Talk:Gender/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Explicit “criticism” section required to address POV issues

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article seems fairly thorough and quite comprehensive in its coverage, and definitely makes some efforts to address some of the criticisms of the gender concept – which some recent discussions, particularly in the latest “roles/behaviour” and “Lead sentences” sections, illustrate in some detail. However, those criticisms seem to be scattered throughout the article and it doesn’t seem to give sufficient credence, weight, and emphasis to them – something which may well justify arguments that it fails to meet the obligations of NPOV.

Consequently, I would suggest or recommend that an explicit “Criticism” section should be created to address those criticisms and alternative perspectives on the issue in some greater detail. For an example of such, see the Critical race theory article, although many other Wikipedia articles likewise make those front and center with such named sections.

While it is, of course, not Wikipedia’s role to adjudicate those contentions, Wikipedia has some responsibility to be “representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.” Which is, maybe arguably, not here in sufficient evidence since the article apparently lost its GA designation way back in 2008: “fix the neutrality issue”.

But to briefly illustrate some apparent biases, one doesn’t need to look any further than the opening paragraphs – which, one might note, a very old archive (2) drew attention to in the “POV check/edits on opening paragraph”. In any case, the very first of those paragraphs links to the third gender article which refers to “societies that recognize three or more genders”, though one might ask, “if three then why not three million?” For instance, Facebook lists some 56 variations that it accepts, and a “Genderfluid Support” page on Tumblr listed over 100 variations.

But that then leads to the question of how to define gender in the first place. Which seems to be the substance and intent of the “Lead sentence” section – which, in passing, one might suggest is a questionable case of some “general discussion about Gender” which seems to be anathematized right out of the chute ...

However, be that as it may, it is standard operating procedure – part and parcel of Jimmy Wales’ point about “essentially rational” – that if one is defining a category then one must, perforce, stipulate the conditions that all members meet – intensional definitions – or describe and list all those entities which are members – extensional definitions. Sure would like to see Facebook or that third gender article describe exactly who qualifies for membership – and why – in each of those myriads of genders; sure would like to see, for example, what uniquely differentiates the “female gender” from all those myriads of other ones. As Voltaire emphasized, “if you wish to converse with me, define your terms”.

But the whole concept of gender seems largely incoherent, inconsistent, and riven with various ideological biases – and the recent “discussions” on the “lead sentence” just underlines that point; absent a specification on who qualifies for membership in which category and sub-categories, the whole concept seems so vague as to be useless. We might just as well be pondering, learnedly, on how many angels can dance on the head or pin or on the finer points of astrology: the premises, at least of most “schools” or sects, are badly flawed and poorly stitched together in the first place. If anyone were really keen about putting the concept on a sound and scientific footing then they might peruse the dichotomy between polythetic and monothetic categories in both a biological context and in more linguistic and philosophical contexts.

In any case and to again emphasize, it is not Wikipedia’s role to adjudicate on those contentions. Its role is, to reiterate and as far as this article goes, less a question of how to define gender and what it encompasses – which those “lead sentence” and “role/behaviour” sections discuss, somewhat questionably, in some detail – and more a question of how to describe those biases and different positions with some accuracy, fairness, and equanimity. My intent here is less to “discuss gender” – “not a forum for general discussion about Gender” though one might wonder where else but an article on the topic; it is more to draw attention to some substantial criticisms of the largely feminist views on gender which this article seems to be giving undue weight to – particularly without drawing explicit and manifestly evident attention to those criticisms.

And a paradigmatic example of that bias is afforded by the rather uncritical touting of the WHO’s definition of gender in a link in the article’s second paragraph:

“Gender is used to describe the characteristics of women and men that are socially constructed, while sex refers to those that are biologically determined.”

Which is more or less explicitly the position of large segments and schools and “waves” of “feminism” as argued and suggested in a Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article:

“Masculinity and femininity are thought to be products of nurture or how individuals are brought up. “

But many other sources raise some salient and apparently well-justified arguments and criticisms against that position, notably in arguing that “masculinity and femininity” are not just “products of nurture” but that “nature” – i.e., biological causes and factors – contributes substantially to whatever we might agree qualifies as gender. Although while this article’s “Biological factors” section does seem to address that aspect, it doesn’t seem to weigh very heavily against the premises and claims touted in the opening paragraphs.

In any case and as examples of other salient points of view not in much evidence, there is The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker – who apparently doesn’t even rate an honourable mention here. But Pinker, among many others, clearly draws attention to a fundamental and far-reaching and quite contentious dichotomy among feminists and to the position of “gender feminists” which seems to motivate and undergird much of the “conventional wisdom” – often “short-sighted, narrow, and untrustworthy” – on gender:

“Equity feminism is a moral doctrine about equal treatment that makes no commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology. Gender feminism is an empirical doctrine committed to three claims about human nature. The first is that the differences between men and women have nothing to do with biology but are socially constructed in their entirety.” [Chapter 18, Gender, pg 341]

(There’s an archive of that Chapter but I won’t link it as it may qualify as copyrighted material.)

In addition, in a Research Gate article – Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender – by Marco Del Giudice of the University of New Mexico that is apparently to become a chapter in a book to be published by Springer, Del Giudice pointedly argues that:

… the received history of this topic is also ideologically slanted and full of distortions, half-truths, and sometimes sheer fabrications. ….

Thus, egalitarianism and desire for social change toward equality go hand in hand with a social constructionist, “blank slate” perspective on human nature. In short:

“Feminist theorists view gender not as a biologically created reality, but as a socially constructed phenomenon (Else-Quest & Hyde, 2018, p. 13).”

And, finally, in spelunking through the archives, I ran across an article in Breitbart that is of some relevance. While one might reasonably question their bona fides, it’s a bit more difficult to do that with what they had discussed, to wit, an article by Charlotta Stern, apparently the “deputy chair of Stockholm University’s sociology department”, which was published in Econ Journal Watch. And from which, a salient portion of the article’s abstract:

“In my experience as a sociologist, I see many ways in which gender sociology tends to insulate itself from challenges to its own sacred beliefs and sacred causes. The sacred beliefs are to the effect that the biological differences between the sexes are minor and that the cultural differences between the genders have little basis in biological differences. The scholarly findings that challenge the sacred beliefs come from anthropology, developmental psychology, evolutionary psychology, the neurosciences, genetics, biology, and many other fields. For many decades now researchers have amassed findings of differences in competitiveness, aggression, sexual interest, risk behavior, and many other traits, and differences in brain physiology and neuroimaging, by many different methods and approaches.”

