Talk:Woman/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

XX chromosomes

This is currently in the lead:

"Typically, a woman has two X chromosomes and is capable of pregnancy and giving birth from puberty until menopause."

Although it's true, I think it is giving WP:UNDUE attention to the idea of Chromosomal sex. What makes a female (any species) be a female is the characteristics of its gametes. That is, it's the egg, and not the genes that make the egg possible, that makes a female be female.

I think therefore that the simplest and easiest thing to do is simply to remove this statement about chromosomes. The sentence would then read "Typically, a woman is capable of pregnancy and giving birth from puberty until menopause." The result would be short, simple, and accurate.

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, that's a good point. I think, though, that I'd prefer shoehorning in something about gametes in that sentence, rather than removing the chromosome bit. (I can't think of good wording, though: ...has two X chromosomes and female gametes... is non-informative and almost tautological.) Cheers, gnu57 05:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Not really seeing how this is undue. Yeah, across the tree of life, sex is decided by gametes, but all women are mammals, which mostly use the XY sex-determination system of which females have XX. 98-99+% of women have XX chromosomes, and these cause the development of sex characteristics, so it seems due to mention, like we do at man. It is not exclusionary of trans/intersex women since it says "Typically" and these groups are mentioned shortly thereafter in the lead. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The gamate vs. chromosome issue seems more appropriate for the article about females, not this one. This one is more focused on the social constructs in general, and secondary sex characteristics associated with the XX kerotype and hormones are highly important visual signifiers in many cultures. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem with singling out chromosomal status in the lead is that it signals to the reader that chromosomes are definitive, rather than one biological piece among several. Being XX isn't definitive. Yes, there are rare conditions that prove it. But I'm actually talking about the definition, not the rare situation that we're waving away with "typically". The actual, real-according-to-actual-biologists definition is that an organism is female if she produces eggs, no matter what her chromosomes might be. We could say something like "Like other female organisms, fertile women produce egg cells during their reproductive years. They are capable of pregnancy and giving birth from puberty until menopause."

Rather than singling out chromosomal status in the lead, I think it would make more sense to either omit the biological definition altogether (just skip straight to the "can have babies" part, and leave all of the components, from hormones to genes, to the ==Biology and sex== section), or to focus on the actual biological definition, which is ova, not DNA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Over the years I've come to have a deep respect for Waid's opinions but in this case I'm far from convinced. She says, "Being XX isn't definitive. Yes, there are rare conditions that prove it. But I'm actually talking about the definition, not the rare situation that we're waving away with "typically". The actual, real-according-to-actual-biologists definition is that an organism is female if she produces eggs, no matter what her chromosomes might be." We are not talking about female organisms in general here, we are talking about humans. For humans, it is my understanding that being XX most often is definitive...and I think it belongs in the lead. Gandydancer (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

You can get egg production (and therefore fertility) with a single X, or with three of them. In terms of the chromosomal effect, it's the "absence of Y" that matters rather than the presence of a certain number of X chromosomes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, You can indeed, but typically, that is not the case. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 07:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

"Typically" doesn't mean that you're not over-emphasizing some detail. "Typically" cars have glass windows, but that shoudn't be the first thing in the lead of Car. "Typically" people eat legumes, but that shouldn't be the first thing in the lead of Human nutrition. "Typically" school years run for about nine months, but that shouldn't be the first thing in School. Women are indeed typically biological females, but XX status is shouldn't be the first thing we say about that. Biological sex isn't defined by genetics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

But again, "typically," it is the two X chromosomes that kick off all the other changes you have mentioned. Biological sex is caused by genetics since at the start we are all just bits of DNA in a single fertilized egg. Single X and triple X are rare differences, and result from errors in biological processes. I perceive that you feel the chromosome sentence is inappropriate since you called it "genetic determinism", and I cannot at all see why that is bad, since genes do determine sex. This isn't like genetic determinism of psychological traits which would indeed be inappropriate. This seems like a solution in search of a problem. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Crossroads1. The importance of X and Y chromosomes with regard to sexual differentiation in humans is clear. And if we are going to continue to have a "Biology and sex" section, which we should, the chromosomal aspect should be in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the whole ovulation aspect covered by the rest of that sentence, "and is capable of pregnancy and giving birth from puberty until menopause"? We could go into more detail if that isn't enough. I do think the chromosomes are important enough to mention in the lead. They're often discussed in basic descriptions of sexual differences. We aren't saying that XX is an absolute defining trait, just that it is typical of women. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

They're "often discussed" because the English-speaking world has a cultural fascination with DNA and genetic determinism (also because journalists are rarely competent science writers).

