Jump to content

Talk:Trans woman/Archive 7

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

First sentence is too much confusing-please do something

I have gone through all the discussions. But to a novice reader looking into Wikipedia for understanding what is a "trans-woman", the very first sentence here at WIKI (Trans-woman is a woman....) gives the exact opposite idea. I myself was totally confused and got the wrong idea from here. I then referred elsewhere to finally understand the concept. Its immaterial what "sources" tell you. It matters more what people practically feel as to the word meaning of "woman" or "female". Even wikipedia articles doesn't say that woman is someone who identifies as a woman. Wikipedia itself says woman is the female of human species. Now if we look at what wikipedia says a female is, its all anatomical. I believe wikipedia is not a discussion forum and its first and foremost purpose should be educating people. I am sorry to say, the wiki team has failed miserably in this.If there is lack of consensus, put the salient point of the entire discussion in the article. Trans woman are trans women in many countries, they are not "women'. Since wikipedia is a global entity, it should cater to global standards.

There is no this way or that. The language used here must be in a way that makes a novice person understand the subject. As it stands now, it only confuses people. As for the discussions done here-i saw that a consensus was not obtained. But i accuse the polls used her being affected by bias. It included people who understood the concept of "trans-women". In reality the majority human being doesn't really understand it. You should have included them too. You should have asked them whether they would term trans-women as "women". Actually its their voice that matters. Because purpose of wikipedia is to educate them. Its not for discussions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey577 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

It is absolutely not immaterial what the sources say. That is the basis for ensuring verifiability, which all information in Wikipedia must be. To post things other than what is stated in the sources would be original research, which is not published by Wikipedia. --Equivamp - talk 10:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. The problem is that the reliable sources on transgender issues aren't the reliable sources on what's intelligible to the "novice reader", so that the first sentence is fine if it's aimed at students of transgender issues but not if it's aimed at the novice reader. (I've discussed this at great length with another editor, but the discussion has been derailed irreparably by attacks on straw men. Watch this space for the next spite-drenched instalment.) H Remster (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
All I see there is a personal attack and an appeal to reception analysis, neither of which is compliant with WP policy. Carry on. :) Newimpartial (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Interestingly, at least one other editor seems to agree with me. H Remster (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
And one editor plus one editor equals two editors. :) Newimpartial (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
To Casey577: do you find the link to Assigned sex confusing? Would an additional link to Gender identity help? Newimpartial (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Casey577, a word of advice: ignore the straw men, including the one in the comment above (I'll be doing the same with the one above that with the same time stamp). I'm sure they're unintentional, but they'll bloat the thread and tire you out. H Remster (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
No straw men there, nor was I even making an argument. Those are earnest questions in response to I myself was totally confused and got the wrong idea from here, asking what helps or what would help. WP:AGF is a good general principle to follow, especially if you can refrain from EASTEREGGs. Newimpartial (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
3 in 4 comments. Improving. H Remster (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I love wikipedia and have always been impressed with its ability to provide a neutral fact based summary of even very divisive issues. The Trans woman page (in particular the first line) really stood out to me as being obviously non-neutral. It's unarguable that the question of whether all trans women are women is a matter of significant controversy. It's therefore essential for the credibility of wikipedia that the page reflects that controversy and doesn't take an one side in it. There are many pro-trans-rights organisations which provide clear definitions that would not impair wikipedia's impartiality. For instance Stonewall UK "Transgender woman: A term used to describe someone who is assigned male at birth but identifies and lives as a woman." [1]. I can see from this page that this discussion has gone on a long time but that makes it all the more important to change it as the issue is clearly not going away. Whilst getting a consensus is difficult it's also clear from multiple well argued comments that the current first line does not have consensus support. Can anyone explain why the stonewall definition would not be a good replacement first line? Diotima423 (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.stonewall.org.uk/help-advice/faqs-and-glossary/glossary-terms
What a curious comment. What would you regard as proof? H Remster (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
No - I'm not anyone's sock puppet. I don't know who Mr Miles or Georgia Guy are. I'm not sure what evidence you want. It's a shame so much of the discussion on this page is aimed at individuals rather than concentrating on the facts. Diotima423 (talk) 09:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Can we just deal with the issues. It's clear from the list of definitions collected that the current first line is an outlier. Whereas a definition such as the one stonewall uses would be compatible with almost all of the definitions collected. There are also the other problems that have been pointed out (that the definition is confusing and contradicts the wikipedia definition of woman) so it really needs changing. I hope it goes without saying that this is not a matter of being pro or anti trans rights. As a trans (non-binary) person myself I care passionately about trans rights. I also care about wikipedia being an accurate and trustworthy source.Diotima423 (talk) 09:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
The issue here is you are arguing for a WP:FALSEBALANCE between RS that refer to trans women as women and people who are uncomfortable with that. This same argument came up in previous RFC and did not prevail.Rab V (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
There's no false balance here. I'm suggesting we use a definition employed by the leading trans rights organisations around the world. That's not giving support to any fringe view. I ask again, can you or anyone explain what would be wrong with using a definition such as the one Stonewall uses?Diotima423 (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Stonewall isn't a leading world trans rights organization; it only recently changed to start including trans rights in its mission. Either way Stonewall's webpage is not a reliable source in this case since it's a primary source, read WP:RS. Their definition doesn't contradict the current one as well and the lead is more succinct as is. A lot of these kinds of arguments came up in the previous RFC, I suggest looking it over. It has been stated multiple times as well that the women article on wikipedia explicitly includes trans women and that other wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Rab V (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok - then here's the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32979297 "People assigned female at birth but living as a man may describe themselves as a "transgender man", while those assigned male at birth but living as a woman may call themselves a "transgender woman". These terms can be shortened to "trans man" or "trans woman". " Is that a reliable secondary source? And you say "Their definition doesn't contradict the current one" - that's the point. My suggested definition is compatible with pretty much all the definitions that have been collected including that one. So I ask again, what is wrong with the definition "a person assigned male at birth who identifies as a woman" or a variant of that? Diotima423 (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
BBC is RS though more specialized sources would be higher quality. The point you are making about the generality of your prefered definition has been discussed in the previous RFC, I suggest you read it. Rab V (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Can you post a link to the RFC. Here's a detailed presentation from Harvard Medical School - https://lgbt.hms.harvard.edu/files/lahms/files/transgender_health_101.pdf (page 8) "Transgender woman:an individual who identifies as a woman, but was not assigned this gender/sex at birth". There are many many others.Diotima423 (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Date:15-08-2020, 11.18 PM IST:Look guys....This edit page is too confusing for me. I don't understand many of the codes you uses...WP for example. If i read everything , i may understand. But i don't have time. I am a novice reader, in the sense, I actually came to Wikipedia to understand what is a trans-woman and what is a trans-man and the page here on WIKI, especially the first line gave me the wrong idea. I am sure that will be the case with any novice reader-which fails the purpose of Wikipedia. You guys have to do something here. That stonewall definition and the BBC definition both are better; but still not perfect. Trans-woman for example is someone who is born with the internal and external anatomy of a man(in other words born with the reproductive system of a male)! But does the novice reader understand this fact from those definitions or from the wiki page on trans women? Shouldn't the wiki page make them understand this one fact? I found that the entire WIKI article have tried its very best so that people don't understand that one most basic of facts!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey577 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Lots of Wikipedia articles use concepts not everyone will understand. We often use blue links you can click on to read more when articles use concepts that are mainly outside the scope off the main article. Similarly we often link to wikipedia policy as shorthand in long conversations on edit page and blue link those so you can read more. The language you prefer (born with the reproductive system of a male) is not supported by reliable sources so it is unlikely we will change the article to that.
What, the reliable sources on transgender matters don't state that a transwoman is born with the reproductive system (or other biological features) of a male? H Remster (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
The reliable, recent sources consistently use Sex assignment terminology, namely "assigned male at birth". The consensus for the use of this term was very strong at the last RfC on the issue, and is most unlikely to have changed since. Newimpartial (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine. I'm just trying to find my bearings. So can an adult human who has XX chromosomes, plus all the visible features associated in the popular imagination with being a woman, be a trans woman, provided they were assigned "male" at birth? (The "can" in the previous sentence is logical: this is a question about the terminology of the reliable sources on transgender matters.) H Remster (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Remster...It appears you will be a "trans-woman" then! Unless the definition addresses the elephant in the room (ie male reproductive organs), people like you will fall within the tag of "trans-woman"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey577 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Have either of you read the article on Sex assignment? It is actually rather clear about all this. Newimpartial (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I have read the article on Sex assignment. Going by whats written in that article, that lady Remster if for whatever reason was assigned as a male at birth will now fall within the tag "trans-woman". Typically however even if the doctors have assigned a phenotypic female as a "boy" whether by mistake or because of confusing anatomyor for whatever reason, the parents would note it much before concepts of gender identity kick in for the child himself/herself!. To a person knowing the intricacies of these concepts, the WIKI articles on transwomen and sex assignment is probably enough. But to a novice reader who is coming to WIKIPEDIA to find out what actually a transwomen is, one major part of the critical information he needs to understand the concept is that the reproductive system (especially internal sex organs)of a trans-woman is that of a male. And that a trans-woman belongs to the male sex of the human species. I am sure all of you guys knows this. But where is WIKIPEDIA commenting on this? Or should we need a subsection on "anatomy of a trans-woman" to clear this out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey577 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The sources currently used in the article do not discuss these aspects of anatomy, as far as I know. Of course there are health issues specific to certain subsets of transgender people, and some these issues concern the reproductive system: e.g. health issues for those on hormones, for those who have had surgery, and for that matter affecting those working to "pass" without hormones or surgery. These issues could certainly be discussed in the article to a greater extent than they are at present. However, reproductive systems are not DUE for discussion in the lede since they are not emphasized by the RS on Trans women, and for the most part such discussion would also have to comply with WP:MEDRS. Newimpartial (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Have I read the article on sex assignment? Of course I have, but I've been warned not to expect consistency across Wikipedia articles, and for that reason I'm taking the first sentence of the present article on its own terms. So my question still stands: Can an adult human who has XX chromosomes, plus all the visible features associated in the popular imagination with being a woman, be a trans woman, provided they were assigned "male" at birth? (This is still a question about the terminology of the reliable sources on transgender matters, and hence the first sentence of the article.) H Remster (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't know under what circumstances such a person was assigned male at birth, so I cannot comment. Could you specify, please? Newimpartial (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
In one scenario, the person who delivers the XX+vag baby and declares "It's a boy!" is visually or mentally impaired. In another scenario, the person who delivers the XX+vag baby and declares "It's a boy!" lies for reasons of cultural expediency. H Remster (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