But to conclude and to again emphasize, my intent here is not to argue in favour of a particular definition for gender – which some others here are apparently engaged in and have been for some time – but to draw some attention to some apparently quite serious ideological biases, and very questionable science, that undergirds the conventional wisdom on gender, much of it motivated by something of a feminist sect. And much of that “debate” and controversy seems not adequately addressed by this article. It seems that if it wishes to reacquire the GA designation and not be subject to POV accusations then it should at least be more cognizant of the obligations of NPOV policy. --TillermanJimW (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's reasonable to expect your fellow editors to read that. I encourage you start a discussion focused on one or two concrete suggestions for the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

TillermanJimW that’s too long for me to read. I think it would be best for you to simply what you are saying and then when reply to editors individually with your arguments. It makes things easier.CycoMa (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I waded through portions of the 6 archives on the topic, not to mention many of the sections in both the article and this Talk page, not to mention various links, you should be able to manage to read at least a couple of links and paragraphs I used to justify my case ;-)

Like I've said, it's a very complex issue, but the devils are in the details - not sure how we can hope to come to some workable consensus on how to change the article to meet various issues - notably NPOV - without being willing to at least grapple with some of them. --TillermanJimW (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll concede that I've covered quite a bit of ground there and I sort of apologize for the length of it. But it seemed important to put the major points and bones of contention in one section instead of trying to open with a major point and then bring in other aspects as the discussion developed.

But I kind of think that I started the ball rolling in the direction of your "one or two concrete suggestions" by the title of the section: explicit section - Criticism - to address the spectrum of conflicting opinions and viewpoints. And to elaborate on that, rather than, as some have argued, fiddling with the opening sentence, I'd also suggest, as a tentative starting point, an explicit acknowledgement of that spectrum: "Gender is commonly seen as a range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between femininity and masculinity, although there is a great deal of controversy over which biological and psychological traits qualify as relevant differentia".

That, I think, opens the door to later discussions on who endorses which traits - gender and equity feminist views for example - and which "schools" offer what type of criticisms. Been a lot of digital ink spilt on the issue, but clearly identifying who's claiming what seems to be the only rational way forward. --TillermanJimW (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think criticisms is a good word for the kind of section you're hoping to get added, and I don't there's enough difference in interpretation of gender to warrant dedicating a section to explaining them. ––FormalDude talk 04:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Not really "wedded" to the term "criticisms". Although, as mentioned the article on Critical race theory uses it, and the article on logical positivism has a similarly worded section titled "Critics". And seem to recollect other articles likewise. So anything that clearly indicates some dispute with the 'orthodoxy' that most feminists subscribe to - and that this article apparently more or less endorses - would be a step in the right direction.

As for "difference in interpretation of gender", I don't think that holds a lot of water. As the article itself commendably notes, many people - including the erstwhile HUD Secretary Ben Carson - seem to see gender as synonymous with sex. Which causes no end of problems. And you might at least read the Del Giudice essay which describes in some detail some serious problems with the feminist viewpoint. Bit of a lengthy article but generally worth the effort to see where he's coming from. --TillermanJimW (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

TillermanJimW, Wikipedia is not a forum, nor is it a soapbox – telling people to read an essay simply because it points out some serious problems with what you describe as the feminist viewpoint is near (if not outside) the bounds of appropriate talk page usage. You've noted your awareness of WP:NOTFORUM earlier in this section, so please try to adhere to it.

This seems to be a due weight issue, where you contend that the article gives undue weight to a specific definition of gender and does not give due weight to other conceptions of what gender is. What you need to do in order for a change to be made is provide reliable sources demonstrating the prominence of a view you feel is underrepresented in the article. It's possible you've already done this, but it's honestly very hard to tell because of the length of your initial posting. Out of respect for other editors, please try to be concise. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Bit of a stretch to say that "you might at least read article X" qualifies as telling anybody do anything. And, as I mentioned, it seems that many other people here have been discussing the concept of gender itself with little to no discussion on how that might improve the article.

But I'll concede that "due weight" might be relevant. However, while I'll also concede that my intial post was maybe overly long for which I'll apologize - again, I think I've already more or less clearly given evidence of a "view I feel is underrepresented in the article". As they might not be readily evident in what I posted, they were, first-off, the quotes of Steven Pinker in his Blank Slate; while that's probably copyrighted though I'm not sure of the laws on that score, Googling "joel velasco pinker blank slate" should yield a copy of the chapter on Gender. Secondarily, there was the article by Del Giudice - some 8 pages of references which I expect well justify his argument about the "Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender". And thirdly, the essay at Econ Journal Watch by Charlotta Stern - "associate professor and deputy chair of the sociology department at Stockholm University" - on "Undoing Insularity: A Small Study of Gender Sociology’s Big Problem".

Though I will try to be more "concise" in the future. :-) Even if that is often rather difficult when the issues are so convoluted and contentious as they are with gender. --TillermanJimW (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• I actually did skim read that, and it was way longer than it needed to be. TillermanJimW, here's what I suggest. Just propose specific academic WP:RS and specific text based on them that you think should be added to the article. It's that simple. Nobody here is interested in long forum debates about feminism or nature vs. nurture. I will say that a criticism section is not warranted, since what you describe is criticism of gender understood as pure-nurture, not of the concept itself. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, thanks at least for the "skim" :-). Though "longer than it needed to be" is probably moot.

But "propose specific RS & specific text" may be a useful suggestion. However, I think I've already provided several such "reliable sources", and a suggested change to the leading sentence in a subsequent comment (above): "Gender is commonly seen as a range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between femininity and masculinity, although there is a great deal of controversy over which biological and psychological traits qualify as relevant differentia".

Which I might further add to immediately following that with, "While that orthodox view largely derives from gender feminism and social constructionism, many sources [Sokal, Bricmont, et al] offer substantial critiques of that position." Though in passing, I note that the social constructionism article has an explict "criticisms" section so it's not as if I'm cutting the idea from whole cloth.

But your "what you describe is criticism of gender understood as pure-nurture, not of the concept itself" doesn't seem to hold much water at all. As I pointed out, the WHO position is, apparently, that gender is entirely socially constructed - no contributions whatsoever from various biological factors - chromosomes & hormones in particular which clearly, on no shortage of substantial and well-documented evidence, have a great deal of influence on the personalities that are typical of nominal males (sex) and nominal females (sex). And "personalities" as a synonym for gender is not exactly cut from whole cloth either - for instance, the SEP article on femininism that I quoted from above explicitly refers to "Gender as feminine and masculine personality" as the heading for section 2.2

In addition to that, your "not the concept itself" is rather "problematic" as virtually every man, woman, otherkin and their cats, dogs, and gerbils has a different concept of gender - the objective of this article should be to clarify and illustrate that spectrum of diverse and quite contradictory conceptions of the term. And your own comment in the "Lead sentence" underlines that dog's breakfast: "I also expect that definitions vary by academic field and especially by theoretical perspective." Tower of Babel, Part Deux; we can't possibly communicate if everyone has a different definition of the relevant terms.