Here's the actual list, when you're trying to determine the sex of a prepubscent human (As a practical matter, you can't measure egg-vs-sperm production directly in babies):

1. the presence or absence of a Y chromosome
2. the type of gonads,
3. the (effective) levels of various sex hormones,
4. the internal reproductive anatomy, and
5. the external genitalia.

Genetic sex is only one part of it. We're singling out that one and placing it front and center.

But when you're talking about what it means to be a biological female, the answer is much simpler, and you'll find it in the first sentence of our article on Female. You're a biological female if you can (at suitable points in development, etc.) produce eggs. It does not matter which sex determination system caused you to produce the eggs. It does not matter whether you carry the offspring yourself. The only thing that matters is whether the gametes you produce are bigger or smaller than the other ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The use of the word “typically” is meaningful, in my view, and should be kept. It’s not waving away other states. It is acknowledging them. Trankuility (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

But mentioning chromosomes first means that we think it's the most important. It's not "wrong"; it's over-emphasizing one piece of the puzzle. The problem is the WP:UNDUE emphasis on chromosomes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not talking about journalists. Sex chromosomes are one of the first things students are taught about sexual differentiation in humans, and it's part of the discussion at any level of biology coursework. It's the not the sole determinant, nor is it a perfect predictor, but it certainly is something discussed often when defining "woman". We're not "singling out" DNA as somehow more important than anything else. All of the other aspects you mention are covered in the lead as well (except for hormones, which could be added). Internal and external anatomy are discussed in much more detail than the issue of chromosomes, which is briefly mentioned with only five words. I don't see how that could be considered giving undue weight to this aspect of womanhood. It's given the same amount of weight as the fact that women are generally shorter than men, and that is certainly not a defining feature of what "biologically female" means. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

We are putting one aspect of DNA front and center. We are therefore emphasizing it. If we wanted to treat all of the factors equally, we could summarize it all as "women are typically biological females", or, if you want to be verbose, say "Women are typically biological females, which means that they have the genetics, hormones, and internal and external anatomy needed to produce eggs". That would put the whole concept first, rather than one aspect of DNA status.