To Newimpartial...to answer the generic question raised by Remster, the cicumstances under which the XX female was assigned a male gender is irrelevant. Because the definition of trans-women used here on WIKI does not include the circumstances in which "assigned as male at birth"! It only says that transowman is a woman assigned as male birth (whether it was a mistake or with malicious intent or whether it was simply commenting upon the external genitalia etc-these factors are not part of the definition of what really is an assigned male at birth). Therefore your question is irrelevant in answering the question Remster put forward — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey577 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

This is true, of course. I'm just trying to tease out an answer. H Remster (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I am not convinced that either of the above scenarios represent real, 21st century situations. The fact is that people are assigned a sex at birth, and trans people are the ones who later discover within themselves a gender identity that conflicts with their Sex assignment. It really is that simple, and the "reproductive system" is only relevant in this (definitional) context insofar as it affected the initial sex assignment. So if you did have a person who was assigned male without having a penis in infancy, for example, that person would not be a Trans man, but might identify as a Trans woman later if they find themselves with a female Gender identity. Newimpartial (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
But would that person be a trans woman if they simply identified as a woman? (My sights are still on the terminology of the reliable sources on transgender matters, and the first sentence of the article.) H Remster (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
According to 25 of the 32 definitions on the subpage, the answer is "yes", so long as the person identifies as / has a gender identity as / lives as a woman. There are four definitions that would require additional specification (on what is meant by "transition"), and three definitions that use phrases like "born male" that do not clearly acknowledge sex assignment. So that is roughly 80-90% yes for your imaginary limit case, according to a set of definitions that were not collected for that purpose (so, without the linguistic equivalent of model overfitting). Newimpartial (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
But this is the same wrong approach that SMcCandlish noted, where you are starting with your preferred definition and reading into the sources in that light. If we start with the sources, what do you think the WP:Due phrasing would be? Crossroads -talk- 00:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
That is what the "straw tally" subsection, immediately above this new irruption, was a step towards answering. Here I am simply answering Remster's question as it was posted. I am entirely agnostic as to whether their question has any bearing at all on the desirable lede text. Newimpartial (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I also feel confused about the scenario where a baby is assigned female at birth but has XY chromosomes and undescended testes, and then at puberty develops into a typical male sex with male gender identity. By the common definition, this man who was AFAB is a trans man, but do the sources describe exceptions or more detailed definitions for trans man which would exclude those with male gender identity who are genotypically and phenotypically male but AFAB? This is the scenario for some people with the Güevedoces medical condition. I assume the answer to this would help us to define trans woman as well. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Newimpartial: Thanks, and wow. Everyone else: I was asking just to clear up the question of whether there was any sense in the first sentence, or a footnote to the first sentence, specifying that a trans woman is born with stereotypically male features. If even a woman (in the sense recorded in dictionaries) can be a trans woman, then there is no sense in that. H Remster (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Follow-up question for Newimpartial. Can an XY person who was assigned "male" at birth be both a man and a transwoman, if they identify as both? (I'm still on the terminology of the reliable sources on transgender matters, and the first sentence of the article.) H Remster (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I believe such a person would identify as "bigender", "genderfluid" or possibly "genderqueer". It is possible to identify as both a woman/female and a transwoman but not as a man/male and a transwoman, by nature of the logic of the categories, and according to the reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Ha! I think logic left the party a long time ago. Let me put it another way. Can an XY person who was assigned "male" at birth be both an adult human male and a transwoman? H Remster (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
"Adult human male" is ambiguous, since it could refer to a Gender identity or could be the result of a Sex assignment. Which do you mean? Newimpartial (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm so glad you see the importance of disambiguation! Try this. Can a person who was assigned "male" at birth be both (a) an adult human of the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring, and (b) a transwoman? Obviously I think I know the answer, but I'm asking so I can rule out in my own mind some of the possibilities for disambiguating the first sentence of the article. H Remster (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
This thread is veering far into original research territory. If the goal is to improve the article don't worry about hypotheticals unless they are discussed in reliable sources. Rab V (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Care to give an example this time? H Remster (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Can they be? Yes. Must they be? No. Is it part of the definition of Trans woman? No. Newimpartial (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. That's me finished with the questions for now. And thank you for understanding the relevance of hypotheticals, even counterfactual conditionals, to conceptual clarification. H Remster (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Remember folks Wikipedia not a Discussion forum/Chat Room/Debating Society

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is a page that lays out a very basic English Wikipedia policy. It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should follow. Half way down that page you find WP:NOTFORUM, part 4 of which tells us that Wikipedia not a Discussion forum. Separately the is this advice on another page Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum. ~ BOD ~ TALK 23:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes but it helps to establish understanding of the concepts so that we may interpret the sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Thats not what talk pages are for. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines "in a nutshell: Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject ..."
"The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. When talk pages in other namespaces and userspaces are used for discussion and communication between users, discussion should be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia." ~ BOD ~ TALK 23:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
My understanding is that the discussion was about improving the lead and understanding what the sources say about the basic definition.  It's possible I misunderstood the discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
We have had over a month of rambling discussions and NO Proposals to improve the article. ~ BOD ~ TALK 23:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
If you think no proposals have been made, you haven't been paying attention. This is understandable, given that the discussion has been long and tortuous. H Remster (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Kolya Butternut, you haven't misunderstood. The points I've been unable to get anyone apart from NewImpartial (who's been very game) to engage with are: (1) that the first sentence of the article is supposed to tell the non-specialist reader what the subject is (MOS:FIRST); (2) that it can't do this if it uses the word "woman" in a sense that the non-specialist reader doesn't understand; (3) that in the absence of reception analysis, the only reliable sources on what senses of "woman" the non-specialist reader understands are English dictionaries; (4) that English dictionaries don't record the sense of "woman" that's intended by the first sentence of the article; and (5) that something is therefore needed to explain to the non-specialist reader that "woman" isn't being used in any of the senses that they understand.
The ideal solution would be to replace "woman" with a synonymous phrase that the non-specialist reader does understand, but the wording of the sentence seems to be set in stone. Another possibility would be quotation marks to indicate that the language being used is the language of the reliable sources on transgender matters and not the language of the non-specialist reader, but someone will have to hand a policy that rules this out. It's for these reasons that I've suggested a clarificatory footnote, but I can't propose the exact wording, since I don't fully understand the sociological sense of "woman" myself. H Remster (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Please note that points (2), (3) and (4) above are demonstrably irrelevant or false and that therefore (5) does not follow from (1). In particular, I have demonstrated that the meaning of woman as a gender, not a gamete production category, is recognized in all dictionary definitions of "woman" that Remster has cited (so (4) is demonstrated false), that this usage of "woman" is routinely employed in reliable non-specialist publications for a general audience (so (2) is demonstrated false), while (3) is irrelevant, as lexicographic sources do not have any specially privileged position in WP article writing per policy. Remster's allegation that any use of "woman" to mean something other than a gamete production category is "sociological" and relatively unknown has received no evidential support, flies in the face of the use of the word "woman" throughout the English-speaking world (including the article Woman) and is prima facie absurd. Remster's claim here is particularly ironic given that the word "woman" refers etymologically to a social relationship rather than gamete production, so the allegedly "sociological" meaning of the word precedes the "biological" meaning both historically and logically. Newimpartial (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
(2) Is this usage of "woman" employed in the first sentences of those publications, or is it explained first? (3) Link, please, so I know what I'm responding to. (4) No, you haven't. You've demonstrated that there are definitions of "woman" in terms of "female", and definitions of "female" in terms of "woman". I shan't set up a straw man by pretending that's what you're referring to. H Remster (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
(2) Not necessarily either: the term is used when appropriate. (3) the onus is on the one trying to invoke lexicography, and you have not done provided any policy-compliant basis for this. (4) those are not straw men; rather the definitions of "women" as "adult female human beings" and vice versa all reflect the concept of gender, and are not dependent on gamete production categories. For confirmation that this is understood to be a basic expectation in English-language fluency, please see the first definition of "gender" in any reliable lexicographic source (or second definition, for the minority of sources that put the grammatical meaning first). Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
(2) Is it ever employed without explanation? (3) I thought "reliable sources" was the universal watchword. Am I mistaken about that? (4) Explain "reflect", please. H Remster (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
(2) Yes, constantly; (3) lexicographic sources are not more reliable than others, per policy; (4) "reflect" as in "make apparent or manifest" - the apparently circular definitions of "woman" and "female" reveal an appeal to the wider range of meaning disclosed in definitions of "gender". Clearly they cannot be reduced to gamete categories since they are set as alternatives to them in lexicographic entries: everyday definitions of "gender" disclose the sense in which the words "woman" and "female" are being used in these apparently circular definitions (which are clearly intended by lexicographers neither to be circular nor to be collapsed back to gamete categories). Newimpartial (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I have taken my query regards a talk page being used as a discussion forum to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests‎ for advice. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Bodney says, "You're not proposing how to improve the article!" Remster says, "Here's how I'm proposing how to improve the article: X, Y, Z." Bodney says, "You're not proposing how to improve the article!"
I believe the key term there was "improving". Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
(2) Are you willing to provide any examples that can be accessed free of charge via the World Wide Web? I realise you're not obliged to, but it would help. (3) Which policy states that lexicographic sources are no more reliable than non-lexicographic sources on matters of lexicology? I appreciate that dictionaries are aimed at the popular market rather than the academic, but still. (4) Help me out. Give me a chain of definitions (from the same source, obvs) that connects "woman" to something explicitly non-biological. While you're at it, have a think about why a chain of definitions might be required to reach that point, rather than definition 1 or definition 2 being "<insert non-biological definition of 'woman'>". H Remster (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
"1. b. Characteristic of or appropriate to this sex in humans and other animals: female hormones; female fashions."[1] The "female gender" is typically characteristic of the "female sex". I don't know if that helps. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
What's that a response to? H Remster (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC) 18 August 2020 (UTC)

My comment was meant to connect "woman" to something explicitly non-biological. Woman is an adult female human, where female is of or characteristic of the female sex. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