But somewhat more usefully, you also said there that, "I also don't like tying 'roles' and "behaviors" in so definitively with what gender is." However, behaviours is what many sources, including Merriam-Webster, argue is encompassed by the term:

"Among those who study gender and sexuality, a clear delineation between sex and gender is typically prescribed, with sex as the preferred term for biological forms, and gender limited to its meanings involving behavioral, cultural, and psychological traits."

Are behaviours only "socially constructed"? Or are there maybe some biological factors - chromosomes and hormones in particular - that maybe contribute notable differences in the behaviours, on average, of human males (sex) and human females (sex)? Which underlines the reasons why I think it crucially necessary to have a more or less comprehensive survey of the quite contradictory conceptions of gender - they can't all be "right" or particularly useful. --TillermanJimW (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Um, "longer than it needed to be" is definitely not moot, it's objective. Take these other editors' advice and exercise some brevity please. You shouldn't be taking multiple paragraphs to explain your point. ––FormalDude talk 08:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think what's been proposed here is the way to go. I don't see a reason to move up the current nature/nurture bit in the lead. And you should be aware of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. So changes to the lead should only be to reflect the body more accurately. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the Writing article; some useful information there that I hadn't been aware of.

But your "don't see a reason to move up the current nature/nurture bit" doesn't seem tenable at all. For instance, the "criticism" section in the Social construction of gender article, referenced in the Lead section, argues that "Theories that imply that gendered behavior is totally or mostly due to social conventions and culture represent an extreme nurture position in the nature versus nurture debate". And the WHO article also linked and touted in the Lead section seems pretty clearly in that "extreme nurture position". If this article wants to reacquire its GA designation - lost some 13 years ago apparently due to NPOV issues - then maybe it needs to be less supportive of and biased towards that particular position - as seems generally the case.

In addition, I notice that the writing article clearly argues that the lead section should "mention ... consequential or significant criticism or controversies". While I'll concede that the fourth paragraph in the lead acknowledges that "the natural sciences investigate whether biological differences in females and males influence the development of gender in humans", and there's even a section (3) that apparently elaborates on that, the article still seems not to be giving due consideration to the extent of that particular controversy, of many, and the many substantive articles justifying a different view on the concept.

Off hand and tentatively speaking, I'd suggest renaming that section 3 into "Controversies" and elaborating on the evidence for biological contributions to "gender". Although there's some evidence that the "nature" aspect hardly exhausts the extent of those controversies, some being sociological - transwomen in women's sports for example - and others being more scientific. For instance, "Investigating Conflation of Sex and Gender Language in Student Writing About Genetics" - and that, from a Google search, is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. But with the development of that section, one could then update the Lead section accordingly. --TillermanJimW (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

TillermanJimW like I said earlier it’s hard to engage with you if your comments are really long. You don’t have to rush anything, just take your time and tell us your individual concerns and issues with quick and easy to read comments.CycoMa (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa You might note that a comment above by Crossroads on Roughgarden was some 1066 words while my opening salvo was 1279 – not even 20% more than his. And comments by other people here haven’t been much less. If you’re going to try busting my chops for length then you might try applying that yardstick equally. So maybe you need to try a bit harder to “engage” with what I’ve said and not be so quick to dismiss what I've said on the basis of length.

However, in looking through recent discussions I noticed that you had said that this article “has also been guilty of distorting information especially regarding the biological view of the topic.” And asked, “hasn’t it already been established that gender is sociological thing while sex is a biological thing?”

Quite agree on the “distorting information [re] biological view”. However regarding “sociological thing”, I note that the section on “Biological factors and views” states, “... causation from the biological—genetic and hormonal—to the behavioral has been broadly demonstrated and accepted ....” But, to emphasize that point, the behavioural – part and parcel of Personality which is often seen as more or less synonymous with gender – is, as indicated, partly determined by biological factors. Even if, as the section reasonably goes on to say, the “understanding of the causal chains from biology to behavior in sex and gender issues is very far from complete”. Not just a question of gender being a “sociological thing” but also being a “biological thing”.

Which more or less underlines many of my objections to this article as it sits now: a rather questionable, biased, and quite pervasive policy by many here of trying to sweep the biological aspects and elements of gender under the carpet – at one corner or the other.

Somewhat more broadly, I can at least sympathize with your removal of the “Gender taxonomy” subsection (3.1 of an earlier version), although I think the concept has some merit and utility. But that sympathy is largely because I’ve seen next to no taxonomical effort towards or any evidence of any “scientific study of naming, defining (circumscribing) and classifying groups of biological organisms based on shared characteristics”, characteristics that might reasonably be seen to differentiate between the various and multitudinous genders implied by the concept.

But that underlines the fundamental issue, difficulty and question with reaching a consensus on the concept of gender: which of those many “sexually dimorphic characteristics” are relevant in clearly differentiating between the two or twenty or 200 billion different genders that are possible? Much of gender, at least as it’s being touted here and in the view of much of feminism, is largely incoherent and unscientific if not anti-scientific claptrap, little better than phrenology and astrology. Too many seem to be losing sight of, or are trying to repudiate or sweep under the carpet, some fundamental and quite sound principles. --TillermanJimW (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Much of gender, at least as it’s being touted here and in the view of much of feminism, is largely incoherent and unscientific if not anti-scientific claptrap, little better than phrenology and astrology. Too many seem to be losing sight of, or are trying to repudiate or sweep under the carpet, some fundamental and quite sound principles. TillermanJimW, I know I linked you to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX earlier in this discussion. Please suggest specific changes and provide reliable sources to support them, or stop engaging. Your behavior right now (such as the example I quoted in green) looks like advocacy to me, and that's not what Wikipedia is for. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 23:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I have already, repeatedly, "suggested specific changes" and "reliable sources" to back them up, to wit: create a criticisms section and address the fairly voluminous and well sourced and evidenced view that "gender" and personality - which is commonly seen as part and parcel of gender - is not just a matter of "social construction" but one strongly influenced by biological factors. And I've also suggested changes to the Lead section that would point to and lead into a discussion or description of the related controversies. Not sure what else you expect me to do - draw some pictures with circles & arrows?

