passively as a bundle of given characteristics just doesn't reflect what recent, reliable scholarship has to say about gender. You may not like define and represent, but some such active verbs come considerably closer to what gender actually does. 19:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Even if you didn't write it, it still has too much waffle. I'll buy it if you replace "identities, roles, and forms of expression" with something a little more snappy. Tewdar (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I was trying to invoke (without direct repetition) the key concepts of gender identity, gender roles and gender expression that are then elaborated somewhat in the next, more complicated and even less snappy, sentence. Can you think of a cleaner way to do that? Newimpartial (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Newimpartial, did you rely on any particular up-to-date sources for your definition? I'd love to contribute tweaks and proposals, but I want to make sure I'm not straying too far from the pros. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to go to the shop. How about, "Gender is the range of characteristics and behaviours, such as blah blah blah, that define and represent femininity and masculinity and are used to demarcate and define gender categories in specific contexts."? Tewdar (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd still like to keep characteristics out of the first sentence if possible. Maybe "Gender defines the identities, roles and behaviours associated with masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, gender categories are demarcated using such characteristics as biological sex, social structures (e.g., hierarchical gender roles), gender identities and forms of gender presentation." Better? Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Counter-offer: "Gender is the range of identities, roles, and behaviours, such as biological sex, social structures, gender identities, and forms of gender presentation, which define and represent femininity and masculinity, and which are used, depending on context, to demarcate and define gender categories."? Tewdar (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how that would work; for one thing, biological sex is not an "identity, role or behaviour". Maybe someone else could weigh in? Newimpartial (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
"attributes, identities, roles, and behaviours,"? Tewdar (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
That just reinscribes the original problem, IMO; the best sources don't define "gender" as having "attributes" like "biological sex", and for good reason. Perhaps someone else should weigh in, here. :p. Newimpartial (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
"Gender refers to the range of identities, roles and behaviours associated with masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, gender categories are defined using such characteristics as biological sex, social structures, gender identities and forms of gender presentation."? Tewdar (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd buy that, with the appropriate wikilinks added. Newimpartial (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't *want* to buy it, but it might be the best deal going... good night! :-) Tewdar (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I see no need for any changes. And I am quite surprised to see such far-reaching changes being proposed with not a source in sight. I also don't like tying "roles" and "behaviors" in so definitively with what gender is. Before it was sometimes the meaning, this includes it always. Is everyone who considers themselves a woman endorsing the patriarchal gender roles imposed on women? I think not. I also expect that definitions vary by academic field and especially by theoretical perspective. Crossroads -talk- 22:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I'll pull together the relevant sources when I have time, but it seems obvious to me that the range of identities, roles and behaviours associated with masculinity and femininity includes ones that are mutually contradictory, ones that can be chosen or completely rejected by individuals, and ones that are personally negotiated or "constructed" from the ground up. Gender isn't only the things we like or choose about gender- that's actually the problem with definitions that flatten out the concept too much in terms of identities, rather than roles and structures, IMO. And this article currently does a much better job of dealing with the messy reality than the vacuous lead sentences do. Newimpartial (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence should be sourced. Newimpartial mentioned WP:SYNTH in the stable version section, but using our own formulations that aren't found in sources is the very definition of WP:Original research. Here are sources for the previous first sentence, although I think some copying Wikipedia and putting their on flavor on it is involved:

The sources range across different disciplines, but it's what I could find. Editors need to choose which are the most appropriate for the first sentence, but the definition's range shows it's not limited to one discipline. Sexting: Gender and Teens focuses on sexting and undisputedly copied Wikipedia for the gender definition, so we should exclude it.

