Talk:Woman/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Definition of a woman

Sorry to bring this up but I have a question about the first few words: "A woman is an adult female human." The link "female" says "Female (symbol: ♀) is the sex of an organism that produces the large non-mobile ova (egg cells), the type of gamete (sex cell) that fuses with the male gamete during sexual reproduction."

So the definition basicly say that "women are humans that produces eggs".

What about a woman that is 98 years old. Does she still produce eggs? If not is she still a woman? I know the problem (if any) may be in the article female that should perhaps say "that produces or have been producing" etc.

Next question is the transgender issue. Does trans women produces eggs?

The same issue is with "man" that is defined as a male that is defined as one "that produces the gamete (sex cell) known as sperm". Does trans men produces sperm?

What would happen if we use "gender identity" in "A woman is an adult human with a female gender identity."?

I know it is not easy to find a wording that will make everyone happy but as it is now I do not think it is 100% clear if a woman (or a man) is defined by chromosomes/biology etc. or not. --MGA73 (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I made a post on man, female and male to see if someone would be interessted in commenting. If you have to produce eggs or sperm to be a female or a male I think that raises the question what gender (?) someone have before and after the body is able to produce eggs or sperm. I think girls produces eggs earlier than boys produces sperm so the starting point may only be relevant for boys. But there is an ending point for females. --MGA73 (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I'll chime in here since no one has done so. This question has been covered many times with the current wording established through a very protracted and long consensus seeking discussion. You can find the discussion here. Unfortunately the editor consensus and the reliable source consensus *is* that "adult human female" is the succinct and accurate description for a woman. There are many back and forths within the talk page archives on disagreements and disputes regarding this, however the current definition has stood the test of time.

With regards to reading of female as "humans which produce eggs," I do believe that is a bit off the mark. Sex is a trait determining the individual's reproductive function, not necessarily whether or not they are currently producing small or large gametes. I do think that the current wording is scientifically accurate, even taking into account situations such as menopause, sterility, etc. However, I'm sure others can give a more elaborate and in detail explanation. Theheezy (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Theheezy! I came to the English Wikipedia page because I think the Danish Wikipedia page could use some improvement. But I'm having problems understanding the English articles too.

I can easily live with the definition that a woman is an adult human female. But I think that raises the question what a female is. And as I said the definition of a female is the sex of of an organism "that produces the large non-motile ova (egg cells)". How can a woman of 98 year old or a former man produce egg cells? If they can't then they fail the definition of being a female and then they fail the definition of being a woman. So how can both statements be correct?

Perhaps the answer is that something is not right with the definitions but we do not want to offend anyone so we leave them as the are? --MGA73 (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The people who feel they WP:OWN the Female page insist - with some justification, it must be said - that it is a biological article that is not limited to humans, and that emphasizing the multiple meanings of "female" for human beings would be UNDUE. People with strong opinions about the article Woman feel it necessary to link to Female, even though the set of meanings relevant to human females are not coterminous with those of "female" in terms of biology (as reflected by Female). So things are the way they are. Newimpartial (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Newimpartial. However I do want to speak in defense of the current wording in all articles mentioned with regards to the original question by MGA73.

So I think there is a bit of a balancing act between absolute correctness and understandability for a reader. From what I understand, there is actually quite a bit of jargon here that is subtly hidden. This is what I understand from what I've read, however maybe I am not fully correct and more experienced editors can correct me.

Sex, female, and male are highly specific technical terms in Evolutionary Biology. You can read a bit more about this under anisogamy. First, we have to read sex as a model of reality, just like for example Physics. Thus, male and female are reproductive functions, not designations of organisms. However, the map is not the territory. Where "male human" or "female human" gets into it is in the process of sexing where it is determined through some criteria whether this organism has the reproductive function of a male or female. So again, male human, or female human means an organism that was sexed to have male reproductive function, or female reproductive function respectively. These criteria may not be always correct, however for most intents and purposes they work. The take away being, that the current verbiage is not incorrect. They're simply very subtle to grasp the full scope of.