But you might note the introduction in the WP:BETTER article:

"Each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead, including any prominent controversies; but be careful not to violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies, information, or praise in the lead section"

If I'm "advocating" anything it is that this article meet the NPOV requirements by clearly addressing those controversies in an equitable manner. Instead of apparently trying to sweep them under the carpet. --TillermanJimW (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment - I'm afraid that much of what has been proposed in the WP:WALLOFTEXT above seems out of place for this article. This isn't Social construction of gender, much less Gender studies, so I have no idea what comparisons to Critical race theory or proposals of a "Criticism" section are meant to do in this context. Is there non-WP:FRINGE "criticism" of gender as such? If so, what WP:RS are proposed as sourced for such "criticism"? Because gender is a part of everyday lived experience and is also pervasive in contemporary scholarship, and this article is supposed to deal with actual gender in the real world, rather than "gender skeptical" or "gender critical" fan-fiction within-world plot summary. Newimpartial (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be like Hallmark in having a WP card for every occasion. Even if they often bear some resemblance to the race card which is often played when people don’t have any substantive arguments.

However, I notice your “card” also says, in the fine print, that:

“However, an equal-but-opposite questionable strategy is dismissal of legitimate evidence and valid rationales with a claim of "text-walling" or "TL;DR". Not every matter can be addressed with a one-liner, and validity does not correspond to length, especially the more complex the matter is.”

In any case since you don’t seem to have much patience for reading what I’ve said or have much in the way of a commitment to AGF, I have already addressed in some detail your question about “non fringe criticism of gender as such” and have provided some solid “reliable sources”. And will repeat a subsequent comment that addressed that question here:

“As they might not be readily evident in what I posted, they were, first-off, the quotes of Steven Pinker in his Blank Slate; while that's probably copyrighted though I'm not sure of the laws on that score, Googling "joel velasco pinker blank slate" should yield a PDF copy of the chapter on Gender. Secondarily, there was the article by Del Giudice - some 8 pages of references which I expect well justify his argument about the "Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender". And thirdly, the essay at Econ Journal Watch by Charlotta Stern - "associate professor and deputy chair of the sociology department at Stockholm University" - on "Undoing Insularity: A Small Study of Gender Sociology’s Big Problem".”

But your “because gender is a part of everyday lived experience ....” seems particularly problematic. For one thing, that seems based on a prior assumption as to what gender is; you’re “begging the question”, you’re assuming, you’re clearly biased towards the view, that the orthodox position is the only tenable one on the table. What “gender is” is very much the point and objective of this article: to present the orthodox view – mostly “the extreme nurture position” endorsed by much of feminist ideology – along with the heterodox positions which clearly have some substance and currency behind them.

And for another thing, I’m not quite sure how you apparently think that “lived experience” qualifies as any sort of “reliable source”. Highly subjective at best – the Tyranny of the Subjective as UK/US lawyer, and philosophy professor Elizabeth Finne put it in an essay at Quillette.

And that subjectivity seems to be a large and problematic part of what many people take to be gender and gender identity in the first place. For instance, an essay at Cultural Anthropology by Sahar Sadjadi – Assistant Professor, Department of Social Studies of Medicine at the University of McGill [Canada] – notes “the magico-spiritual undertone of the conversations” on the topic, and the “merging of science, magic, and religion in explaining children’s gender transition.”

Refusing to put the concept of gender on something of a scientific footing – instead of the “magico-spiritual” “merging of science, magic, and religion” that seems to follow from that “extreme nurture position” – is apparently a large part of the reason for the controversy over the concept to begin with. Not to mention the many social problems that seem to follow therefrom. --TillermanJimW (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gender identity in animals

Tewdar

I think your edit kind of distorts what the man is say also now am I wiki voicing. My old revision said this. According to Jacques Balthazart gender identity may be controlled by prenatal sex steroids but this is hard to test because there is no way to study gender identity in animals.

I thought this sentence was obvious that this is view from this guy.

You putting down

According to Jacques Balthazart, clinical data "suggests that the organization of sexual identity could be controlled by pre-natal sex steroids." He says that this idea is difficult to assess, however, because "there is no animal model for studying sexual identity."[121]

Kind of makes that statement irrelevant to the article.

So here is what the source for that sentence is saying. has been Regardless of which sex is found interesting or exciting, each human being is also confident of belonging to one sex, male or female. This conviction is unchangeable, and it often seems to develop during early childhood. Most people have a sexual identity that matches their genitalia, although a small number of people are convinced to the contrary and believe themselves “to be born in a body that does not correspond to their gender." They are called trans- sexuals by sexologists. This gender identity is already apparent in early child- hood and, contrary to what was thought until recently, it is usually difficult or impossible to change it later (see the story of John/Joan, Chapter 2). Clinical data suggest natal sex steroids. This idea is difficult to assess, in part because there is no animal model for studying sexual identity. It is impossible to ask an animal, whatever its species, to what sex it belongs. In addition to communication dif- ficulties associated with such an undertaking, this would imply that the animal is aware of its own body and sex, which is far from proved even though recent research daily shows new sophisticated cognitive skills not only among pri- mates but also in species more distant from humans, such as dolphins and even birds such as parrots and corvids (a family including crows and jays). CycoMa (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Nope, something is wrong with your OCR:

"Regardless of which sex is found interesting or exciting, each human being is also confident of belonging to one sex, male or female. This conviction is unchangeable, and it often seems to develop during early childhood. Most people have a sexual identity that matches their genitalia, although a small number of people are convinced to the contrary and believe themselves “to be born in a body that does not correspond to their gender.” They are called trans-sexuals by sexologists. This gender identity is already apparent in early childhood and, contrary to what was thought until recently, it is usually difficult or impossible to change it later (see the story of John/Joan, Chapter 2). Clinical data suggest that the organization of sexual identity could be controlled by pre-natal sex steroids. This idea is difficult to assess, in part because there is no animal model for studying sexual identity. It is impossible to ask an animal, whatever its species, to what sex it belongs." Tewdar (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Wikivoicing: This idea is difficult to assess, in part because there is no animal model for studying sexual identity.