You think "adult of-or-characteristic-of-the-female-sex human" is non-bio?" Feel free to unpack that in non-bio terms. H Remster (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether I understood you correctly, but I am just showing a definition of female which is not necessarily biological. Like, an orange fruit has the color characteristic of an orange without necessarily having the biology of an orange. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Remster: (2) I already provided three examples above; I will not be dipping into that well again. (3) Please reread your sentence; it is a classic example of moving the goalposts, in this instance by insisting that your interlocutor demonstrate a negative. (4) If you are unable to read the primary definitions of "gender" provided by lexicographers free of charge via the World Wide Web, and see how they cut the Gordian knot of recursive "woman"/"female" definitions, I'm afraid I am not able to help you. Newimpartial (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

(2) Please (I'm begging you) point me to the relevant comment. (3) It's OK, I understand informal logic, even if I often make mistakes. I was misled by the placement of "per policy" (absurd use of "per", by the way) at the end of the sentence rather than between "not" and "more". Is your point that there's no WP policy that states that lexicographic sources are more reliable than non-lexicographic sources on matters of lexicology? (Note that I'm asking for clarification instead of picking an interpretation and running with it.) (4) I'm asking about a chain from "woman" to "...". I didn't mention gender. H Remster (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
(2) This one. (3) Please don't add on matters of lexicology - this is yet another self-serving shift of semantic terrain. (4) If you don't see how the information provided by reliable lexicologists in their entries on "gender" resolves the apparent "woman"/"female" recursion, as I say, I just can't help you. Newimpartial (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Let me try to explain (3) better. Remster's original claim was, in the absence of reception analysis, the only reliable sources on what senses of "woman" the non-specialist reader understands are English dictionaries. I objected to this as irrelevant, as lexicographic sources do not have any specially privileged position in WP article writing per policy. Then the conversation went sideways, supposedly because Remster was confused by "per policy", though I still do not see why. To take a step back, then, WP policy does not direct us to any particular set of sources to determine what the non-specialist reader understands - this is reception analysis, and not something we are enjoined to do. What is more, there is no set of sources that policy tells us to use to clobber each other with in resolve disputes in terminology; reliable sources are to be judged by the usual criteria of WP:V, with no special dispensation for lexicologists. Here endeth the lesson. Newimpartial (talk)
(2) Well, I can't take the New Statesman seriously as a source, because it's just a magazine that hardly anyone reads, and because it's behind a paywall. The other two say a lot about "identifying as a woman" and the like, but that sheds no light on what they mean by "woman". If they talked about "being a woman" (my italics), that would be informative, because the first sentence of the article starts "A trans woman is a woman" (my italics). But they don't. (3) I can't understand for a moment how talking about "English dictionaries" and subsequently talking about "lexicology" represents any sort of shift at all, but I can see that your addendum is more important. I can believe that WP doesn't state that lexicologists are reliable sources on lexicology. To give me some sort of context, where does WP state that authors on transgender matters are reliable sources on transgender matters? (4) You have things back to front. What the definitions of "gender" tell us is how people who use "gender" in everyday parlance generally understand "gender". They tell us nothing about how people who use "woman" in everyday parlance generally understand "woman". If the non-bio use of "woman" was sufficiently widespread, it would warrant its own entry among the definitions of "woman" (unless, that is, lexicographers are rubbish lexicologists, or dictionary editors are evil transphobes). H Remster (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Remster, if you can't read those articles with understanding of how they are using the term "woman", that shows something about your own limitations, but does not undermine my point that "woman" is used constantly in everyday language to refer to the female gender. This should also be clarified for you in lexicological accounts dictionary definitions of "gender", which use the terms "female" and/or "woman" in the sense we have been discussing - and these non-specialist dictionary entries have the same degree of authority as those of "woman" and "female" to which you constantly (and unjustifiably) refer. The "non-bio" use of "woman" is absolutely included in each dictionary definition you have cited; you just can't see it because of your insistence on a definitional "chain", while actual language science is much more holistic than you allow.
Finally - and let me put this as simply as I can - the article Trans woman is not an entry in the domain of lexicology, so your lexicological sources have no special authority here, per policy. The reliable sources on Transgender topics do, however. Newimpartial (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
(2) The problem here is that you're pushing a POV. I accept that my personal experience and understanding of the English language might be unrepresentative, which is why I'm appealing to the reliable sources on the English language rather than my own interpretations of a couple of texts. (3) Did you give me a link to that policy? (4) You've ignored my point. You're right that no entry has more authority than any other. But what the entry for "gender" tells us is how a significant proportion of the people who use the word "gender" in everyday English use the word "gender". It doesn't tell us how a significant proportion of the people who use the word "woman" in everyday English use the word "woman". If a significant proportion of the people who use the word "woman" in everyday English used the word to signify gender (in the non-bio sense) rather than sex (in the bio sense), then "gender" or something equivalent would feature prominently in the definientia of "woman". I hope I don't have to fabricate some numbers to illustrate my point.
"... the article Trans woman is not an entry in the domain of lexicology ...". Yawn, straw man. H Remster (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The "pushing a POV" comment doesn't seem to apply to anything I have actually written here, so I am unable to respond except to remind Remster to discuss the contribution, not the contributor.
The "link to a policy" comment is yet another attempt to tempt me to prove a negative, and I will decline, with thanks to the nominator.
The final comment, insofar as I understand it, makes claims about the practice of lexicology the relevance of which to this article have not been demonstrated, so I will leave that alone as well. Newimpartial (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
(2) I'm referring to your "point that 'woman' is used constantly in everyday language to refer to the female gender". This is an unsourced assertion based on your own experience and your interpretation of a couple of texts. (3) What? I'm asking you where WP policy states (or even implies) that authors on transgender matters are reliable sources on transgender matters. There's no negative there. (4) What are you expressing doubt about: the relevance of lexicology generally, or the relevance of my most recent comments about lexicology? H Remster (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
(2) I am making a BLUESKY assertion here. (3) WP:RS (4) Yes and yes. No relevance has been demonstrated, recently or generally. Newimpartial (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I've finally tired of the ignorant interruptions from contributors who don't understand what we're disagreeing about but feel the need to pile in anyway. I'm going to continue this discussion within the terms set by Kolya Butternut, who seems to have made more progress in the space of a few comments than I've made in six weeks of bickering. It's been a qualified pleasure, but I shan't look back. H Remster (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Does my comment address your question? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I hadn't spotted that. It doesn't exactly address my question, but it does tell me that I need to express myself differently. I accept that "characteristic of the female sex" is biological in the sense that it makes reference to biology ("the female sex") but non-biological in the sense that it signifies a quality (being-characteristic-of-the-female-sex) that isn't itself biological. I'd be amazed if "female" in "adult human female" was intended to include "characteristic of the female sex" as well as "of the female sex", but I've been amazed before. (More importantly, it wouldn't rule out the need to disambiguate "woman" in the first sentence of the article.) H Remster (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, female gender is a gender that's characteristic of the female sex, so a woman is an adult female-gendered or female-sexed human. As I said in a section above, I wouldn't recommend using a word (woman) from the term we are defining (trans woman) in the definition of that term, especially when the definition of a woman as female-gendered but not necessary female-sexed seems to be a relatively new common understanding of the word. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
That certainly follows if the sense of "female" intended in "adult human female" is "characteristic of the female sex". I don't know whether it is, but I agree that the ambiguity renders the use of "woman" to define "trans woman" in the first sentence of the article unhelpful. H Remster (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


Anyone else find it really egregious that a subsection pointing out that this talk page has devolved into pointless, circular, and unhelpful arguing has just become a second place for the same editors to continue their pointless, circular, and unhelpful argument about absolutely nothing? --Equivamp - talk

It seems that three editors have come closer to a consensus on rewording the first sentence. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
No, but I find it really ironic that this is the first comment in a section berating editors for (allegedly) not discussing how to improve the article that doesn't discuss how to improve the article. H Remster (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Truly? I don't see any suggestions in the nonsense above, but perhaps I missed it. Would the consensus of these three editors be enough to overturn previous RFC? --Equivamp - talk 03:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm assuming Remster is closer to supporting something like: "A Trans woman is a person of the female gender who was assigned male at birth." H Remster, is there any truth to that? Even if that is the preference, the weight of the sources must still be evaluated. I'm not familiar with the RfC. I imagine three !votes is nothing, but if the arguments are new it could make a difference. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
It looks like this option was not considered at the RfC, but I assume Newimpartial and others discussed this proposal elsewhere. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
No; around the last RfC there was no gathering of sources similar to the straw poll, above, and while the RfC's direction regarding sex assignment language was clear, the two formulations offered for the opening of the lede didn't really develop or change - it was a rather polarized discussion. I certainly never proposed the person of female gender language before, nor can I remember anyone else doing so. Newimpartial (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Kolya Butternut, yes, I would support that. The link to Gender avoids any offending mention of biology, while providing an immediate route to an explanation of how "female" is being used in the context. I'm assuming here that it's an accurate paraphrase of the RS definitions. Perhaps someone with greater subject-matter knowledge could confirm. H Remster (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
One further thought occurs to me. Would there be any scope for bringing "female" into the link to Gender: so "female gender" rather than "female gender"? That would ram home the message. H Remster (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
In a way, it's appropriate that this subsection too has turned into the same wall of much the same kind back-and-forth. I would remind editors that simply because one person (and/or the occasional IP) wants to WP:IDHT forever, other editors are not obliged to keep replying forever. -sche (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Perfect, another read-little, understood-less contribution. We've moved on. H Remster (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
lol. -sche (talk) 10:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