Now should we intersperse this highly technical information on the page for Woman? Again this feels like we should respect WP:Due and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. From what I understand typically WP:RS do conflate these highly technical terms, but the understanding conferred to the typical reader by conflating them is more beneficial than the alternative. I think that when the WP:RS start moving is when we will see a better alternative to the current wording. Theheezy (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Newimpartial! I agree that the article about female is not limited to humans. I also agree that the "trouble" may only be relevant to humans because animals are not believed to be able to decide that they want another gender. That is also why I commented on the article woman. User:2402:E280:3D03:7D:C1B0:227D:B01B:8278 comment below that the article does not say "all her lifespan" and that is correct. But I understand the word "produces" as something that is going on right now. If a female does not have to produce "all her lifespan" then it would be more precise to write "produces or have been producing". At least in my understanding - English readers may read it otherwise :-)

Also thank you Theheezy. I really appriciate that you try to help me understand why. I fully agree that we should not lead and things have to be based on reliable sources. My thought is that if reliable sourses say that women are female and reliable sources say that females produces ova/eggs then the article on Wikipedia should say that.

Someone told me that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEGzvZ85dgs is basically the same problem. So in short the problem is that it is not possible to make a definition that will cover all cases. At least not in the first line. All exceptions etc. can be written somewhere else in the article. --MGA73 (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

To get back on the WP:OWN accusation, please assume good faith. I've checked the talk page over at talk:Female, and I don't see any interactions between you and other editors that show OWN-behaviour from their side. If we are inviting editors from that page over to discuss this issue, we should not have such presuppositions. Cheers, Pyrite Pro (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It can be correct. A 98 year old woman, though does not produce eggs any more, does *belong* to the sex that produces one. Lightest (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

A 98 year woman cannot produce eggs,Yes. That's because of menopause, She for all of her fertile years had eggs. The definition. "that produces the large non-motile ova" doesnt say "produces ova all her lifespan".2402:E280:3D03:7D:C1B0:227D:B01B:8278 (talk) 09:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I implemented my reply above. --MGA73 (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

That would be interesting if she did. 50.32.116.1 (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

May I recommend you read a biology textbook before opining on this topic? 213.205.242.73 (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

You may. It is a free world! But would that not require Time travel? If you see any faults in my logic you are welcome to help me out. --MGA73 (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

"opining" - not "opening" 194.39.218.10 (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem with the direct association between woman and gender-identity, is that woman simply doesn't mean "an adult human with a female gender identity". In mainstream language, woman is still referred to as "an adult female human being" (Webster: [1], Cambridge: [2]). Changing the language to fit a gender-identity narrative is ignorant of what the average person is expecting. And that might have something to do with the widespread recognition that being a woman is more than just a socially-constructed gender identity. A change of definition could therefore endanger WP:NPOV. Therefore, I'm strongly opposed to changing the definition of "woman" as suggested. If there is a problem with the wiki-internal logic that "women are humans that produces eggs", it should be addressed at Female, not here. Cheers, Pyrite Pro (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I looked at Websters definition of a female and they have this text "b: having a gender identity that is the opposite of male" so I do not think my suggestion was totally stupid. But I also noticed that they have "a. ...the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs".