• Not Wikivoicing: Someone said, "This idea is difficult to assess, in part because there is no animal model for studying sexual identity." Tewdar (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

So, how exactly am I "distorting" what he says? Or would you like to strikethrough that comment? Tewdar (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• @CycoMa - please retract your suggestion that I am distorting what he says. Tewdar (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

No, because it discusses identity and role. I can remove the section heading if you think it inappropriate. Also, please retract your suggestion that I am distorting what he says Tewdar (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Learn to slow down with your comments. I literally deleted my comment because I changed my mind.CycoMa (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Please strikethrough, rather than delete your comments. It's rather irritating. Tewdar (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"Learn to slow down with your comments" - from you, this is high praise indeed. Tewdar (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, that whole section will be nuked at 5am (my time zone) when Crossroads sees what we've done to his article, so I wouldn't worry about any of it. Tewdar (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah he does that kind of thing. Also if I were you I would get prepared for a long discussion over this.CycoMa (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I won't be participating in any discussion with Crossroads. Hopefully someone else will persuade him the content should stay. Tewdar (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Really loving the assumption of good faith toward me here. /s Anyway, the reasons I cited for reverting this don't apply this time, so I won't. The current version is fine. There was no good reason to cite so many old, primary sources. And regarding this, John Money's influence on the field is well-known and can be cited to recent sources. There was no evidence that those old papers had any significant influence. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads I assume you have good intentions, you are here to help create a great encyclopedia but at times you do come off as being a little irritated at other editors over certain things.

Plus there are situations where to some people you do come off as being agenda driven.

But, hey at times I’m that way too.CycoMa (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on a single source

Statements like

However, Poiani (2010) notes that "[w]hether similarities in behaviours across species are associated with similarities in internal mental states such as gender identity or not is an issue of no easy resolution",[119] and suggests that mental states, such as gender identity, are more accessible in humans than other species due to their capacity for language.[120] He also suggests that an organism must be self-conscious to possess a gender identity and so for that reason "the number of those species is probably limited."[121] And Despite this, Poiani and Dixson emphasise the applicability of the concept of gender role to non-human animals[119] such as rodents[124] throughout their book.[125]

Are all from the same source. The other sources in that subsection appear to be more in favor of gender only being a human concept.

Hird (2006) has also stated that whether or not non-human animals consider themselves to be feminine or masculine is a "difficult, if not impossible, question to answer", as this would "[require] judgements about what constitutes femininity or masculinity in any given species". Nonetheless she asserts that "non-human animals do experience femininity and masculinity to the extent that any given species’ behaviour is gender segregated."

Does appear to think some aspects of gender are applied to other species. But is hard to say how much gender other species are.

Sure this The concept of gender role has also been applied to non-human primates such as rhesus monkeys.[126][127] mentions two sources about gender roles in primates but this isn’t surprising because humans of course are primates.CycoMa (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hird, presumably intentionally, never uses "gender anything" to refer to non-human animals. The "gender in animals" side have three sources, one of which summarizes the position well. Even Crossroads said it was alright, didn't he?! How would the section be improved by throwing short snippets from lots of sources into a WP:SYNTH sentence that I would be accused of, were I to do that? Tewdar (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes three sources mention gender in animals. What I am mainly asking is that the parts regarding Poiani and Dixson be trimmed down a bit. Like I don’t think you need three sentences for a single source.

I may read through the sources and trim stuff down in my time.CycoMa (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Tewdar also I didn’t accuse you of WP:SYN here.CycoMa (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I know - that's why I said "would be" rather than "am being" Tewdar (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to add sources to the "majority view" if it adds anything useful, preferably arranged sensibly with the rest of the "majority view" so it has a bit of structure. Tewdar (talk) 07:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what exactly you would like to remove from that source. It is all pertinent to the discussion. Tewdar (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

That source talks about links between behaviours and gender id, language and gender id, and self consciousness and gender id. Why would anyone want to get rid of these things? Tewdar (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

103 words, bleddy Nora it's hardly War and Peace... Tewdar (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Not get rid just trim it down. I will also try trimming down the things I added too.CycoMa (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear. Tewdar (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Look, please can you leave the stuff I added alone until I can "trim down" those 103 words this evening, at least? Tewdar (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I’m not gonna touch it. All I am asking is to shorten it down a bit.CycoMa (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, your stuff doesn't need to be trimmed down. If you trim it down, it will lose clarity. Which, I have to say, is the sad consequence of many of your edits. Tewdar (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I bet nobody else thinks it ought to be "trimmed down" except you. Tewdar (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The letter from Ellen Ketterson could be replaced with something better, however. Tewdar (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I may tweak at the stuff I added a bit but I do see what you mean.CycoMa (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, it is a bit overquoted, and could be summarized. Obviously, now that Crossroads has given his seal of approval, I could probably sumarize the remarks if 103 words is really too much to ask. Tewdar (talk) 07:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you on it being over quoted.CycoMa (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

How's that now? Also, try and find a better source than Ellen Ketterson chattering to the Gender Studies department at her university, will you? Tewdar (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

271 words in total for that section. That's alright I think. Tewdar (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

But the changes you made did fix it up.CycoMa (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Definitely on the way to a 'B' class article now, thanks to our awesome improvements. 😁👍 Tewdar (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Wait, it's already 'B' class I think... Tewdar (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"Too broad"

Template:Page range too broad says, In external style guides, the standard citation method for academic journal articles is to list the full page range for the whole article, although editors are free to voluntarily establish a different citation style in an individual Wikipedia article. Has such a citation style been established for this article? Tewdar (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

No. CycoMa, please do not use this template for journal articles. Only use it for book citations. And don't overuse it - only if it is unclear that the book actually verifies the claim. It may be citing a whole chapter, for example. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: I swear I didn’t use it for journals.CycoMa (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Also I have been jumping around everywhere and touching every subject on Wikipedia, so I don’t even remember what I tagged.CycoMa (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: - you used it on quite a lot of journals... Tewdar (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, now that I check the edit history, I cannot find any evidence that it was CycoMa who added those tags. I just sort of assumed it 😁. Very sorry! Tewdar (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I know this discussion may be over, but I do agree we should merge the pages. Most people assume sex = gender, which is not the case. With a section on the gender page describing the difference between the two, it could help people be educated on non-binary genders, and transgender people! Krypto — Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no merge. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Formal request has been received to merge Sex and gender distinction into Gender; dated: September 6, 2021. Proposer's rationale: At the moment, it's like having a positive liberty, a negative liberty, and a positive liberty and negative liberty distinction article, which I really hope does not exist. Of course there "is" a sex-gender distinction, because gender in this context is being *defined* as distinct from sex. Pinging proposer @Tewdar: note that these articles are already 133k and 66k in size, so WP:LENGTH may be a consideration here. Discuss here. Richard3120 (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Just to quickly respond to the "length" issue - I'd bet a significant proportion of the sex-gender distinction article is duplicated from the gender or sex articles anyway. Tewdar (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - length is very likely to be an issue. The analogy isn't apt since the distinction appears to be a notable topic aside from gender itself. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The distinction is a notable topic not to mention the article on the distinction has been around for over a decade.CycoMa (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, because the proposed merge meets all criteria for WP:NOTMERGE:
  1. The resulting article would be too long or "clunky"
  2. The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles
  3. The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short
  There's some overlap between the articles and Gender is certainly helpful context in understanding this one, but there's too much to say about both topics outside of their overlap for me to support a merge. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. The article is specifically about distinguishing the two, not simply about the definition of gender. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – Sex and gender distinction is a notable topic which also meets WP:PAGEDECIDE, meaning it belongs in its own page. Also, sex and gender distinction is not a made-up term in the way that a neutral descriptive title on many articles may be; it is an actual topic of scholarly study under that precise name, and has several thousand results in academic journals using that exact title; whereas a similar expression like, say, "gender and identity distinction" used as a control for comparison has a total of 32 results. The topics Gender, and Sex and gender distinction are clearly two separate topics, are studied and published as separate topics, and should remain as two separate articles. Mathglot (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Turns out, Wikipedia does indeed have a Negative and positive rights article... Tewdar (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Creating Sex or gender(d:Q18382802) could be another option. Sharouser (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dubious