(The fact that it's "one of the first things students are taught" is not a convincing argument. Most students are still introduced to the structure of atoms with the Bohr model. It is pedagogically unsound [because it makes it difficult for students to make the mental transition to the current model], but it's "one of the first things students are taught".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Using "women are typically biological females" would be upsetting to some transgender and intersex readers and editors. Use of "biological woman" or "biological female" are considered terms to avoid by some LGBT style guides, such as GLAAD's and the Human Rights Campaign's. In its "Terms to Avoid" section, GLAAD states, " 'biologically male,' 'biologically female,' 'genetically male,' 'genetically female,' 'born a man,' 'born a woman.' Problematic phrases like those above are reductive and overly-simplify a very complex subject. As mentioned above, a person's sex is determined by a number of factors - not simply genetics - and a person's biology does not 'trump' a person's gender identity. Finally, people are born babies: they are not 'born a man' or 'born a woman.'" Human Rights Campaign states, "Number Seven: Refrain from contrasting trans men and women with 'real' or 'biological' men and women." I'm not saying we have to follow GLAAD or any other LGBT style guide for this aspect of the article, and I know that using "cisgender" is still too new to the general public, but I am saying that, in this case, there is no need to state "biologically female," which can be vague to some people. Stating that "Typically, a woman has two X chromosomes" is not vague to anyone and it's unlikely to be offensive (except to those who dislike women being defined in terms of chromosomes, even though we are only using it as part of the definition or aspect of typical womanhood). Again, like the others, I see no issue with stating "Typically, a woman has two X chromosomes." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Flyer is correct that "biological female" (or similar) should not be used here. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The only reason for sexes to have been evolutionarily developed is to try how reproduction would work by recombining DNA from more than one invididual rather than cloning it. Talking sexes is therefore inherently talking biology. The word "women" exists because of biology (because our ancestors felt that it would be worthwhile to categorize individuals by the presence of a few physical attributes). Avoiding the term "biological female/male" defeats the usage of the category in itself. Note that this does not at all exclude the observed high diversity of geno- and pheno/morphotypes (although a rather strict inference of sexual identity is based in the potential to produce Y-gametes, which about 50% of all individuals can not; i am not aware of the existence of Y-carrying eggs), does not exclude the generation of overlapping physical and behavioural trait distributions, and it also allows geno/phenotype mismatches - this is just how evolution works. I would suggest to acknowledge this in the introduction, e.g. by describing that the term "women" has now evolved to include both cis- and trans-phenotypes by social convention, but that its origin is based on a clear, though multivariate biological definition, which is good enough to categorize the vast majority of all individuals. To say, the term "women" may include cis, trans, and inter-individuals eradicates the necessity to use such a term. I hope this is clear: If women may be capable of producing both eggs and sperms (i am also not aware of intermediate forms in humans, which are heterogam), a egg/sperm-based grouping factor is pointless and obsolete. Consequently, such a definition of "women" would not require biology at all, it would just describe something else. (Note that, the very concept of cis, trans, inter can only exist because there is something like "biologically female"). I hope this did not come across as trans-phobic, because this was not my intent. But having a biology-based definition of women which is contradicted a few sentences later is not sound Rka001 (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion: Woman is a type of a human being. The term originally described female inviduals, but is increasingly used independent of biological traits, to also include trans and intersex inviduals." Rka001 (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The majority of symptomatic intersex people are certainly women since they are female and suffer from LOCAH. Another good source whose information is easily verified. Woman has *always* included intersex individuals, indeed intersex conditions and presentation are naturally sex-specific. If you are talking about the 0.02% of the population that really are difficult to classify into sex categories (some of whom are people with conditions like CAIS who are genetically male but have female surface anatomy) fine, but I'm not sure such a small population needs to be mentioned in the lede.Maneesh (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Leonard Sax is a conservative and biased pundit, not an expert on the topic, and his conception of intersex is absurdly narrow. The ISNA website states: Here’s what we do know: If you ask experts at medical centers how often a child is born so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia that a specialist in sex differentiation is called in, the number comes out to about 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births. But a lot more people than that are born with subtler forms of sex anatomy variations, some of which won’t show up until later in life. and Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female[:] one in 100 births[.] Total number of people receiving surgery to “normalize” genital appearance[:] one or two in 1,000 births. Individuals (at least 0.05% to 0.1% of the population) whose bodies deviate so markedly from the norm that sex assignment at birth becomes downright tricky are frequent enough that dismissing them as irrelevant can only be described as motivated by pure ideology and dogma, not a desire to be fair to the facts. As an example, consider PAIS individuals who have penises but also labia and uteri and may menstruate through their penis; the implication that they are not really difficult to classify into sex categories is bizarre. (Especially when they are infertile, so that the traditional biological definition turns out completely useless.)

The idea that a not purely biologistic conception of woman or man is a fringe position strikes me as baseless. It may be fringe from the point of view of the population at large, and politically conservative academics, but in fields of research that actually matter, such as gender studies, there is no biologistic consensus by any means. Either the question is controversial (such as in feminist philosophy), or it is considered difficult to answer, such as in gender studies, where the massive social aspects of concepts such as "woman" and "man", which are not reducible to sex assignment, let alone the vastly more complex reality of sex (even cisgender non-intersex womanhood – and manhood – is decidedly more diverse than is typically acknowledged, including on the level of primary sex characteristics), are well-acknowledged. Therefore, Wikipedia cannot pick a side, and agnosticism and nuance are the best solution.