If we modify female so it is no longer a question of anatomy but feelings/wishes it may give problems for aminals because to my knowledge we can't ask them if they feel like male or female so its not an easy solution. But perhaps the word "typically" can work? --MGA73 (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Pyrite, an adult female human being is equivalent to an adult human female with a female gender identity in a range of situations - such as mainstream feminist movements, most publicly gendered spaces (like washrooms), etc. - where it isn't equivalent to humans that produces eggs. I can't tell from your previous comment whether you are arguing against this or not, but what I have stated isn't a gender-identity narrative, it is a material reality in much of the English-speaking world (and elsewhere). Newimpartial (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The article as it is right now, goes against the current scientific consensus. "Woman" is the name of a gender, which does not always align with someone's sex. Please note that the sources I cited here are more up to date and more applicable than the sources cited in the introduction of the article. I propose we change the introduction of the article to "A woman is an adult human with a feminine gender identity. Prior to adulthood, people with feminine gender identities are referred to as a girls (children or adolescents.) The plural "women" is sometimes used in certain phrases such as "women's rights" to women and girls regardless of age." Egefeyzi (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Also according to the sources above, "Trans women develop a gender identity that does not align with their male sex assignment at birth, while intersex women may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology." is also outdated. I propose we replace "develop" with "have", since gender is currently understood as something one is born with. We could also take out the section entirely since I'm not sure how relevant it is anyway. Egefeyzi (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I still think that this article – after the opening sentences – should clearly state that there are multiple valid definitions, depending upon time/place/context. It's easiest to understand this if you focus less on the "female" and more on the "adult" part of the definition for a moment: Who is an adult? Well, the answer depends entirely on your culture. In some cultures, adulthood is defined by calendar age. In some cultures, it's defined by biology (pre-menarche: child; post-menarche: adult). In some cultures, it's defined by behavior (e.g., primary caregiver to a biological child = adult; survivor of initiation rite = adult).

In modern Western cultures, we define woman in multiple ways, including but not limited to:

• by biology ("Menstruating women can get pregnant")
• by gender identity ("Unlike non-binary people, women have an internal identification with or sense of being a woman")
• by gender expression ("Can you send an ambulance? A woman collapsed on the sidewalk in front of me")
• by gender role ("Women's work is never done")
• by law ("Women have the right to walk down the street without having strangers complete strangers yell sexual comments at them")

None of these definitions are wrong. They are just different definitions.

BTW, there can't be a scientific consensus for the meaning of a word. Science can tell you whether, e.g., ciswomen, non-binary afab people, and transwomen share certain specific characteristics in common. It can't tell you what word should this group (or any other) should be called. That's not something you can determine through the scientific method. What you've proven with those citations is merely that two Western professional organizations expressed their opinions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

What the sources I cite demonstrate is that leading scientific organisations define the term in a specific way, and the lede goes against that definition. "Woman" is a term relevant to pshycology and pshyciatry, so it is reasonable (and required according to WP:WHYCITE) to look at what the leading organisations have the say about this. Further, the definition you provided when saying "by biology" is incorrect, again, according to the sources I cited. "Woman" is not a relevant term in biology, as the current scientific consensus is that it is a gender identity, and not a sex. All the other definitions you have provided relate to gender, not sex, and therefore using "female" in the lede is not approppriate.

You can't directly test what/who a woman is using the scientific method, however leading scientific bodies have arrived at a definition that they use and agree on, so we must adopt that definition here to keep the article from becoming outdated. Egefeyzi (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Three things: (1) "female" can refer to gender; (2) none of the sources you cited define "woman", but use it as part of defining another term, so do not directly weigh on this matter; and (3) the sources currently cited are a small representation of those that exist, and their newer editions, as far as I can tell, all use the same definition. On Wikipedia, our text is based on WP:Due weight, and both scientific and lay sources defining "woman" define it this way overwhelmingly if not exclusively. It is not the case that sources only use "woman" in a gender-identity sense and not a sex sense, as medical sources make clear. Our article includes trans women already, as seen even more clearly below. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

1) Female is a sex, and even though it can be used to refer to gender, in the context in the lede, it is not. It would be a recursive definition if it were. 2) They drop pretty heavy context clues I would argue. 3) Could you cite the newer editions of the sources I cited that contradict what I said? I cited the most up to date information I could find from the APA and the CPA, two trusted bodies in pshyciatry. As female (in that context) is a biological term, we should look at scientific sources when deciding whether to use it. If we include trans women in the article and "woman" can also refer to trans women, not all of whom are female, saying "female" in the lede would not make much sense, would it? Egefeyzi (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Your statement (1) is demonstrably false, which seems to invalidate the rest of what you are trying to say here. Not only that, but you have repeatedly insisted that "female" is not an appropriate term for a gender identity - which is not supported by the sources you yourself have cited.

Also, in your own suggestion for a new lede, you have proposed feminine gender identity even though none of your sources actually use this or any related terms (they use "feminine" for gender expression, but never for gender identity that I can see).