@Rickyrab2: Template:Dubious, like most maintenance templates, strongly recommends starting a talk page section to explain the concerns, so other editors can weigh in or find ways to solve the issue. Could you please lay out your concerns about the statements you tagged with dubious. Do you feel that the provided sources are unreliable? Firefangledfeathers 19:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Winter 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Erikpineda.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LateNightDrive.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 22 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chrisnoriega8.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

C-class downgrade

CactiStaccingCrane, can you please elaborate on this downgrade to class C? You gave as the reason, downgrade to C-Class due to lack of citations, see also: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#Reassessment_of_Vital_articles [linked discussion now in Archive 22].) This article has 205 citations, which at a size of 147 kb works out to 1 citation per 717 bytes. I checked another article in the gender space, Female genital mutilation, which has 257 citations in 177 kb, or 1 per 690 bytes, so roughly the same as this one. Yet, FGM is a featured article, so it would seem that this number of citations could be appropriate for a FA for other articles as well. So, at a minimum, I don't see that as a valid argument for a downgrade below FA, and since this one started out at 'B', I think it should be restored to 'B'. Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Mathglot I agree with your reasoning. I should've been more through with my assessment. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the assessment review, and for your comments. (Needless to say, it could be subject to reassessment based on other factors, and as assessing editor shouldn't shy from that if applicable.) Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Female (gender) and Talk:Woman#WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD

fyi, this draft includes sources in the article and on the Talk page that may be helpful for expanding this article, including the lead. There is a related discussion at Talk:Woman#WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD with sources that may also be of interest to editors. Beccaynr (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead sentence definition

I propose changing the lead sentence to something like:

• Gender is "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with" the male or female sex in humans. Merriam-Webster[1][2]

This is consistent with the current source (Palan, K. (2001)): "[G]ender is the cultural definition of behavior defined as appropriate to the sexes in a given society at a given time."[3] Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. If you check M-W's definition of gender role, you'll see that they don't have one. (But note that they do have gender identity.) So, I think they are adding the definition of gender role to gender, because they don't have another place for it. In fact, the definition you quoted, is pretty close to what I think of as a definition of gender role, and I don't think your proposed definition should be used here. Notice that it is only the 2b definition; why pick that one and not, say, the 2a definition, which it equates to the sex 1a definition? (Rhetorical question; definitely don't do that!) The point here being, a (good) dictionary lists *all* meanings of a term (not only the primary one) including less frequent usages. Here, they are listing *all* the ways that the word gender can be used, and it's true that it sometimes it is used to mean "sex" (as in 2a), and sometimes it is used to mean "gender role" (as in 2b). But in no way is 2b the primary definition of it, and we shouldn't cherrypick that version and imply that it is. Mathglot (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Is the subject of this article not the 2b meaning? If not, which dictionary definition of gender are we discussing here? Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Mathglot? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. As to the questions, I think I'll bow out, and let more major contributors jump in. Not that I'm avoiding things—I may pop in later—but I'm a bit gendered out at WP articles for the moment, and need to lurk or play a more minor role here for a bit. But I will subscribe, and watch with interest, and rejoin, perhaps, at a later time. Thanks again! Mathglot (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The proposed lead/definition is crappy, poorly sourced, and does not summarize the content of this article or its sources. Let's not do that. Newimpartial (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The proposed sentence is consistent with Merriam-Webster, the OED, and several other cited sources on this talk page and in the article. The concept of gender is based on the characteristics societies associate with the sexes. A person who was assigned female at birth but has the gender identity of a man is said to be trans because their gender does not align with society's typical expectations for the female sex. If the concept of gender wasn't based on associations with sex, then there could be no such thing as trans. Our articles do not articulate gender's association with sex. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

A formulation is not DUE for this arricle's lede just because it is present in a handful of dictionaries and other sources - some of which are not recent, and none of which are needed for the actual content of this article.

In saying this I am not making the counterfactual alternative argument that "gender" and "sex" are entirely unrelated. But any overly specific formulation of and terminology for this - such as your initial one or your subsequent one - essentially cherry-picks among the sources to impose a particular conceptual logic, which is not in line with the bulk of the sources on this article's topic. Newimpartial (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I have shown that my proposal is supported by arguably the most reliable dictionaries. What definition and sources do you believe are superior? Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

How about the sources the rest of the article actually uses? Cherrypicking a dictionary definition and then insisting that that specific definition is what other sources on the topic "actually" mean is classic WP:OR. Newimpartial (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the two dictionaries I cited, I cited a source in the article in my 01:06, 17 December 2022 comment above. You've argued that my preferred definition and sources are wrong, but you haven't told me what you think is correct. I cannot argue your position for you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

That one isn't a recent WP:RS. And I think LEADFOLLOWSBODY is correct - a viewpoint that doesn't require either you or me to argue in its defense. Newimpartial (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't tell me what sources in the article you've seen support the current lead sentence, assuming that's the definition you support. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The OED definition [4] is actually cited in the body, and that's current. The WHO definition [5] is actually cited in the lead. I believe it supports my proposal. It's using the words men and women to define sex as well as gender, so I don't think it's OR to assume this nonacademic source is consistent with the OED and M-W definitions. But seeing as the fourth paragraph is about gender as sex, Mathglot is right that my proposed definition isn't appropriate as the lead sentence because it is limited to the meaning of social gender.