Now, were this controversy only about the question if (all) transgender and intersex women are female, I could concur that the affirmative answer to this question must be treated as a decidedly minority opinion at this point, and the idea of a biologically female penis (especially a non-intersex, XY-chromosomes-having, non-estrogenised penis that produces sperm cells on a regular basis) is considered seriously by very few people, let alone assented to. However, that's not what this debate, and this article, are about.

(It strikes me as dishonest and remarkably duplicitous, however, to recur to the traditional biological definitions of "female" and "male" – which have their own problems in practical application – and then turn around and refer to sex assignment at birth, or even assumed sex assignment at birth, in the case of transgender or intersex individuals ... where it often turns out that they do not produce any gametes, and may never have produced any gametes in their life, with or without external intervention. Or to even equivocate between "female" and "woman" or "male" and "man", while pretending to distinguish between them. There have been those who have had the audacity to suggest, or even insist, that Caster Semenya was "misclassified" at birth and is not sufficiently female or a woman in order to compete in women's sports.)

Are Kim Petras and Jazz Jennings women in every or any sense? How about a person assigned male at birth who is discovered to have a uterus during vaginoplasty? A person assigned male at birth who menstruated through the penis from puberty on, or who started to menstruate after vaginoplasty? This person? Are these individuals men in any meaningful sense? I really don't think there are simple (fact-based) answers here, nor that biologistic answers are not seriously contested in academia. I really don't think objections like Butler's can be dismissed out of hand as scientifically irrelevant, either. And in view of the known facts (and known unknowns, such as the issue of "brain sex") and the vigorous (and heavily politicised and acutely current) debates in academia, it strikes me as bizarre for Wikipedia to side with biologism and essentialism in the case of not only sex but also gender, while siding against it (with full justification, IMHO) in the case of race.

It also bears considering that there are essentially contested concepts, and in various fields of inquiry, the most basic and popular concepts (for example, word and syllable in linguistics) are often notorious for being hard to pin down using definitions that rely on Aristotelian categories (with necessary and sufficient criteria, and clear boundaries), so it wouldn't be surprising, let alone outrageous, for this article to lack a clear, universally applicable, authoritative definition, as much as it may surprise and disconcert the lay reader.

Wikipedians who refuse to even accept a compromise are clearly in contradiction with NPOV policy. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what, if anything, is being suggested by this necropost, but WP:NPOV is based on what reliable sources say. This includes the enormous biomedical fields, as well as many other fields and types of reliable sources. The definition of women as female is the same as all the dictionaries. Besides, many intersex and trans women would say that they are female anyway, because of their female gender identity. Describing aspects of female biology in the lead is likewise WP:DUE, as women's health is concerned with these things. As the lead says, "typically" women do have these characteristics. Nearly all the biomedical literature uses the term this way, as does that of other fields. We are not implementing a false balance. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure what is intended by "Besides, many intersex and trans women would say that they are female anyway, because of their female gender identity". Many (the overwhelming majority) intersex women would say that they are women/female because they are ostensibly women according to common definitions from reliable sources (look at the LOCAH link in my post above), this has nothing to do with the nebulous concept of 'gender identity' (which I don't see mentioned in reliable sources like dictionary definitions). The lede saying suggesting that some women are intersex doesn't seem appropriate in anyway (why is intersex worth mentioning over facts like some women like the color orange, some are good at baseball, some women suffer from malaria etc.). A (well reasoned) scholarly paper by Leonard Sax certainly gives it some weight as a reliable source, regardless of his status as a 'conservative pundit' (which I am not aware of). Florian Blaschke quotes the Intersex Society of North America website, which seems to essentially agree with Sax's numbers (majority of intersex are LOCAH). People suffering from PAIS are precisely the type of people who are difficult to classify as either male or female, they fall under the ~0.02% of people Sax describes, the ISNA agrees that such people are exceedingly rare (1 in 130,000 births, see the last link to the ISNA numbers). The fact that some women are "intersex" (itself a nebulous concept according to the Intersex Society of North America) isn't a fact important enough to mention in the lede in this article. Maneesh (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not getting into all this debate (or correcting some pieces of statements). But I will state the following: The lead doesn't suggest that some women are intersex. It states that some women are intersex. And it mentions intersex women because we have text such as "typically, a woman has two X chromosomes" in the lead and a "Biology and sex" section lower in the article. That is why mention of intersex women in the lead is appropriate. The article doesn't focus on trivial things like some women liking the color orange or being good at baseball. If the article did focus on something like women being good at baseball, it would be discussed within the context of gender stereotypes, which would make it not trivial. The lead already states, "Throughout human history, traditional gender roles have often defined and limited women's activities and opportunities." So addressing stereotypes with regard to sports aligns with that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of intersex women have two X chromosomes (again, see previous links). Why does "typically, a woman has two X chromosomes" merit the statement that "some women are intersex"? The mentioning of intersex women is certainly undue weight in the lead.Maneesh (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Population data is here. The accuracy of the data needs to be checked against sources. We can see that, variations aside, those with Klinefelter syndrome have two X chromosomes; they also have a Y. When we state "typically, a woman has two X chromosomes", we don't mean "at least two X chromosomes." I mention those with Klinefelter syndrome because some with Klinefelter syndrome identify as women. So in what context are you speaking when you state "the overwhelming majority of intersex women have two X chromosomes"? Above, you took issue with Crossroads's mention of gender identity. So you are defining intersex women in a way that discounts gender identity? And in any case, per what I stated, it's not undue to mention intersex women in the lead. It seems to me that you want intersex women removed from the lead because you are somehow offended. You seem to take the mention as us suggesting that intersex women are not women or believe that mentioning them in the lead is trivial. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