A few editors in the big RFC also suggested wording similar to what Remster is now, it never caught on and I don't see a reason why it would be different now. Rab V (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean that they were ignored, or that reasons were given for rejecting the suggestion? If the latter, perhaps you could elaborate. H Remster (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
You can go to the RFC and read it yourself, just search for the term female gender. Per sche I am not interested in endless responding to every request for more info though. Will note WP:TE warns that asking for sources for your own arguments from other editors is a characteristic of tendentious editors and others should not feel obliged to respond to such requests. Rab V (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
That's a very strange interpretation of my reply. I was asking for sources for your argument. (I suppose you might not have been offering an argument but simply have been announcing what you don't see a reason for; but there's probably a policy about that.) H Remster (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
The closer made no comment on "female gender", and it was not one of the proposals. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
There were threads discussing the term including criticism I don't see this discussion addressing. It also never gained enough editor support to be a separate proposal.Rab V (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I haven't found them, so I can't comment further. For now, I'll rely on NewImpartial's recollection of previous discussions. H Remster (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Can you share the criticism which is not addressed?  It's hard to make sense of those threads which don't use terms consistently. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I've had another search for "gender" in the RfC, and I still can't find the criticism. H Remster (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Here is the noticeboard discussion which lead to the big RfC. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I'd seen the RfC but not that page. A five-minute scan of the page has left me none the wiser as to the criticisms. How about you? (I was surprised by the scarcity of references to reliable sources, as opposed to references to WP:RS.) H Remster (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't have time to review the RfC today, but as someone that was there I recollect the following: (1) the discussion was highly polarized between "A trans woman is a woman who was AMAB" and "A trans woman is a person who was AMAB and identifies as a woman"; (2) I do not recall any particular push to include "gender" (as opposed to identity) in the definition as a third option, or any opposition to such an approach; (3) Aside from references to the RS supporting "assigned male at birth", I don't remember any significant assembling of sources to support one or another opening of the lede.
If there was an important argument made to oppose the term "gender" (as opposed to "gender identity") in the lede, I hope someone can include a diff here, but I don't remember any such thing. Newimpartial (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
For info, I've just worked my way through the noticeboard discussion and found no sourced definitions that aren't in the list provided by Crossroads. There are some definitions that are related to "trans woman" but not of "trans woman", and some broken links. Still no sign of criticisms of "female gender [identity]", however. H Remster (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
There is certainly criticism of "identifies as" language in the RfC, some of which could also be seen as applying to "gender identity" at least in part since the concepts themselves are related. Newimpartial (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that. Obviously "identifies as" and "has ... identity" are related etymologically and semantically, but doesn't "identifies as" imply choice in a way that "has ... identity" doesn't? In any case, I didn't notice any RS-based criticism of "identifies as" in the RfC (which isn't to say that I didn't just miss it). H Remster (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps I should add that I'm not particularly concerned about this: "person of the female gender" sounds better to me, and the link allows the heavy lifting to be done by Gender. But I'm also aware that the language of identity is prominent in the definitions collected so far. H Remster (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Gender includes gender identity in the definition. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
OK, I'll keep quiet about "identi-" until the "But, but, but RS!" objections start to pile up. It will be interesting to see if anyone prefers "person who identifies as a woman" to "person of the female gender". H Remster (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Progress after all?

It seems that above there is significant support for a lead sentence reading "A trans woman is a person of the female gender who was assigned male at birth." I agree with the various arguments that this is better, closer to sources, and less confusing than the current lead sentence. I had fallen off the wagon of the discussion here, but I was pleasantly surprised to see that progress had actually been made. I think we should go ahead and implement it.

The past noticeboard discussion was closed pointing to the RfC. When it comes to interpreting RfCs, we go by the closure. Regarding the past RfC's closure, I'll quote the sentences specifically about consensus (rather than noting arguments) with quotes of the options added for readability: There is consensus against options 3 [a woman whose biological sex does not align with their gender identity] and 4 [a male-to-female (MTF) transsexual or transgender person]. There is consensus against option 8 [General support for "biological"]. There is a consensus that the word "assigned" is preferable to the word "biological" (and "genetic", and similar words) for use in the lead sentence based on the current most reliable sources....This consensus applies only to the lead sentence and does not in itself preclude the use of "biological sex" in the remainder of the article....On the whole, there is consensus that both option 1 [a woman who was assigned male at birth] and option 2 [a person who was assigned male at birth but identifies as a woman] are superior to other presented options. There is no consensus as to whether option 1 or option 2 is preferable. In the absence of affirmative consensus, the status quo (which appears to be option 1) holds. This does not preclude any subsequent discussions about the article content, but participants should in all cases refrain from edit-warring over the content of the lead or the article more broadly.

The current proposal did not exist during the RfC, nor did our Definitions subpage. It looks like we are allowed to reach a new consensus for the lead sentence, given that the RfC only found either consensuses against other versions and a preference for options 1 and 2 that was only relative to the then-presented options. I suggest we go ahead and implement the new proposal, as an improvement, even if it is not thought perfect by some. If some think it is not an improvement, then let's hear the policy and guideline based reasons why, keeping in mind that consensus is not unanimity. Crossroads -talk- 20:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