All in all, I'm not seeing anything here that editors ought to take seriously in contemplating revisions to the lede. Newimpartial (talk) 05:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

So a car with no gas is not a car anymore because I can't drive it? Guess I'll keep the tank empty and not pay the annual tax on it (Europe here), see what the state thinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F07:B308:1F00:DC4A:8606:FA87:A7A (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

A woman who cannot produce eggs is an infertile woman; she is still a woman notwithstanding her inability to perform a core natural function of a woman. A car missing a wheel is still a car, notwithstanding it cannot drive.--68.201.51.211 (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah this whole page makes no sense. This is inherienlty not what a woman is as it is based off of gender identity, not gamete production RJS001 (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It does make a certain sort of sense. In an objective sense, the majority of women have an XX chromosome configuration from birth, although there are a minority of variants to that existing as statistical outliers. This configuration which is most typical normally generates the physical characteristics of the mature human female which are demonstrative of expected human sexual dimorphism after growth e.g. vagina, breasts, leaner stature and a high pitched voice. Then you have gender identity which is subjective, so a woman may identify as a man or a man as a woman, or any variation within or without that framework, and even take medication, undergo surgical procedures, adopt alterations to mannerisms and dress etc. to acquire their perception of the characteristics of their chosen form (often, but not always, constrained by their localised (on a micro or macro scale e.g. village vs culture) societal understandings of said form). However, this does not alter their immutable biological state of being, which is neither a good or bad thing, just a scientific fact. This is why I believe that the trans-prefix for any given entity that adopts a form other than their natural biological state is an objective scientific necessity, citing the cis-trans isomerism from which the terminology was adopted i.e. that which may look similar but is fundamentally different. 5.81.14.202 (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

“ Then you have gender identity which is subjective, so a woman may identify as a man or a man as a woman, or any variation within or without that framework, and even take medication, undergo surgical procedures, adopt alterations to mannerisms and dress etc. to acquire their perception of the characteristics of their chosen form” That is obviously not how that works and you know that. You are clearly being very intellectually dishonest in your comment. RJS001 (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the main issue here is that, like whatamidoinghere says, there are different definitions that are incorrigible from one another. I think the best solution would be to delineate in the lede some of the more esoteric meanings. Something along the lines of 'under gender studies schools of thought, woman is defined as a social construct relating to female gender identity, and this definition forms the basis of terminology such as 'trans women' and 'intersex women, or something to that effect Fullmetalalch (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

That proposal would be much more reflective of a specific POV than is the article in its current form. Newimpartial (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The lede to Femininity is much more culturally neutral than this article. For example the first sentence says "Femininity (also called womanliness) is a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles generally associated with women and girls.". And the third sentence: "To what extent femininity is biologically or socially influenced is subject to debate." I think it would make sense to alter the first sentence of this article to make it culturally neutral in the same way and make it clear that the definition of woman varies depending on who you ask. Although "woman" is sometimes used in scientific literature and legal copy, it's a cultural word and defined differently depending on the context. I would reword the lede to something like "A woman is an adult human with a feminine gender." That's the same proposed change but without the word "identity". The intentional vagueness allows for a wider range of cultural interpretations. I know that's kind of circular because Femininity article defines itself in relation to women, but the fact that it's "feminine gender" and not just "femininity" makes the difference. All in all, a woman is not simply an adult female human and the article should reflect that. The void century (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll also add that the entire second paragraph is unnecessary and could simply link to "female" article similar to the "femininity" article. So the lede could become "A woman is an adult human with a feminine gender. Typically, women are defined based on the attributes, behaviors and roles of female humans. To what extent womanhood is biologically or socially influenced is subject to debate and varies across academic disciplines, legal systems, cultures, and history. Trans women have a gender identity that does not align with their male sex assignment at birth, while intersex women may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology." This would be followed by what's currently the third paragraph. The void century (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Lastly, WP:NPOV clearly says "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." The assertion that women are "adult females" is seriously contested given that multiple reliable sources define women differently. The void century (talk) 03:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Comparing those two pages are comparing apples and oranges. Additionally, such a definition, aside from being deeply WP:UNDUE if not outright WP:Original research, excludes butch women from being women. Redefining womanhood to something nebulous and confusing based on gender stereotypes will definitely not fly with the community. This thread keeps getting revived but should really be archived soon. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