You are getting mixed up here. Some XXY males (Klinefelter syndrome) have a 'gender identity' of female. So what? So do some XY males. Do you have a reliable source that tells us how many? None of the reliable sources I can find mention 'gender identity' in their definitions of 'women', they do describe them (as this article does in the first sentence) as human females (note, no mention of gender identity in that entry). Just look at the intersex frequencies from the same source that I've already posted. Add up the prevalence of intersex conditions of non-XX intersex women, and compare that to the prevalence of XX intersex women. What do you see? Sax has already worked out some percentages for you here. Not sure what is making you think I am offended, there is a great deal of misinformation on intersex, wikipedia should be accurate here and not provide undue weight to confuse readers on what 'woman' is known to mean.Maneesh (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Not getting mixed up at all. Some of the intersex people you've identified as XXY males identify as women. Are you saying they aren't intersex women? And as for "None of the reliable sources [you] can find mention 'gender identity' in their definitions of 'women'"? And yet we still mention trans women in the lead and gender identity lower in the article. We've already had a big debate about the fact that we are not only defining women by biology, but also by identity, in this article (although we do give a lot more weight to biology). And, yes, I'm going to deduce that you are offended when, in addition to having such a vehement stance against mentioning intersex women in the lead, you state that the lead is suggesting that intersex women are women. Again, it's not suggesting that they are. It states that they are. It's not in any way implying that they aren't women. Anyway, now I see how you are defining things. So to repeat, "I'm not getting into all this debate (or correcting some pieces of statements)." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a very confusing reply. People with Klinefelter syndrome are XXY males, that isn't specific to how I personally identify them, that is how all of clinical and biological science classifies them (quite sensibly). They can identify however they like, but do read that entry: "Klinefelter syndrome (KS), also known as 47,XXY or XXY, is the set of symptoms that result from two or more X chromosomes in males". The relevance of the ISNA's claim that some (how many?) XXY males have 'female gender identities' to my correct assertion that "the overwhelming majority of intersex women are XX' isn't clear to me. Have you looked at the frequency numbers and verified that fact? The numbers are staring at you right in the face. I see no consensus in this talk page about "woman" being identified by identity. I am not aware of any credible sources in biology and medical science that would define the class of women by something as subjective as 'gender identity'. There is a mountain of scholarly work in biology and medicine that uses 'woman' to mean 'female human being', forget about institutional titles like the NIH's Office of Research on Women's Health (who do you think they are talking about other than females?). There is nothing pernicious about how I am defining things, there is a real problem with consistency here as well as reliable source and due weight. What is the answer to the fact that every standard English dictionary (Oxford, Cambridge, MW etc.) reference text in biology or medicine I can find describes women as, essentially, 'female human beings'? Do you have a a reliable source that defines woman in terms of 'gender identity'? The whole point of this long thread is that the overwhelming majority of intersex women are just women, they have XX chromosomes (they are almost all women with LOCAH); you seem to deny this despite having credible frequency numbers from multiple sources cited clearly.Maneesh (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Maneesh, please read over this discussion: [1] As you can see from that, this has all been discussed ad nauseum already. This whole thing about most intersex women being XX is a red herring, because the whole point of mentioning intersex and trans women is that not all women have the biological characteristics mentioned just before in the lead. Yes, including XXY women. As for defining women solely based on XX chromosomes, the huge discussion I linked you and the earlier part of this section should suffice to show that this is a total nonstarter; and I have zero desire to relitigate either discussion. But more importantly there are enough reliable sources that do specifically define womanhood as based on gender identity, or at least as something other than XX chromosomes. As it is, we give due weight to all the reliable sources, which means making allowance for non-XX-intersex and trans women. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I've read over it, it's quite a mess. I see a lot of problems in the commentary, did I miss the place in there where it was made clear that women that are not XX are not representative of intersex women? Almost all intersex women are XX. If the article wants to mention that in the lede it should at least qualify by saying something like "While almost all women have constitutive XX chromosomes, a small fraction of a percent of women do not due to specific intersex conditions". The lede describes intersex as those "born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female", yet the intersex article includes LOCAH (which is Late Onset, something that happens in adulthood and not visible at birth). The prevalence for LOCAH in the intersex article is wrong by an order of magnitude or two, that's the prevalence the cited source claims (0.01%-0.02%) for *CAH* (not LOCAH/NCCAH); the ref tag actually quotes the right numbers. I've fixed that by now. As the article stands, people will keep commenting in the talk page about how it doesn't seem to make sense as the reader runs into contradictions right away: "A woman is a female human being", got it...."Some women are trans (those who have a male sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity),"....so some females are males that have a gender identity that doesn't align with their sex? Can males be females? Female doesn't mention gender identity....Qualifying the claims in the lede with family of sources (e.g., "Biology and medicine say...") might make things more digestible.Maneesh (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Your alleged contradictions are between the reliable sources, and we are not going to engage in WP:OR to try to 'harmonize' them by dividing them up by disciplinary or any other lines. I stand by what I said in my last comment. And I see no need to keep debating this. No one else sees any need for a change. This is starting to get into WP:IDHT territory. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Last reply: You missed my main point. What you've stated about XXY males identifying however they want to but still being male is the same thing people have stated about XY males identifying however they want to and still being male. If trans women are to be mentioned in the lead, I don't see why intersex women shouldn't be mentioned in the lead as well. Crossroads pointed you to Archive 14; as you saw, in that archive is the long RfC about the lead: Talk:Woman/Archive 14#RfC: Article lead. It concerns mentioning trans and intersex women in the lead, and debate about the "a woman is a female human" aspect. Anything I could state to you on those aspects has already been stated by me in that section. You speak of contradictions, but the word woman is in trans woman. You can, like many sources do, equate "woman" with "female," but we have articles on those two topics because they are different topics (although they overlap, just like "girl" and "female" overlap, and "girl" and "woman" overlap). You can take issue with trans women being called women, but there are obviously sociology sources that consider trans women to be women. We clearly aren't only using biology and medical science sources for this article. As the aforementioned RfC shows, yes, WP:Consensus was clearly to mention trans and intersex women in the lead and expand the lead so that mention of them there doesn't come across as WP:Undue. Clearly, you would have argued differently. But that's the consensus for now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Extended content The fact that the truth may offend certain users is no reason to avoid stating it. No matter how much you try to skirt around facts, transgender women will never be women and transgender men will never be men. I thought this website was aiming to educate people and tell the truth regardless of whether that makes it popular or not. Guess I was wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Tomoșoiu (talk • contribs) 17:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2019