You'll be unsurprised to hear that I support this (well, unsurprised now I've calmed down and you've caught up). The only objections I can think of would be (a) that the majority of RS use neither "gender" nor the language of identity in their definitions of "trans woman", and (b) that there's something crucial in the meaning of "woman" that's missing from the meaning of "person of the female gender". H Remster (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
A person of female gender is an awkward way of avoiding saying a woman. This same criticism was in the RFC for option 2 and from the rambling arguments above it seems to be the primary reason it is being suggested. The arguments for it above are largely based in OR as well. I also don't think the current threads represents consensus, several editors were off put by the WP:NOTFORUM directions it went, said so, and didn't want to participate. The definition subpage also doesn't clearly support that definition over the current one but also contains RS that are of wildly varying quality so is hard to use anyway. Rab V (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Rab V comments regards 'A person of female gender is an awkward way of avoiding saying a woman' as well the rest of their comments. ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it's awkward, but "woman" is broader than "person of the female gender", because it encompasses "person of the female sex", and, as we know, a person of the female sex needn't be a person of the female gender (and vice versa).
More importantly, which are the high quality RS on the definitions page, and what other high quality RS are there? I checked the noticeboard discussion and the RfC earlier today and didn't find any other RS proposed, but I realise that disregarding the low quality ones might shift the balance by itself. H Remster (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Quality of RS depends on field and this page straddles a couple different fields like medicine and sociology so there is more than one way to look at it. In general a more in depth peer-reviewed source from specialists in a field is better; there are some exceptions to this though like WP:MEDRS preference for survey articles to single studies. But right off the bat dictionaries are not always WP:RS and are certainly not written by experts in this fields. Some of the sources are from random subpages on universities: it's unclear who the author is and if it is a source that is peer-reviewed or something put up by a club or HR department. One of the sources listed is a Seattle police department manual. Not sure why SPD would be reliable experts on this subject. Rab V (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I completely agree with you. However, the sources on the definitions page compiled by Crossroads are the only ones that have been offered. So what are the alternatives? H Remster (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
There are RS already used in this article and Google Scholar/Google books/a library look up of experts like Judith Butler or Susan Stryker; I'm also not saying every source in that list isn't usable. Just that single sentence definitions from a list of sources of varying quality is difficult to use besides to say broadly some sources use this or that wording within their single sentence definition. I also don't think in general wikipedia is written based off finding a majority wording for a definition. Instead we represent the concepts found in sources giving weight to more recent and higher quality sources. In general RS see trans women as both being women and having a female gender identity so it makes sense why the previous RFC didn't end up with one clear consensus and why sources write their definitions in varying ways. Rab V (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I believe the purpose of the definitions page (which no-one has added to, unfortunately) is to collect definitions that have been written to be understood without any prior knowledge of the subject-matter. This chimes with what I've read in MOS:FIRST. I think there's a presumption that writers for the APA and so on will already have done the work of studying the academic sources. It would be informative (to me, at least) if you were to list the numbers of the definitions for which you think the sources are or aren't credible - whichever list is shorter. H Remster (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
That's more work than I am interested in doing at this time. Rab V (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh, OK. I assumed you'd already examined the list. H Remster (talk) 10:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Three or four people on this page like this one is does not really amount yet to significant support ...I think this really needs to go to a RfC to change the wording from what was agreed before by a much larger collection of editors? Lets put the suggested improved wording to a vote :)
I must positively admit after a very very very long tortious (did I say very long?) [discussion. I] can now see some fruit emerging (not saying if its useful fruit atm) (which I can see merit but also I may have partial issue with.... but i must thoroughly read through and digest this multi-section thread to check the wise judges arguments encase I missed something). Sincere apologies to those concerned regards the discussions usefulness, but the discussion was so long and tortious i must admit it just seemed like an endless impenetrable private chat room fencing match at times that was off putting. ~ BOD ~ TALK 20:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
While I won't argue *against* an RfC, I will point out (1) that the last RfC left the current first sentence by default, not because that formulation had consensus and (2) that the one part of the RfC that received clear consensus - the sex assignment piece - is preserved intact in the new proposal. That means that the new proposal could be seen as a specification of rather than a change to the last RfC result.
I would also suggest that if there is to be another RfC, it should be a simple "yes/no" to the new proposal rather than anything more complicated. Newimpartial (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
No apology needed. I'm a newbie at this and would approach it very differently if I could start again. I fully understand the irritation. Now I'm a little bit more experienced, I've been reflecting on what might have induced me to take a different approach in the first place. No answers yet. By the way, I'd recommend saving yourself the time and skipping straight to the section "Created new subpage to collect definitions", which is where anything worthwhile (outside the present section) has taken place. H Remster (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Newimpartial, you have far more experience of this than I have, and I understand why those who were involved in the last RfC would have little appetite for another one, but is a crude show of hands how this is supposed to work? H Remster (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I very much agree with trying to keep it simple and straight forward for all those involved. ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
This is what I had in mind: WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. My concern is that a simple "yes/no" will float free of RS and be a vehicle for personal agendas. To be honest, this is the impression I have of the last noticeboard discussion and RfC. If I remember correctly, only one participant provided multiple sources in support of their position. H Remster (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
RFC's are not just a tally of votes; they are also judged by the quality of reasoning and which arguments respect Wiki policy. Having a simple yes/no just makes participating and tracking arguments easier for all involved. Rab V (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
An RfC is an inclusive approach and should the proposed wording gain majority backing it would give it a bit more more authority to protect it against lone editors trying to change it again. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
My comment for Remster here would be that not only is an RfC !vote not a literal (democratic) vote, but in a well-run RfC the weight the closer gives to the !votes in determining consensus should depend more on the policy weight of the arguments and not so much on the quality of the linked sources. That is, RfCs work best when the universe of relevant "facts" (sources, diffs) is generally agreed and is manageable, so the !voters can bring WP policy to bear on these questions; in other words, where there is some kind of Fact-value distinction at play. On the other hand, RfCs where both (or multiple) sides present "their own facts" and disagree about the relevant RS and diffs tend to have less satisfactory outcomes. (Please note that I am making no ontological or epistemological claims here about whether a fact-value distinction is ever "real"; I am simply saying that RfCs where the "facts" can be agreed work better than ones where both the facts and the policy considerations are disputed by the participants.) Newimpartial (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you (although I'm a touch disappointed that you thought I might need a link to Fact-value distinction). So are the facts agreed on this page before the RfC kicks off? H Remster (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Definitely not an improvement. "A trans woman is a person of the female gender who was assigned male at birth" is awkward, stilted wording that presumes that the reader already understands the meaning of 'gender' in this context; I don't see how it offers anything at all over simply saying "woman". I'll also point out that roughly a third of the comments on this talk page over the past two months have been made by a single user, to the point where this is starting to feel like WP:BLUDGEONING. The current version has been stable for over two years; while a few users have been very vocal in their dislike of it, it clearly hasn't caused the problems that naysayers raised way back when. --Aquillion (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    The main points I would make in reply are (1) the last RfC did not reach consensus for the present wording (except for the Sex assignment part); it was essentially a No consensus close that thereby retained (but did not strictly mandate) the status quo, and (2) I think there is a stylistic advantage to not repeating "woman", but instead defining it - also, anyone who doesn't understand the meaning of 'gender' won't understand the meaning of "woman" either, in the sense it is used in the lede, and gender is a more helpful wikilink than woman in discerning the relevant meanings. So AFAICT, your judgement Definitely not an improvement is open to fairly strenuous objection. But we may indeed need an RfC to know for sure.Newimpartial (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    If it's awkward there are other ways to word it: "a trans woman is a person with a female gender"; "a trans woman is a person whose gender is female". Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    The only change is defining the word woman. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    I think what's missing from this section is the crucial link from "gender" (or "female gender") to Gender within the proposed definition. Concerns about linking "woman" to Woman were raised long before I got involved (I now realise), so I shan't try to open that can of worms again. As for what "person of the female gender" offers over "woman", the answer is precision. "Woman" encompasses both persons of the female gender and persons of the female sex; "person of the female gender" does not. I suppose it's the converse of "person with a cervix", or whatever. H Remster (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
H Remster, I'm not understanding your "Woman is broader" and "Woman encompasses both persons of the female gender and persons of the female sex; 'person of the female gender' does not" arguments. So many surveys and legal documents ask, "What is your gender?" And then have "male" and "female" listed. The vast majority of people responding in these cases are not transgender. They are cisgender men (or boys) and women (or girls). These girls and women are of the female sex and of the female gender. Gender refers to both sex and gender identity or categorization. In other words, one thing it refers to is the gender categories of "men (or boys)" and "women (or girls)." And, as we know, people are usually cisgender, meaning their sex aligns with their gender/gender identity. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Flyer22 Frozen, I didn't express myself well there. I meant that "woman" (as a word in everyday English rather than a technical term within the field of gender studies) is broad enough to encompass persons of the female sex who aren't persons of the female gender. I have in mind, for example, adults of the female sex who lack whatever mental capacities are required to have a gender. I'd make the same point about "girl" and infants of the female sex. H Remster (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
"[A]dults of the female sex who lack whatever mental capacities are required to have a gender."? It seems you are speaking of people who are mentally disabled to the point that they don't comprehend gender. If so, they are categorized as male/man or as female/woman by society. By "broad enough to encompass persons of the female sex who aren't persons of the female gender", are you including trans men and non-binary people in that? Are you describing them as women in some sense? I'm confused by what you are stating. As this point in time, I don't think I'm going to agree with the argument you're making. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Flyer22 Frozen, mentally disabled people have the genders that society gives them. I thought you might say that. Deus ex machina. How about an adult who knows they're a person of the female sex but either identifies as having no gender, or just doesn't identify as having a gender? Don't you think there's an everyday sense of the word "woman" whereby it would be true to say of that adult "That woman has no gender"? If it's a no, and you won't accept dictionaries as providing evidence of everyday senses of words, I probably have nowhere else to go with this. H Remster (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
These hypothetical arguments long since strayed into WP:OR territory but I will say there are people who don't identify with either gender and wikipedia policy and RS generally would not refer to them as women and would only use the pronouns and gendered words they prefer. I suggest reading more than a dictionary if you are interested in gender theory. Rab V (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Rab V, I'm afraid you've missed the point again. No-one is suggesting that either Wikipedia should, or the RS actually do, refer to people who don't identify with any (not "either") gender as "women". However, thank you for confirming that the existence of such people isn't hypothetical. H Remster (talk) 10:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
H Remster, for me, this isn't about not accepting what dictionaries state. I don't see that what dictionaries state have anything to do with what you've stated in your above responses to me in this "Progress after all?" section. I'm not interested in continuing this particular discussion; so I'll leave it at that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh, that's a pity, because the remark about dictionaries was incidental (missing the point seems to be epidemic around here). H Remster (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I missed no point. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, you did. You made my point all about dictionaries, whereas in fact it was all about everyday senses of words. H Remster (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
As is clear above, nowhere did I make your point all about dictionaries, or dictionaries at all. It is Rab V who stated, "I suggest reading more than a dictionary if you are interested in gender theory." Dictionaries are not mentioned in my "02:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)" and "23:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)" posts. I mentioned dictionaries in my "02:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)" post, but that is only after you mentioned them. I then told you, clear as day, "H Remster, for me, this isn't about not accepting what dictionaries state. I don't see that what dictionaries state have anything to do with what you've stated in your above responses to me in this 'Progress after all?' section." Now that you mention "everyday senses of words" again, I do wonder how you are defining things. You first state "if you won't accept dictionaries as providing evidence of everyday senses of words, I probably have nowhere else to go with this" and now you state "You made my point all about dictionaries, whereas in fact it was all about everyday senses of words." What? Do not falsely claim that I stated things, or made things about something, to unnecessarily keep this discussion going. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Let's cut to the chase. You said: "for me, this isn't about not accepting what dictionaries state". Good. It isn't for me either. It's about everyday senses of words (i.e. what words mean in common parlance, as opposed to the jargon of an academic discipline). My point is that the everyday sense of "woman" is broad enough for the following sentence to be true of an adult human of the female sex who doesn't identify as having a gender: "That woman has no gender". H Remster (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "Person of the female gender" seems to just be taking the long way round to say what the sentence already says. Alternate wordings proposed by User:Kolya Butternut above are at least less awkward (with my own preference being for whose gender is female if I had to pick one). As for the argument that avoiding repetition of the word "woman" is preferable stylistically, I don't think I agree. The article Black women plainly says Black women are women, apparently uncontroversially, and doesn't see the need to wikilink to the woman article. I see the benefit of the link to the Gender article in the lead, but I'm not sure what amounts to essentially butchering the current concise wording of the opening sentence is the way to do it. I'd be interested in reading opinions from other editors in an RfC if there is one. --Equivamp - talk 00:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    I promise not to get involved in another running battle about this, but I would like to read your response to the point that the word "woman" also encompasses persons of the female sex (who may be persons of the male gender, of some other gender, of multiple genders, or of no gender at all). This is why "person of the female gender" is more precise than "woman". H Remster (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I added a paper (#34) to the definitions subpage which discusses the definition of gender identity. I think it shows we can replace "woman" with "female gender identity" in the definition of trans woman. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I removed it because that page is for definitions of the term we are defining in the first sentence of this article. Other stuff will confuse RfC participants. Such stuff had to be removed before because it really was a slippery slope that kept accumulating extra stuff, as can be seen above on this talk page. But I've pasted it for you below; if you want a separate section here or subpage for definitions of gender identity, that's fine with me.
    • "The most widely accepted definition of gender identity characterises it as ‘a sense of oneself as a man, woman, or some other gender’. It will be immediately apparent to the reader that this ‘folk’ definition is not complete until some account is offered of what it is to have a sense of oneself as ‘a man, woman, or some other gender’. This is where the folk definition begins to run into difficulties: no such account is usually offered as part of the definition, and there is no consensus on what kind of account might be appropriate. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that many people who use the language of gender identity hold an understanding of what it is to be a ‘man, woman, or some other gender’ that is highly unsuited to supplementing the folk definition of gender identity. This is the view that gender terms such as ‘man’ and ‘woman’ ought to be understood in terms of gender identity: to be a man is to identify as a man (or, to have a male gender identity); to be a woman is to identify as a woman (or, to have a female gender identity); [Note 3: In this paper I will use the phrase ‘X identifies as a man/woman’ and ‘X has a male/female gender identity’ interchangeably, taking them to mean exactly the same thing. This is purely for reasons of grammatical convenience; I am not, e.g., using ‘male/female’ as sex terms rather than gender terms.]" "Toward an Account of Gender Identity", Ergo: AN OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY Crossroads -talk- 02:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Follow up comment: Okay, changing without an RfC seems too contentious. If there is an RfC, I'd very much like to support what Newimpartial said about how "it should be a simple "yes/no" to the new proposal rather than anything more complicated." Perhaps it could be worded like this: "Would a first sentence reading [such and such] be an improvement over the current first sentence?" This yes/no question would help to avoid the addition of a bunch of new proposals by participants that ends up muddying the waters and scaring off new participants. But I don't think we should start an RfC just yet. We could discuss tweaks to the wording of the proposal, like Kolya Butternut mentioned above. In fact one of the proposals - "a trans woman is a person whose gender is female" - I think could be especially improved upon by adding "identity", thus resulting in "a trans woman is a person whose gender identity is female", with "gender identity" wikilinked. This clarifies the sense of gender involved. It also matches the 20 out of 33 sourced definitions - a majority - that use some variant of identity/identify when defining the term. And this includes very reputable scholarly sources like The Lancet, an academic book by Springer, and the American Psychological Association; and very trans-positive sources like Planned Parenthood and Stonewall. Crossroads -talk- 02:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    While I would not BLUDGEON over this (shocker!), I have slowly and with much reflection come to believe that "gender" would work better than "gender identity" in the first sentence of the lede. This is partly for reasons of lay comprehension, as noted before, and only a little because it covers the proto-trans cases where the term "gender identity" is anachronistic. The main reason I feel this way is that the concept of "gender identity" is (quite obviously) contested in multiple ways, and one of the positions in that contest - held by some adherents and some detractors of gender identity - is equated to a purely interior sense of self. What struck me most about the definitions collected from various sources here was how few of them (I think it was 7 out of 30) used the concept of gender identity without also tying it to other concepts like "living it out" or "transitioning". As I have said before, gender is a broader concept than gender identity, and what I took from the survey of definitions and the straw poll was that actually, the typical or median definition of "Trans woman" actually has more meat on its bones, in terms of embodied female gender (or womanhood), than some interpretations of "gender identity" would allow. Of course there are plenty of RS that look on gender identity more as a lived experience and less as a nominal identification, but I really do think it would be clearer in this context to start with the more fulsome, and better-understood concept of gender rather than the more slippery term "gender identity". But that is an observation and certainly not a hill I would die defending, as it were. Newimpartial (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    We could have two choices.... Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I'm really having trouble following much of your comment. I get the first part: you believe gender works better than gender identity, for some reason which then trails off and made no sense to me; but not matter, it's a preference, and the way you see it. I'll leave the parts I didn't understand, and ask about the parts I did:
    • the concept of "gender identity" is... contested..., and one of the positions in that contest - held by some adherents and some detractors of gender identity - is equated to a purely interior sense of self.
    Wasn't at all aware of any contest. That is what it is. There is no gender identity outside of a person's mental self-conception.
    • What struck me... was how few... used the concept without also tying it to other concepts like "living it out" or "transitioning".
    A person with a trans gender identity may have lived experiences that include those two things, but gender identity stands perfectly alone without any need of support from those things; that is, gender identity does not definitionally depend either on living it out or on transitioning. So, why would it be part of the definition? I suppose it makes sense, sometimes, to include such things for context, or to round out the definition, the way you'd add to a definition of "soldier" in a child's dictionary to round it out and give them some mental picture to hang onto, as "someone who carries guns", "lives with other soldiers", "marches with lots of gear", or "fights enemies in teams", but some soldiers are statistics PhD breaking codes in an aircon office, or procurement management wizards working out how to keep the front lines supplied with enough toilet paper and shaving cream.
    Where it started to get fuzzy for me, was here:
    • gender is a broader concept than gender identity...
    ho-kay; I guess I'll buy that, but as the judge said, "Where are you going with this, counselor?" And then this:
    • the typical or median definition of "Trans woman" actually has more meat on its bones, in terms of embodied female gender (or womanhood), than some interpretations of "gender identity" would allow.
    Now you've fully lost me. Are you aliasing "womanhood" to "embodied female gender"? Color me confused. And I guess I don't understand the second part, "some interpretations of 'gender identity' would allow", most likely because I couldn't deal with reading the whole thread above this, but partly because of the variety of definitions and rapid evolution of numerous terms in the trans galaxy, gender identity is one of the most lucid, unambiguous, and resistant to change over a long period, compared to many of the others, not least of which are transgender and trans woman.
    But I admit to being very late to the party, and perhaps I should have stood around with a cocktail glass in my hand gazing pseudo-knowingly at the crowd or staring into my glass and listening to the chit-chat for a longer period before responding, which is maybe what I should do now. Mathglot (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    First, Mathglot, the issues I raise about "gender" vs. "gender identity" haven't been discussed as part of the current discussion until my recent musings here and in the "straw poll", so don't expect to gain any edification from reviewing the back-and-forth elsewhere on this Talk page.
    As far as "gender identity" goes, I could have expressed myself more clearly (duh). I guess what I see as contested isn't so much the definition of gender identity as its application. So rather than go back to that somewhat nebulous discussion, let's forget that I raised any question about how "gender identity" should be used.
    Probably a better way to make my point is to invoke "gender expression". "Gender identity" excludes "gender expression" by definition, but "gender" potentially includes "gender expression" (as it also includes "gender roles" and many other aspects of gender).
    So, to reframe what I said just above, many/most RS definitions of "Trans woman" or "Trans man" include elements of gender expression rather than gender identity alone. All the definitions that refer to "living as", all the definitions that refer to "transition" and all the definitions that use "is a woman who" are *not* restricting "being a trans woman" to the "purely internal sense of identity" generally denoted by "gender identity". When I referred to "womanhood" above, I was talking about a kind of embodied experience that in these terms is expressed in, well, gender expression.
    I have seen hostility expressed on WP (mostly on Talk:Woman) to "gender expression". Mine may be a parochially Canadian viewpoint on this, since the constitutional protected rights of trans and genderdiverse people here include both "gender identity" and "gender expression" as protected grounds of discrimination. And I am *not* saying that gender expression should be in the lede.
    But I do think that the median RS on this article's topic does not restrict the definition of "Trans woman" to a gender identity alone, but also definitionally includes and also substantially discusses other aspects of gender - of "being a woman", of "living as a woman", of "transitioning" - all part of or related to gender expression. So while Gender identity inextricably key to this article's topic, I would rather see a first sentence of the topic that does not restrict the definition to that. This is why I feel that A trans woman is a person of the female gender who was assigned male at birth does a better job of communicating the article's topic to our readers than the equivalent using "gender identity", quite apart from the semantic quibbles I noted above. Newimpartial (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    I still think that "gender identity" has a better chance of passing the RfC based on RS support, and the phrasing more obviously matches the RS that support it (rather than requiring interpretation). I counted 16 sources of the 33 that say something from among "lives as/transitions/portrays/is a woman", but this is still less than the 20 for "identity", and those 16 aren't on average of higher quality to counteract that. And of those 16, 6 also say identity, with 5 of those saying "and" to connect the point about identity and the point about 'lives as' or similar.
    More to the point, gender identity is more specific and educational. If we just say "gender", that isn't clear to nonspecialist readers what that means. They may wonder, is someone who identifies as a man but who expresses many socially-constructed-as-female (i.e. female/feminine gendered) "behavior, mannerisms, interests, and apperance"-related characteristics a trans woman? Well, they aren't. The crucial determining factor is identity. Those who are assigned male at birth and with a female gender identity are trans women, and those without, aren't.
    That said, I still think above all that the RfC should be presented with no more than yes/no options. Multiple options will just get too complicated. Crossroads -talk- 20:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    Well, as one might expect, I am not entirely convinced. For one thing, I don't think anyone will think that a "feminine" Johnny-Depp-Pirate character is a "person of the female gender" - that seems a bridge too far. I also don't think the "identify as" sources and the "gender identity" sources can be added up as though they were saying the same thing. So while I do agree that gender identity is a key aspect and of course must remain central to the article, I still think "person of the female gender" does a better job in terms of MOS:FIRST of communicating clearly to the nonspecialist reader what the article is about. I have literally been saying for years on this Talk page that this is an article about a gender identity, and I haven't changed my mind about that, but this is more a matter of how to communicate the topic to a general audience and, for that purpose, I think "gender" is the relevant term. And there certainly are RS that define "Trans woman" as a term for gender but not necessarily a gender identity. Newimpartial (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    Then add them to the definitions page! I prefer your version too, but it would be a shame if it was rejected as lacking RS support. H Remster (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    #22 was top of mind. Newimpartial (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    Rather than Johnny Depp I would offer makeup artist John Maclean as an example of someone who appears to be of the female gender but identifies as a man. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I've cast my eye over the definitions page again, and it looks to me as if the most representative way of substituting "female" and "gender" for "woman" but otherwise leaving the sentence untouched would be: A trans woman is a person whose gender identity is female but who was assigned male at birth. Alternatively: A trans woman is a person with a female gender identity who was assigned male at birth. For me, the choice between these two options would rest on whether "but who" in the first option or "with a female gender identity" in the second option sounds less stilted. (Personally, I'd italicise "female" and "male" for grammatical reasons, but I realise that wouldn't be a winner.) H Remster (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I am what you may call a nonspecialist reader who came to Wikipedia a few weeks back and was totally misinformed by Wikipedia. I read everything in that page on transwomen, yet could not still understand what it really meant until i had referred many other sources. Finally it took an individual users direct communicationto make me understand correctly. You guys can play all the politics you want, but at the end of the day your arguments that "its not your fault that people do not understand what gender is" is useless. Gender is what people understand the word to be primarily. Wikipedia is supposed to be an information providing site. But the introductory statement helps only n confusing the "non-expert" reader. If a policy is preventing you from using the wordings necessary to educate a non expert reader, then the site admins should either provide an exception in this particular case so that the required information may be provided. If you however is not going to change your introductory sentence, then do so by accepting that you are probably "misinforming" rather than "informing" most of the novice readers/aka on-expert readers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey577 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