Newimpartial didn't answer Firefangledfeathers's question about sources. I've located no sources for Newimpartial's or Tewdar's formulations. I've located no sources for the suggestion that the second sentence should say "Depending on the context, gender categories are defined using such characteristics as biological sex, social structures, gender identities and forms of gender presentation." It's also worth noting that the idea to use "refers to" or "defines" is against WP:ISATERMFOR, which WP:REFERS also delineates as an issue. Nowearskirts (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah; I am not going to participate further in this discussion. If the new editor is going to engage in a word-by-word defense of the 2012 SYNTH version - and I have already explained what was novel about that, above: it took "biological sex"(apparently from the Oxford source) and shoehorned it into the "range of characteristics" formulations that were apparently popular at that time - I am not prepared to engage with such deep levels of OWNership[3]. You win. Newimpartial (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Meta discussion by Newimpartial and Nowearskirts
I think you're the one owning. If you want the first sentence changed so much, list sources for your suggested formulations. I didn't object to changing the first sentence. I said it should be sourced.
If you continue to cast aspersions by implying I'm a deceased editor, I'll report you. Nowearskirts (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I am not implying that you are ... deceased - I can see you typing, right here. What I am saying is that you seem awfully attached to the 2012-13 compromise of the lede. Why that is, I have no idea, but I am not going to argue with you about it. If you can't see how the incorporation of "biological sex" is synth, in the way it has been done these many years, I can't convince you. Newimpartial (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
@Newimpartial - It looks like you are strongly implying that Nowearskirts is a sockpuppet. Tewdar (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't care about puppets; what I do care about is avoiding pointless IDONTHEARTHAT discussions. Whether the behaviour results from a defect of character, carefully-learned imitation, or spontaneous combustion is of no interest to me. I am simply too old for this OWNership crap. Newimpartial (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
You are implying. Tewdar even said "strongly implying." And you're being irrational and hurtful. You say I'm awfully attached to the first sentence because I said the first sentence should be sourced and listed sources supporting it while saying I've found no sources for your formulations. That's awfully attached? So when Crossroads made his comment, that wasn't "awfully attached", even though he objected to changing the first sentence and I didn't? Why, because he didn't list any sources for the current first sentence? He definitely noted your lack of sources. I don't think you can find any sources to support your formulations. It's IDONTHEARTHAT when you just go on your own formulations and don't list any sources to support them. For someone who doesn't care about me, you're sure trying your hardest to discredit me. You've been nasty to me since I met you. You've also been owning this page and the sex and gender distinction page. Nowearskirts (talk) 08:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps read WP:OWN, then. Offering a mix of bouquets and brickbats on Talk, and making one Bold edit, seeing it Reverted and then Discussing it, is not what OWNership means. Digging up multiple cites to support a 2012 compromise text? That's more like in the spirit of OWN. Newimpartial (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The mention of "2012" is a point in favor of the text if anything. That means it holds a great deal of WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS and the WP:ONUS is very much on the proponents of changing it. Crossroads -talk- 04:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
You haven't addressed the SYNTH, though. I thought you were supposed to care about that sort of thing. Newimpartial (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
So are you, but you also wrote up an entirely new definition without sources. You mentioned an Oxford source, but the only such source was just listed by Nowearskirts. Did you check the 3 already being cited for that claim? In your claims of SYNTH you never specified if you checked those that I noticed. Crossroads -talk- 05:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I believe I read all the cited sources, and I saw none that included "biological sex" in a "range of characteristics" definition of gender. There were sources that referred to sex, but they didn't define gender as a range of characteristics; there were range of characteristics sources, but they were all social. I wrote up an entirely new definition as a summary of what this article says in toto, based on its sources. The lede itself need not be sourced so long as it accurately summarizes sourced content. But anyway, I'm not pursuing my suggestion until I feel that it might be productive to do so. Newimpartial (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Newimpartial, please delete the WP:ASPERSIONS from your comment in the last sentence. You know what they said about this at the other page. Done, thanks.
I'll look up some sources too and see what I find. Crossroads -talk- 05:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Do gender roles include behaviours?

I believe this was actually a question on my GCSE sociology exam...

Levesque, 2011 "Encyclopedia of adolescence 2622-3"

Gender role: "a repertoire of emotions, attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions that are commonly associated more with one sex than with the other" Tewdar (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Zucker (1995). "Gender identity disorder and psychosexual problems in children and adolescents" p. 3. "behaviours, attitudes and personality traits that a society, in a given culture and historical period, designates as masculine or feminine" Tewdar (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

OED - "The role or behaviour learned by a person as appropriate to their gender, determined by the prevailing cultural norms." Tewdar (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Budge et al. (2013) "Transgender Emotional and Coping Processes: Facilitative and Avoidant Coping Throughout Gender Transitioning"