Change the shown picture of a female mechanic so something more representative. The vast majority of women are not interested in greasy cars and mechanical things, it's not representative of the female species. I happened to notice that the picture on top of the male article does not for example feature a male nurse or ballet dancer. 89.150.199.13 (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. See the announcement at the top of this page regarding the lead image, as well as the discussion at Talk:Woman/sandbox. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

"certain rules for women"?

Well this is vague. It seems like this line in the article should be clarified and sourced or deleted: "many religious doctrines stipulate certain rules for women that are obligatory." The same undoubtedly is true of men, so apparently the sentence is not saying whatever it's author intended to say, and it's not sourced. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The sentence does not say there are not certain rules for men and it is correct to say many religious doctrines have women-specific dictates. I think the sentence is an adequate summary (per WP:LEAD) of Woman#Religion. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Ditto what User:EvergreenFir said. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 10:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Late comment: having some summary of Woman#Religion is good, as EvergreenFir says, though this phrasing is a little weird. Maybe "...certain obligatory rules for women" would sound less stilted, or just "...certain rules for women"—isn't the obligatory nature of the rules already conveyed by their being rules? -sche (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I dropped "that are obligatory", which also didn't jive with WP:LEAD insofar as the body never calls the rules "obligatory" anyway, except by calling them rules, so it's sufficient for the lead to do likewise IMO. -sche (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

TW as controversial

I recently added a citation to Byrne that described the argument (abbreviated as "TW") 'trans women are women, even if they have not had ‘reassignment’ surgery or hormonal treatments' as controversial; which was then reverted with the claim 'no one says all women are trans; that's just nonsense; it's a fact that SOME women are trans'. The reverter seems to have misunderstood Byrne's argument and sources. Byrne is certainly not saying that all women are trans.Maneesh (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

But you were, based on the wording of your edit. Georgia guy (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. I muddled it editing around 'some'.Maneesh (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The edit that adds the citation to Byrne has been reverted, this is troubling. It supports the claim that "trans women are woman" is controversial; the fact that this claim is controversial should be acknowledged in the article and Byrne is a good citation to support that claim since it summarizes the argument clearly. I don't see how WP:CLAIM (which living person did the edit refer to regrading a claim?) or WP:ONUS applies (how could there be a consensus to not include Byrne since the article was published after the archived discussion 14?). The claim about intersex women in this article remains incorrect, the largest class of 'intersex' individuals (<2% of the population) has >88% of them with late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia (WP:PROPORTION), a condition that is ostensibly 'late onset' (not a sexual characteristic that one is born with, WP:FACTCHECK). It is quite odd to go out of the way to mention this in the lead since it is well known that symptomatic LOCAH patients are women. I may have missed it, but I do not see some of these basic facts about the class of intersex people mentioned in the archived discussion 14. Maneesh (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I stand by what I said when reverting you: See WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, WP:CLAIM, and WP:ONUS. We also need to go by WP:Due. Read Archive 14 of the talk page. This has been discussed extensively and I am so not [interested] in reopening that can of worms. The problem with "claim" has nothing to do with referring to a living person; it is rather as WP:CLAIM says: To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. WP:ONUS means that if reverted, you should be getting a consensus before restoring. As it says: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those [i.e. you] seeking to include disputed content. Archive 14 is not specifically about Byrne, but it shows that trying to significantly change the article's coverage of trans women is not going to succeed. The intersex stuff you mention is a non sequitur. Various intersex conditions exist and any of them may identify as women. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I will address your intersex claims first. The article has 'intersex (those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female)'. You can see very easily that *late onset* CAH affected patients are the majority of intersex. What sexual characteristic that does not fit the typical notions of male or female are this class of people born with? 'Various intersex conditions exist and any of them may identify as women', certainly true but *anyone* may identify as a woman; why is the entire class of intersex people being mentioned here? Maneesh (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Image caption edit request

In the "Biology and sex" section, an image is captioned "Note that the body hair of both models is removed." Could this be edited to "Note that the pubic hair of both models is removed."? The male figure has visible leg hair. My account is too new to edit this sensitive page. Thanks, WikiWikiHigh (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Is a section on biology appropriate in a cultural article?