As others have said above, I don't see this as an improvement or a good idea. (Basically I agree with what Aquillion says.) -sche (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Are our replies to Aquillion worthy of comment? Have you anything to say about sources? H Remster (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Female genitalia

The article says: „While some trans women have undergone surgery and may have female genitalia, ...„ Trans women have certainly no female genitalia. After sex reassignment surgery, they may have female looking genitalia, which is quite different. Jorgebox4 (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

What's the difference between "female genitalia" and "female looking genitalia" and can you substantiate that difference in reliable sources? Loki (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn’t the article substantiate the assertion that trans women may have female genitalia with reliable sources instead? Jorgebox4 (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I made this edit to solve the issue. See my edit summary there. WP:MEDRS and anatomical sources do not use the old phrasing. Crossroads -talk- 04:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

New IP comment

I cannot spot an overwhelming consensus among reliable resources that trans women are women. I most definitely find an overwhelming consensus among the major dictionaries of the English language that the word woman means 'adult female human', which excludes trans women. I also see overwhelming consensus that no mammal can transition from the male phenotype to the female phenotype, and that no human exists outside of these two phenotype (even those with intersex conditions). Until such time as an alternative and more inclusive definition of the word 'woman' gains widespread acceptance, one that potentially includes biological males who identify as women, the certainty in the opening statement 'A trans woman is a woman' is misleading, and is not fit for the lede. 2407:7000:9BC3:C800:59FE:DE36:7BB7:3437 (talk) 05:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Not done - please read the preceding discussion before commenting further. The IP MAC address comment makes assumptions about what the sources on transgender issues mean by "adult female human" which are (i) not supported by citations and (ii) not consistent with how these terms (notably "female") are actually used in the reliable sources on the topic. Newimpartial (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC) '