The definition used in Gender role is consistent with what I was trying to propose, and it is presumably supported by the body of that article. I would like to include this definition or its summary somewhere in the lead of Gender. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

A better definition may include gender roles:

• Gender is "the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for" humans of a particular sex.[6][7][8]

The article Gender roles may need to be merged here, or this article should be shortened to encompass just an overview of all of the concepts of gender. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Or

• Gender is the roles and behavioral, social, cultural, and psychological characteristics that a society typically associates with humans of a particular sex.[9]

"Socially constructed" is implied by "a given society typically associates with". I'm trying to simplify this to something like what Clicriffhard and Tewdar had discussed at Draft:Female (gender).Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The source cited for the above suggestion states In biosocial terms, gender is not the same as sex at p. 33 and the above suggestion does not appear to be a quote.[10] There is the artice sex and gender distinction, as well as the sources and the developing lead in Draft:Female (gender) that seem relevant to consider - there does not appear to be support for a definition of gender that is as strictly tied to "a particular sex". I think precision in terminology will be helpful, given the occasional overlap in informal uses of the words. Beccaynr (talk) 05:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, The Merriam-Webster source cited above includes a section titled "Are gender and sex the same? Usage Guide", which includes, Among those who study gender and sexuality, a clear delineation between sex and gender is typically prescribed, with sex as the preferred term for biological forms, and gender limited to its meanings involving behavioral, cultural, and psychological traits. In this dichotomy, the terms male and female relate only to biological forms (sex), while the terms masculine/masculinity, feminine/femininity, woman/girl, and man/boy relate only to psychological and sociocultural traits (gender).

The 2004 Encyclopedia of Women’s Health abstract cited after Merriam-Webster's above includes The definition of gender emphasizes psychological and cultural traits, whereas the definition of sex emphasizes structural and functional traits. Both definitions, however, include behavioral aspects.

The Palan, K. (2001) source cited above states: Sex refers to the individual's biological sex, that is, the biological one is born with. Gender, on the other hand, is more malleable. It refers to an individual's "psychological sex" which may be socially and culturally constructed. It quotes two sources for the quote cited above, for which the meaning seems more clear with the context provided by Palan.

In the 2007 Gender Differences in Determinants and Consequences of Health and Illness source cited above, it states: Gender refers to “the array of socially constructed roles and relationships, personality traits, attitudes, behaviours, values, relative power and influence that society ascribes to the two sexes on a differential basis. Gender is relational—gender roles and characteristics do not exist in isolation, but are defined in relation to one another and through the relationships between women and men, girls and boys” (1). Simply put, sex refers to biological differences, whereas gender refers to social differences. (citing Health Canada. Ottawa: Health Canada's gender-based analysis policy; 2000. p. 14.)

In the Oxford English Dictionary source cited above, it states: b. Psychology and Sociology (originally U.S.). The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones; the collective attributes or traits associated with a particular sex, or determined as a result of one's sex. Also: a (male or female) group characterized in this way.

The 2005 book Gender Roles cited above says in its preface Gender encompasses biological sex but extends beyond it to the socially prescribed roles deemed appropriate for each sex by the culture in which we live. The gender roles we each carry out are highly individualistic, built on our biological and physical traits, appearance and personality, life experiences such as childhood, career and education, and history of sexual and romantic interactions.

Beccaynr (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• Per WP:INAPPNOTE, to help avoid the appearance of Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions, everyone involved in the discussion referred to above should probably be notified. Beccaynr (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Becca, what was your point with all those quoted definitions? I'm not seeing inconsistency between my suggestion and those citations. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

My comment above that says there does not appear to be support for a definition of gender that is as strictly tied to "a particular sex". I think precision in terminology will be helpful, given the occasional overlap in informal uses of the words is about the suggestions, based on the sources cited here, and at the article and draft also linked in that comment. I think it would be helpful to incorporate sources more clearly and proportionately. Beccaynr (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

My proposal does not state "strictly tied to a particular sex", so I am not aware that we are in disagreement. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Your suggestions use the biological term "sex" to define gender even though the sources state this terminology should not be used. Instead, sources state, e.g. that gender is not the same as sex, so more precision in language to avoid misrepresenting sources appears necessary. Beccaynr (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like strawmanning and misrepresenting the nuances of the sources. If you are unwilling or unable to specifically and concisely cite language in my proposal which contradicts specific language in the sources then I don't think we can continue this discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The way that the word "sex" is used in suggested summarized definitions of "gender" appears to not clearly represent the content and meaning of the sources used to support the summary in the context of this topic.

When I refer to incorporating sources more clearly and proportionately, this also refers to WP:NPOV policy, which from my view, includes incorporating the context of sources.

I am not sure what you mean by "strawmanning", but as we have previously discussed, a focus on the content seems best for discussions about content. It appears that every source cited above does not support the broad use of the term "sex" to define "gender", because these terms have precise meanings in the context of this topic and according to various sources. It further appears we also need to consider the article contents, per MOS:LEAD. Beccaynr (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

To straw man: "To falsely attribute an insubstantial argument (a straw man argument) to another through direct declaration or indirect implication".[11] I must point out that the content of your statements is inaccurate. You continue to make generalized statements without actually quoting language from my suggestions against quotes from the sources, so you have shown no inconsistencies. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm pretty checked out of Wikipedia editing at the moment and happy to stay out of this discussion. Hope you're all well in any case. Clicriffhard (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather go down to the local pub in disguise and announce that I've recently purchased a second home in the village while effecting a Liverpudlian accent than become involved in this discussion, but thanks for asking.  Tewdar  19:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

This proposal is comparably crappy and poorly sourced as the original proposal; the intention seems to be to insert a (presumably well-intentioned) logic and specious clarity that is not supported by the vast majority of the recent, reliable sources. Again, let's not do that. Newimpartial (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

In comments above, I added specific quotes from sources that differentiate between gender and sex, and explained several times that the specific uses of the term "sex" in the suggested summary definitions do not appear to adequately reflect (i.e. are inconsistent with) the sources used as support for those suggested definitions.

In the context of this topic and these sources, this seems to be a specific and well-established distinction that should be incorporated into any summary, including per WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD. Beccaynr (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

You made no, and continue to make no, direct comparison by accurately quoting my suggestion against a quote from the sources. Are you willing to concisely compare a quote from my suggestion against a quote from one source? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe that I have by quoting the sources, because none of them appear to support the suggested summaries. I also began with a comparison of a suggestion and a quote of one source [12]. But this appears to be an issue related to incorporating multiple sources, none of which appear to support the way "sex" is used in the suggestions to introduce the concept of gender.