"gender role is defined as the behaviors associated with a public expression of maleness, femaleness, or ambivalence" Tewdar (talk) 08:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Pretty basic stuff, really... Tewdar (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Behaviors are a part of gender roles, but the roles themselves are more accurately described as characteristics. Your definitions here note that attitudes, emotions, and personality traits are involved too. Crossroads -talk- 04:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
"Behaviors are a part of gender roles" - indeed. That is why this section title uses the word 'include'.
"the roles themselves are more accurately described as characteristics" - sounds like original research to me. Note that some of the definitions above (I have a *lot* more in a big text file I compiled yesterday) are *entirely* behavioural.
"Your definitions here note that attitudes, emotions, and personality traits are involved too" - this looks like WP:SYN, according to how I have been told it works. Not all of the definitions are *exactly* the same, so a summary like this may not be justifiable. Tewdar (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
That's not SYN to quote your own sources back at you. Again, that gender roles are described as involving behaviors does not mean at the higher level of describing gender as a whole, that "behaviors" is accurate. Crossroads -talk- 19:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Here are some more sources for reference:
  • [1]: Though the term gender role immediately was adopted into the scientific language, the term gender identity was soon there too — the role belonging to behavior, and empirically observable; and the identity belonging to the mind, and inferentially con­strued.
  • [2] Money and Ehrhardt defined gender identity as "The sameness, unity, and persistence of one's individuality as a male, female, ambivalent, in greater or lesser degree, especially as it is experienced in self-awareness and behavior; gender identity is the private experience of gender role, and gender role is the public expression of gender identity."
  • [3]: The primary source for the above quote. Many, many other secondary sources also cite this quote in particular, showing that it was influential (as you would expect given that Money has pretty much an entire paragraph devoted to the significance of his work on the topic in the lead.)
  • I think behavior should definitely be mentioned somewhere in the lead, probably both in the first sentence, and I'm not understanding the objection to it - it's clearly a major part of the academic definition of gender. "Characteristics" is technically accurate because anything can be a "characteristic", but by the same token, it is vague; I don't see any reason to omit mentioning behaviors. --Aquillion (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
    • John Money's legacy is now understood to be quite complicated and his views are heavily critiqued. Any argument relying on him is, at best, based on very old sources, as these sources are. "Characteristic" is not vague but broad, and this is a feature, not a bug. It is WP:OR and WP:UNDUE to conclude that gender itself should be defined as "behaviors" alongside "characteristics", when the sources are talking about gender roles, and saying behaviors are part of that. Gender roles prescribe certain behaviors; it does not follow from this that behaviors should be elevated to half the definition of gender itself. People can have a gender without performing all the behaviors society demands of their gender. I have no idea why after years without it a couple of editors want to cram this word in the lead sentence above other specific words that sources use just as much or more than "behaviors". "Characteristics" is appropriately broad and simple. The next sentence then goes on to explain further about gender roles and gender identity. Crossroads -talk- 04:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Money, John (1 December 1973). "Gender Role, Gender Identity, Core Gender Identity: Usage and Definition of Terms". Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis. 1 (4): 397–402. doi:10.1521/jaap.1.1973.1.4.397. ISSN 0090-3604.
  2. ^ Doorn, C. D.; Poortinga, J.; Verschoor, A. M. (1 April 1994). "Cross-gender identity in transvestites and male transsexuals". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 23 (2): 185–201. doi:10.1007/BF01542098. ISSN 1573-2800.
  3. ^ Money, John (1 December 1973). "Gender Role, Gender Identity, Core Gender Identity: Usage and Definition of Terms". Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis. 1 (4): 397–402. doi:10.1521/jaap.1.1973.1.4.397. ISSN 0090-3604.

This one seems quite widely used:

https://www.coe.int/en/web/gender-matters/sex-and-gender - The Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence is the first international human rights document that contains a definition of gender. In Article 3, gender is defined as “socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for women and men.”

eg.

doi: 10.1186/s12960-020-00476-w - "Gender is defined as the ‘socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women and people of other genders'."

and eg.

doi: 10.3390/educsci10090251 - "Gender is defined as “the roles, behaviors, activities, attributes and opportunities that any society considers appropriate for boys and girls, and men and women”

also:

doi: 10.1111/jcpp.13248 - "Gender is defined as the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a culture associates with a person's sex assigned at birth."

&c. & c. & c... Tewdar (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

doi: 10.1038/s41582-018-0091-y Tewdar (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60252-5 Tewdar (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-8-36 Tewdar (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

"Collective Consciousness and Gender" (Walker), p. 113 Tewdar (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this proves my point: putting "behaviors" so prominently is cherry-picking one of many terms used in reference to gender, which we can summarize as "characteristics". Especially since these definitions seem not to be about gender identity and so are only partial. Crossroads -talk- 03:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender/Archive_7&oldid=1056326993"