It seems like this article injects biological sex into an Anglo-centric cultural perspective. Should the biology section instead link to Female to designate that womanhood and sex are in fact separate but related? Jeremyagottfried (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

No, one can't divide off biology from culture like that. Biological aspects are heavily intertwined with womanhood, such as in women's health. See the over 1.3 million PubMed results for "women" for example: [2] Crossroads ^-talk- 20:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that womanhood and biology are intertwined. My concern is that including "biology and sex" in this article oversimplifies the relationship between culture and biological sex. It could be misconstrued as a post hoc fallacy. For example, "the biological differences between men and women caused the cultural differences." While that is certainly part of the story, the scope of a statement like that is too narrow to be true. Sexual selection in humans is only briefly mentioned, and it's only in relation to breast size, which is kind of a weird way to introduce that topic. I feel like this article either needs to be broken up into multiple articles, or it needs to be reworded so that its simplicity is not misconstrued as cause and effect. Jeremyagottfried (talk) 03:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems that you were, and seemingly still are, proposing to remove discussion of biology entirely, which is a non-starter. This is clear from how the matter of discussing biology has been debated rather recently: [3][4] To be clear, the statement in your comment "the biological differences between men and women caused the cultural differences" does not appear in the article. It doesn't make any sense to split this article because more detailed aspects of sex and gender are already discussed in other articles. As for the possibility of rewording certain things within this article, at this time I am not aware of any problem text. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there is no specific "problem text". I'm more referring to a slant in the focus of the article toward biology and modernisms that narrows the explanation of womanhood. Without overtly saying that gender roles developed in a vacuum, the article could lead someone to reach that conclusion. For example ″Traditionally, middle class women were involved in domestic tasks emphasizing child care.″ Which tradition(s) does this line refer to? "Throughout human history, traditional gender roles have often defined and limited women's activities and opportunities; many religious doctrines stipulate certain rules for women." Did the gender roles themselves limit women's activities and opportunities, or did these roles develop as the result of other environmental factors? Joan Huber says it pretty well:

 ″The relationship of the reproductive process and gender equality cannot be understood without considering the historical relationship of subsistence technology to human beliefs and behaviors. Scholars generally agree that the level of equality between men and women (as well as the general level of social and political equality) was highest in the foraging groups that characterized our species for 99 percent of human history. Male dominance increased in societies based on the hoe or on herding to obtain food, and came to a peak in the great Eurasian kingdoms and empires in the millennia when the plow was the primary tool of food production.″

There's hardly any mention of an anthropological, evolutionary perspective in the article. So my issue is with the scope of this article (as well as Man). By omitting explanations of gender roles and how biology actually relates to womanhood, we have a narrow, simplistic view of gender. No individual statement in the article is false, but the article limits its explanation to the point that it lacks substance and presents an incomplete story.Jeremyagottfried (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

_____

References

Requesting opinion on a page move request.

Hello,

@ Talk:Aurat (disambiguation)#Requested_move_11_May_2020 is taking place about article relating to women of mainly of Asian origin. In Past 2 days only two opinions are received and more opinions will be preferable. Thanks for your opinion and participation in discussion.

Bookku (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word) has been relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Bookku (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

Request removal of "Some women are trans (those who have a male sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity),[1] or intersex (those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female). " Woman/Women is a biological designation as such the first half of the sentence is unnecessary and the second part is entirely incorrect as per https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12129-020-09877-8 Thanks JamesWoods87 (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC) JamesWoods87 (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with JamesWoods87. If women can be men (transwomen) then one cannot possibly correctly or coherently interpret the covers of two recent books that focus on disparities between men and women, let alone their content. Maneesh (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User talk:JamesWoods87 request, because the definition is now inherently self-contradictory saying "A woman is a "female human being" and "some women ... have a male sex assignment" (i.e. a male sex). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardoligneo (talk • contribs) 17:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Darren-M talk 00:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Happy to do as instructed, could you walk me through the process as the consensus page says to edit to see if consensus is given, by no one re-editing. Would I literally just create a talk page header asking for people's input on my proposed edit? Thanks JamesWoods87 (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)