Per WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS, it appears more appropriate for you to explain how sources making a distinction between gender and sex can support a summary that does not appear to make this distinction. Or in the alternative, we could discuss summaries that are more clearly supported by the contents of the article and sources per WP:NPOV and WP:MOS:LEAD. Beccaynr (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

You keep falsely representing my suggestion as somehow refuting the sex and gender distinction, but you are unwilling to articulate, with quotes and concision, why. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

At this point, I do not think it is reasonable to continue asking me to re-explain what has already been clearly explained with sources and policies. Please either identify support in sources for the use of the term "sex" or let's move on to a discussion focused on developing alternatives. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this, but the source 7 does not support the assertiong made, that "Most scholars agree that gender is a central characteristic for social organization." 78.121.108.56 (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Please either identify support in sources for the use of the term "sex". My proposal may not be suitable as a single lead sentence, but it is consistent with the lead of Gender role, which also uses "sex", and much of this article is about social gender (role). Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Gender role article dicussion

Hi Kolya Butternut, I attempted to correct what appears to be mis-use of sources, and to add a clarifying source in the Gender role article, but you have repeatedly removed the reliable source and source-based correction [13], [14], while apparently not taking into account the full scope of the source used to help clarify the lead and main article.

It would be appreciated if you would review the sources to confirm how the sources do not support the use of the wikilinked sex and are in fact referring to what is commonly understood as gender, which is not circular when we are discussing gender roles. Further discussion can be found at Gender Roles: A Sociological Perspective, which discusses "problems of terminology" at pp. 4-5. It appears we need to be very careful with how we use terminology, and to review sources carefully so we use them in the context intended by the source. Many sources use "sex" informally, while specifically disclaiming support for the use of the sex wikilink, and this article, as well as the gender role article, appear to support making this distinction much more clear. Beccaynr (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I reject your characterizations. Please continue this discussion at the appropriate talk page: Talk:Gender role. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The sources and discussion appear to be relevant here, because you referenced the Gender role article as support for suggestions, and then repeatedly reverted the Gender role article after attempts to clarify terminology according to the article sources and an additional source added to help clarify the terminology.

I have offered sources and reasoning here to try to help this discussion move forward, because there may be an issue related to how terminology is used, and it seems helpful to locate this discussion here, at least for now. Beccaynr (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I've split this discussion into a new section. I don't agree with your characterizations of what you've done, what I've done, or what the sources state, so you'll have to provide direct quotes, concisely. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, Beccaynr, the very source you link here on pages 4 and 5 first defines sex as biological characteristics distinguishing male and female, and then - here's the point - defines gender as traits linked to males and females. It also states, Gender roles, therefore, are the expected attitudes and behaviors a society associates with each sex. Yet, you repeatedly removed "sex" from the definition of "gender role" and replaced it with "gender", generating circularity, and ironically now complain about "mis-use of sources" while citing a source that contradicts your contention. As for "when sources use sex", if they are academic sources from a relevant academic field and have clearly not overlooked the sex and gender distinction, then it is WP:OR for Wikipedians to conclude that when they say "sex" they actually mean "gender". Crossroads ^-talk- 23:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

At page 4 of the source, it states, "Gender can be viewed on a continuum of characteristics demonstrated by a person regardless of the person's biological sex." At page 5: "When the sociological concept of role is combined with the biological concept of sex, there is often misunderstanding about what content areas are subsumed under the resultant sex role label. Usage has become standardized, however, and most sociologists now employ gender role rather than sex role in their writing."

The OED also appears to make a distinction in its example of usages of "gender role", which includes "...even if it runs counter to the physical sex of the subject."

One of the sources currently used in the gender role article after the line in the lead with the link to sex defines gender role as "patterns of behavior, attitudes, and personality attributes that are traditionally considered in a particular culture to be feminine or masculine." The other source for that sentence provides a capsule definition without accessible context to support the link to the sex article, particularly in the context of other sources and especially the contents of the gender role article.

I also think it is important to assess the article as a whole and how the article itself does not support linking to a general article about biology for an article about this sociological concept. Beccaynr (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The page 4 quote is about individual persons, not the concept as a whole. The page 5 quote is about the term "sex role", which is a separate matter. None of this negates the source's clear explicit statements. The OED quote demonstrating usage is from 1963 and is obviously outdated, claiming that "gender role" is "learned by the age of two years [and] is for most individuals almost irreversible". This tells us nothing about modern usage; see WP:RS AGE.

That other source in the lead is just one among several and does not contradict that such constructs are based ultimately on roles/attributes intended for particular sexes. Humans are both biological and social beings and as such, it is not surprising that social roles were built on top of pre-existing biological differences rather than arbitrarily. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, the book is about the concept, and "gender" is discussed as a concept by the book, including at pp. 4-5, and I have highlighted that section because it speaks to the terminology confusion that can exist and appears to exist when the lead doesn't reflect the body of an article. In both gender role and woman, there appear to be similar WP:NPOV issues related to the use of the sex-related articles that do not appear supported by the contents of the article and sources, contrary to MOS:LEAD. Beccaynr (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Let's stay focused on the use of the word sex in the lead definition of Gender role. Source 2 and 4:

• Gender roles, therefore, are the expected attitudes and behaviors a society associates with each sex.[15]
• The social roles, behaviors, attitudes, and psychological characteristics that are more common, more expected, or more accepted for one sex or the other.[16]

Yet Becca stated above (regarding Gender): Your suggestions use the biological term "sex" to define gender even though the sources state this terminology should not be used. That statement misleads. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, please include a diff if you quote me, so context is available and I can directly respond. Your assumption of my good faith would also be appreciated. Also, I have tried to discuss challenges with the terminology with reference to sources and the article contents, per WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD, and I apologize if I have not made this clear. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Your comment is on this very talk page above at 15:43, 18 December 2022,[17] or you can use Control+F to find your quoted comment.

Regardless of good or bad faith, the content of your comments is misleading. If you will not express understanding of this, then it is fair to assume bad faith. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Please note that the scope of the term "gender" as used in this article is considerably broader than the same term as used in Gender role, so it would be inappropriate simply to port content between the two articles, especially their lead sections. Newimpartial (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

This talk page section is just about the lead of the other article, as I made clear at 21:22, 19 December 2022 above. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

But in this diff you stated that you intend to retroject material from Gender role into the lead of this arricle. Where would you prefer for me to raise the grounds I just mentioned, as an objection to what you are proposing? I'll do so wherever you like. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

"pertaining to masculinity and femininity"

Can we remove or move the first sentence, is the range of characteristics pertaining to femininity and masculinity and differentiating between them? It seems undue. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I have some general thoughts on revisions, but it is a major holiday, so I do not plan to immediately make an in-depth reply that reviews the structure and contents of the article as well as reliable sources in support of a proposed revision. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

There's essentially nothing in that sentence that I find valuable, but I won't support a change unless something has been presented here on talk that promises not to be worse. Newimpartial (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)