I make no assumptions about the meanings of the words 'adult', 'female' or 'human'. If we are using the sometimes-seen definition of 'female' as it applies to humans, 'having the gender identity of a woman', then the statement 'A trans woman is a woman', where woman now means 'Adult human with the gender identity of a woman', becomes absolutely meaningless and we are deeply, deeply mired in circular logic. Such a contentious and confused statement has no place sitting unchallenged in an encyclopaedia. 2407:7000:9BC3:C800:7581:552A:A535:6CFE (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
All of this has already been explained and debunked countless times on this talk page. Rehashing these stale talking points is disruptive, and since this has already been discussed many, many times, nobody owes you a debate. Your personal interpretation of an arbitrary sample of some dictionaries and other convenient sources is irrelevant. Reliable sources recognize a distinction between gender and sex, and further, reliable sources recognize that neither of these is a simplistic binary. Your disagreement with reliable sources is also irrelevant. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
So it would seem that the Wikipedia article for Female is in error from beginning to end? Every major dictionary defines 'woman' as an adult human female. Why the resistance to such an obvious remedy as 'A trans woman is an individual with the gender identity of a woman, who was assigned male at birth.' I cannot conceive. It is disheartening to see the inclusion of the statement 'A trans woman is a woman...' and the rejection of the widely-accepted definition of the word woman itself. Why? Because it involves (as is historically the case) the railroading of females, and (as always) the reducing of women to a set of behaviours, mannerisms and mental states. Calling censuses on something that as we speak is being debated within major sporting authorities, seats of government, committees responsible for women's refuges and a multitude of other women-only spaces and services (from swimming facilities to prisons) - incredibly presumptions. Perhaps I will check back in a year's time to see if this article has found balance, and doesn't simply represent the positions of organisations involved in transgender advocacy. Enjoy. 2407:7000:9BC3:C800:555B:61FD:3BE3:7816 (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
This talk page is not a platform for grandstanding. As already mentioned, all of these simplistic arguments have already been addressed in tedious detail. Your claim that the article "rejects" a definition is just as incorrect and loaded as every other time someone has claimed that. If you are not interested in listening to the countless explanations which have already been put forward, then it is "incredibly presumptuous" to expect yet another debate. Grayfell (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, the arguments couldn't be any simpler. This article is inconsistent with the article Woman and by extension, the article Female. It's a state of affairs that needs correcting, and that can be very easily done. If you can, in fact, furnish a definition of the word 'woman' that is compatible with lede of this article, I will be pleasantly surprised. In that case, and assuming that the definition is well sourced, the article for Woman can be updated instead. I'm all eyes and ears. 2407:7000:9BC3:C800:8C9B:4AFB:F04C:911B (talk) 02:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
The article Woman acknowledges that it is about both a sex and a gender. The article Female acknowledges that it is about both sex and gender. The article Trans woman is about a gender identity, and therefore refers to "woman" and "female" in terms of gender (unless otherwise specified) as do the reliable sources on the article's topic.
As to definitions of Woman that fit the definition in this article, they can be seen listed here. Since "female" is a gender label, essentially any definition using "adult human female" is entirely copacetic with the first sentence of this article's lede. Newimpartial (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
In the name of clarification, might I ask, when one identifies as female, what it is one is identifying as? As a social construct? If the definition of a woman relied upon by this article is an 'adult human expressing a range of characteristics pertaining to femininity' (as per Gender), then this article deserves a brief section detailing the criticisms leveled at gender ideology, hence the status of trans women as women. I assume that Wikipedia is without a policy stating that information must be imparted in a way that doesn't potentially hurt anyone's feelings. 2407:7000:9BC3:C800:81B0:3F06:F5D1:B11C (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable "gender critical" sources on this topic? I haven't seen any that aren't manifestly WP:FRINGE.
And people who identify as female are declaring that they have a female gender identity, by definition. Newimpartial (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm assuming good faith on the part of the IPv6, who may not know the history of the endless rehashes of this question. However, if there isn't a concrete suggestion to improve the article that hasn't already been answered before numerous times in the sections above, I'll hat this section in a week or so, or whenever it goes quiet. In the meantime, I would suggest we all save our breath and let IPv6 have their say. As Grayfell already said in effect, there's no obligation to respond. Mathglot (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Reminds me of the question, “what is a man?” Person ~ persona ~ actor. We’re all actors... Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
A trans man is a miserable pile of secrets that was assigned female at birth. --Aquillion (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Pardon? Am I missing something, was that a joke, I don't understand the game reference, so it sounds both insulting & not exactly a useful contribution, sorry if I am missing something. apologies, my error, i live under a rock and missed the joke
Regards different IPs repeatedly this questioning this article, in the exact same way, one after another, this so repetitive Grayfell is correct. I do wonder if its the same small crowd of folks forming an orderly queue. :) LOL ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
It would be a shame to leave someone out on a good joke: It's a meme based on the comically bad voice acting and creative localization of the game. It should not be taken as an insult, and anything which deflects from more rehashing gets a pass from me. Grayfell (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh lol thanks, hey that's my voice coach :) Tries to imposingly walk off stage left, trips, falls flat on face and accidentally knocks all the scenery down ~ BOD ~ TALK 00:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Kimber James is a trans woman who is not on this article's list.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:a700:63a:3111:8c16:faca:61c5 (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Request to change misleading introductory statement-providing new most reliable sources

The opening sentence "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth", is misleading to say the least. It only misleads novice readers, which defeats the very purpose of Wikipedia. I hope even editors who are opposing the change from current definitions would disagree with me on that it indeed misleads people. They all however have expressed their helplessness citing lack of reliable sources to use the wordings that would help people understand what a transwoman is correctly. To this end, i am giving out two sources:

1)UPTODATE

IMAGE of the above

File:Screen Shot 08-23-20 at 08.55 PM.png
Transwoman definition from Uptodate

2)John Hopkins

I would also advice to start a subsection on anatomy of a transwoman, for which i quote this source: https://www.transgendermap.com/medical/surgery/bottom/feminization/anatomy/


I hope , atleast now this wikipedia article could be modified and that it could use non-misleading or less misleading opening sentences! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey577 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Casey, have you looked at Talk:Trans woman/Definitions? The definitions you have cited have already been included there, although perhaps not with the same web citations. Please note that "feminine identity" and "feminine spectrum" definitions are definitely a small minority of those that have been identified so far, particularly compared to those using the terms "female" and "woman". Newimpartial (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
No..I had't read them. I have now! The John Hopkins definition is already there. But the uptodate definition is new. I see that most of the definitions put forward by scientific community, which in this case refers to transwoman as a "person". Those defining transwomen as "women" are made by transgender associations themselves. These have an inherent bias. Most neutral organizations, especial scientific organizations not affiliated to a transgender organization/society refers to them as "people" and rightly so! Further how about including a subsection on transwoman anatomy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey577 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
You'll need someone else to help you with WP:MEDRS, which is the governing policy for anything on anatomy.
As far as "person" wording, we have a discussion going on about that just above this section.
And as to the uptodate definition, we do have the same concept presented already by Planned Parenthood (#2). Newimpartial (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I added the UpToDate definition; like the other sources it can assist in ascertaining WP:Due weight. My advice to Casey577 is, rather than re-hashing points that have been discussed above, to add definitions to the subpage if they have any, and participate in the WP:RFC that will be likely be occurring. Crossroads -talk- 20:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that the opening sentence I posted above (which someone has deleted!) is the most accurate: "A trans woman is a human being of the male sex who has assumed the appearance of a woman and wishes to be regarded as a woman." That maintains the idea that biological sex is separate from gender, yet it doesn't mention the word "gender", the meaning of which is hotly contested. And certainly, the vast majority of trans women have assumed a female identity and wish to be regarded as female by society. But as I said, the phrases "a trans woman is a woman" and "assigned at birth" constitute politicized language which is promoted by transgender activists as a way to normalize transgender people. An encyclopedia must not use politicized language.24.38.185.65 (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2021

Opening paragraph needs a citation to support claims. 2600:6C47:A100:1371:A57F:D3AE:AFB4:9E32 (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The lead contains a summary of the text below, so generally does not have citations itself. The citations are found the in body of the article below. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish: parts of the lead that have been challenged need citations as well, per MOS:LEADCITE, and the poster above has challenged the opening paragraph. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Let's get a list of claims that are being challenged. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
It's not a long paragraph, just three sentences, so I don't think challenging it in entirety is disruptive. I think an ordinary reading of the paragraph will tell anyone what claims it makes. Those are the claims that are being challenged. Let's start listing them only if there is genuine confusion. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Per MOS:LEADCITE The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. I'd like to say that I think the information isn't controversial and is covered well enough in the body to not require citations in the lead. There is already lead discussion above, showing there is no consensus that we need the citations in the lead at this time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Finnuser, there are enough distinct elements in the lead paragraph that it seems reasonable to insist that anyone demanding a citation specify what the citation is expected to confirm, particularly since all of this material is sourced in the body of the article. Newimpartial (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Corrected opening statement

Obviously trans women are not women else they wouldn't be trans women they would merely be women and would have all the associated biology. Wikipedia is not the place for radical left-wing activism.

I'm actually unhappy with the 'assigned' bit in the wording too as that suggests there is some subjectivity to the process of identifying a person's biological sex.
But we follow the Reliable Sources, MrMiles, and not your personal opinions. Newimpartial (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
There was no source for the claim that trans women are actual women, in fact the statement contradicts Wiki's own article on women. And don't be silly, it is not an opinion that trans women are biological males.
Have you read even one of the previous discussions on this Talk page? Also, please sign your posts, MrMiles. Newimpartial (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, do you have a reliable source for the statement that trans women are women? Mr Miles (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for signing!
There are many; this is one of them. Newimpartial (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Seems from reading the previous thread that there are not many and you are giving undue weight to that article
And having looked at the link you provided, it makes no mention of biological sex except a brief discussion of the rare condition of intersex. It certainly provides no evidence for the claim that 'trans women are women' Mr Miles (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Several Wikipedians are trying harder and harder to say no to the opening statement that trans women are women. Why?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Because everyone know that trans women are obviously not actual women, they are men suffering from gender dysphoria, one treatment for which is for them to live as if they are women. Some extremists have distorted these facts to actually claim that trans women ARE women, for political reasons. Mr Miles (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
You mean, trangenderism is just a mental disorder?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Transgenderism is as I described. 'Mental disorder' can mean many things, you'd have to be very specific if you wanted to apply it to transgenderism.
I'm not asking you if it's the only mental disorder; I'm asking you if it's a mental disorder. Georgia guy (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
What I meant is, 'Mental disorder' can be defined in different ways. Transgenderism is not a mental disorder like schizophrenia is. But gender dysphoria is a diagnosed disorder that is located in the brain/mind.Mr Miles (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Here's the governing RfC; as the comment in there clearly states please do not change that line without a consensus from the talk page. Loki (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
That's a very wobbly close, dont you think? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for the reliable source that states trans women are women. Mr Miles (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Dont hold your breath. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Mr Miles, where is your reliable source stating that when they use the term "Woman" (or in the discussion of Woman), the reliable sources are referring to "biological sex" (sic.). "Woman" (or Woman) is a much broader concept than "biological sex.

Also, I'd like to see a reliable source for the following statement, since it seems to reflect the POV you are trying to insert into the article: Because everyone know that trans women are obviously not actual women, they are men suffering from gender dysphoria, one treatment for which is for them to live as if they are women. Some extremists have distorted these facts to actually claim that trans women ARE women, for political reasons. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

That's just my opinion. What is not opinion is that women are biological females, and trans women are biological males. to claim otherwise is extraordinary, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.Mr Miles (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
The statement you're saying is "not opinion", taken literally, would mean that all people are biologically cisgender and that transgenderism is something that doesn't exist biologically. Georgia guy (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
My statement doesn't contradict the existence of transgenderism. Trans women are biological males, ergo, some proportion of biological males are transgender. Mr Miles (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't contradict the existence of transgenderism; it contradicts the statement that it is biological. Georgia guy (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
No it doesn't, humans are biological entities, so trans humans are biological entities. The trans aspect of their humanity is biological like all other aspects. Mr Miles (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
And thus if transgenderism (which is what allows such people to exist) is biological, then whatever it means (and this is that they know themselves as women) is biological. Georgia guy (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the condition that leads a man to feel he is a woman is biological. But obviously, that doesn't mean that his feeling about himself is literally true in the face of his male biology. And anyway, many trans women don't believe themselves to be literally female; they just believe(/hope) their dysphorial will diminish if they can try to be female. Mr Miles (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
(please explain for me what cisgender means, it isn't a word I am familiar with. Thanks. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 17:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC))
There's an article Cisgender. Georgia guy (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Will the first sentence of the article as you wish it, suffice as an answer to that question? It ought to. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean? Newimpartial (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
You asked for evidence of the statement Mr. Miles Made and I pointed you to said evidence. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 17:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Mr Miles, you have stated, What is not opinion is that women are biological females, and trans women are biological males. Why do you think this article is discussing Woman from a biological standpoint? The terms Woman and Female, in reference to human beings, mean different things depending on context and indeed, are seldom defined except contextually. The term "biological female", to my knowledge, is never used by reliable sources on this article's topic, and so we should not introduce it - NOR and NPOV policies require this. Newimpartial (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
The term 'biological male' is the defining characteristic of trans women. Else they would be merely 'women' and would not have an article on Wiki. So it's absolutely necessary to use the term 'biological male' in defining what a trans woman is. Mr Miles (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Please see what I typed above on what the statement would imply if Mr. Miles's statement were taken literally. Georgia guy (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Mr Miles,the current lede is based on relevant sources. Your opinions are based on feelings, and you have presented no sources of any kind, much less relevant ones. Reliable sources win. Newimpartial (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
The current lead has no source attached, please attach one so that we can see if it supports your version. Until then, please stop reverting my version of the lead.Mr Miles (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Per policy, we keep the stable lede until there is consensus to change. Also per policy, citations are normally placed in the body, not in the lede. And you have been presented with at least one perfectly good RS for the definition. If you want to build consensus for a change, you will need sources more authoritative than your own anal orifice imagination. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
The source you provided doesn't state that trans women are women or deny that they are biological males. And you have no source that does this because it's not true. This page has been taken over by radical activists and is now basically useless. Ironic that you accuse me of holding opinions based on feelings when it's clear that applies rather to you. Mr Miles (talk) 10:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

There are many such sources; please see the page created by Crossroads where definitions are being gathered. Also please note that, so far, no reliable sources on Trans women have been found that use the term "biological males", though many use the term "women". Newimpartial (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

If trans women were women, a simple line defining what a woman is, and true for both cis and trans women, would suffice. Instead we are just being told that trans women are women according to “the most reliable sources”. Are those sources telling us why trans women are women? Why is so hard to provide a straight answer? Jorgebox4 (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Trans women are women; this is so because their gender is female. Please see the discussion below linked to the page of RS definitions. Newimpartial (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Why is their gender female? Jorgebox4 (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It is reported/identified/lived as such. Please see the page of definitions. Newimpartial (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is NOT a Chat Room or Discussion Forum.
1. The top of this page like every other talk page on wikipedia simply states "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trans woman article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." e.g. Wikipedia is NOT a Chat Room or Discussion Forum.
2. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is a page that lays out a very basic English Wikipedia policy. It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should follow. Half way down that page you find WP:NOTFORUM, part 4 of which tells us that Wikipedia not a Discussion forum. Separately the is this advice on another page Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum.
3. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines "in a nutshell: Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject ..." and "The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. When talk pages in other namespaces and userspaces are used for discussion and communication between users, discussion should be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia." ~ BOD ~ TALK 10:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

All right, a woman is someone who is reported/identifies/lives as such. So you cannot define what a woman is, I stop here. Jorgebox4 (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

If you don't understand what female gender is, that is not the fault of this article. The reliable sources are quite clear on this topic, in spite of the differing reactions of aquatic mammals. Newimpartial (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

You cannot explain why a woman is a female-gender person without using the word woman in your definition, and that is my fault? Jorgebox4 (talk) 11:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a straw man, dude. Also see WP:NOTFORUM. Newimpartial (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Not this dead horse again. This has literally been discussed for YEARS. There is no current consensus on what to do. The opening statement should not be changed unless there is a consensus. And I do seem to be noticing that many here are trying their hardest to change the definition, as what Georgia Guy said. 2001:1970:48AA:8100:3929:E7F0:26E8:DC77 (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the word "metaphysical" should be added to the definition. Trans women are metaphysical women, or something of the sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:CC:8000:1C85:7557:4F1E:4C49:C1A0 (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if there was a source which used that definition. The only metaphysical women I know of are Émilie du Châtelet and Judith Butler. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 01:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The opening statement defines a trans woman as a woman who was assigned male at birth, yet the linked article for "woman" defines a woman as a biological female. I was of the understanding that a trans woman is a woman in terms of gender identity rather than biology. Am I simply mistaken or does this article need correcting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6D60:41D0:7D27:DECD:ADD1:6A4C (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see the earlier portion of this discussion, and indeed the previous discussions of this topic on the talk page.

The article Woman recognizes that the word "woman" is the term for a gender as well as a biological sex (sic.). Newimpartial (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why there is no revision of the opening statement so far. Can someone explain why wikipedia is not conducting a research of some kind here. Obviously the wiki's definition is against the accepted definition held by majority(tramswomen being a woman). Is wiki still clinging on to its claim that they did a secret poll and fixed the meaning? And you are unwilling to change it? All contributors (financial) should stop contributing to wiki for keeping such nonsense definitions here. Casey577 (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you could take a look at the sources posted to this subpage, which have been previously discussed and evaluated, and tell us where you think the article has gone astray. Newimpartial (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The opening statement isn't consistent with the associated articles.

'A trans woman is a woman...'

with 'woman' linking to 'A woman is an adult female human.'

'female' linking to 'Female is the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, that produces non-mobile ova'

and 'sex' linking to 'Sex is either of two divisions, typically male or female,[a] into which organisms that propagate their species through sexual reproduction are divided.'

Given that the opening statement is starkly at odds with these relevant articles, could we please skip another few years (as I see) of battling gate-keepers and simply make the change to 'A trans woman is a person who was assigned male at birth and identifies as a woman.'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:9BC3:C800:1454:ADDB:1CCC:E03F (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

If you look in the archive, you will see that this precise issue has been discussed to death previously. The TL; DR is that consistency among articles is not required by WP policy, and that the apparent problem is created by the link from Woman to Female (given the way Femalw is written, which apparently cannot be fixed to deal more accurately with humans), but OWN considerations on Woman have prevented that link from being removed.
In any event, none of those issues are appropriately discussed here, which means this Talk page is not able to deal with the (consistency) argument you are raising. Newimpartial (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
The consistency issue actually has been addressed. The last sentence in the lead of Female states: Female can also be used to refer to gender. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is there, but it doesn't exactly attract the reader's attention. Newimpartial (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2021

The section on libido should be removed. The citations given failed to fine any difference between groups (i.e., not statistically significant), but the text implies otherwise. This distinction on statistical significance and whether they differ from random is likely to be unclear to anyone without a background in statistics, which should not be a prerequisite to reading and understanding this page.

If one does not wish to remove the section entirely, it should be replaced with a single sentence reading along the lines of "multiple studies have failed to detect any difference in libido between trans women and the rest of the population." For citations of this statement, I would recommend the two already given. 2601:147:C202:9130:5DFF:C82:830E:A818 (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — IVORK Talk 06:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I've boldly made a change to the first sentence of this section in line with this. We should not be reporting differences that are statistically insignificant, but commenting that there was no statistically insignificant difference is possibly appropriate (if the study had a large enough sample size to be worth quoting in isolation, rather than waiting for more studies and a meta-analysis). — Bilorv (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Woman by gender

Does "woman by gender" contrast with any other kind of woman (e.g. a woman by age)?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Quite possibly. How do we decide if an adult human being is a woman? Look at their chromosomes? Look at their genitalia and other bits and pieces? Ask them? Something else? Tewdar (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Presumably referring to this reverted change to the first sentence. I assume the suggested phrasing, "A trans woman is a woman by gender", was a good-faith attempt at clarifying that "woman" is being used here to describe gender identity rather than sex. In my opinion, it's an unnecessary and slightly confusing distinction. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 04:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Bizarre sentence in Sexual Orientation section

"Trans women may identify as heterosexual (or straight), bisexual, homosexual (or lesbian), asexual, or none of the above."

What on earth is this? Who is this for? Trans women are humans and thus can have different sexual orientations? I dont think anyone needed that clarified... Crockett623 (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Though agree it really should not need to be said, the are many folks who are confused or are not aware of basic realities. ~ BOD ~ TALK 18:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trans_woman/Archive_7&oldid=1222730914"