What you said about "excludes butch women" is a fair point, but that doesn't prove that the definition of woman is "adult human female". Your argument is a false dilemma. This discussion has been opened so many times because there is significant lack of consensus among different reliable sources. WP:Undue weight might be true if you're giving equal weight to research written 20+ years ago, but today there is significant controversy. Allowing medical dictionaries to define a cultural matter is giving undue weight to the academic discipline of medicine. My proposal could easily be appended to include more gender non-conformity. For example, "Other common examples of women with gender non-conforming identities include butch women and tomboys". I agree it would be a better idea to reword the lede to be more inclusive. But I don't agree that the answer to that is to define woman as "adult human female", when female is so clearly a biological term on wikipedia. It doesn't need to be "feminine gender", that was just one example alternative. I don't think I'm qualified to write the final lede edit, as I don't have enough access to a wide variety of reliable sources. The void century (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

For example even something like this would be slightly better as it would clarify that not every woman is an adult human female: "Woman is a gender, typically referring to an adult human female." This would be much more in line with articles like Sex and gender distinction The void century (talk) 05:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I see the intent, but Woman is a gender, typically referring to... is a really unusual turn of phrase. The notion that "woman === gender, female === sex" is a common misconception of the sex/gender distinction. Woman is not the name of a gender (that would seem to make girl a separate gender?), it is the English word for adult humans of the female gender. Our definition is basically correct, though perhaps missing some nuance.

Butch and tomboy describe normal variations in gender presentation, not gender identity, the same way trans woman and intersex woman describe normal variations in assigned sex. We are all examples of, not exceptions to, the definition of women as female humans. Even with the best of intentions, a definition phrased like A woman is typically a female human, but occasionally a non-female woman-identifying oddity is, ironically, far more exclusive.

The chief problem (as you note) is that Female is overwhelmingly an article about sex, but we're using it here to mean something akin to "female-gendered". A majority of authoritative dictionaries fail to reflect that particular nuance, so unfortunately, so does Wikipedia until they change their minds. We don't have a separate article for Female (gender) (this is that article). Theoretically, we could unlink female, or rephrase as something like humans of the female gender. But given that Wikipedians have already spilled literal gigabytes of digital ink debating this controversial subject, I suspect gaining consensus for even the slightest variation on the current text would be... unexpected. Regards, RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 19:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm hoping my proposal below is small enough. Adding the word "typically" without changing anything else in the definition would be a good compromise to add a little nuance. It's also in line with more recent definitions that have been hard-fought for by LGBTQ community, for example Webster's new definition of Man, which is "an individual human; especially : an adult male human". The word "especially" adds nuance. The void century (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

What you said is kinda misleading though, because "woman" isn't a gender. "Woman" refers to a person OF that gender. Specifically, what most people would call the female gender. The issue is that "female" can me different things in different contexts/to different people. The current article on "female" treats it as the biological concept, which makes sense, especially since that concept applies to much more than just humans. However, when someone says something like "A woman is a female human," and they're being inclusive of trans women, they just mean female to mean "feminine/relating to women". But there isn't really a better way to say it than female. Finnigami (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Finnigami "Woman" refers to a person OF that gender I think I agree with you that's more accurate than woman is a gender. It's very complex linguistically though.

If you're interested in this topic, there is an ongoing discussion about this in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female (gender) The void century (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Please do not WP:CANVASS. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Crossroads I'd appreciate it if you WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. I have no idea whether this editor would agree with me in the AfD. They made controversial edits on female and woman today (which I didn't agree with tbh) so I wanted to make sure they knew that this topic is currently being debated elsewhere. They may not have seen your notice below. This falls under WP:APPNOTE. The void century (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Citation cleanup

I've been doing a section by section citation cleanup over the last hour. While doing this I've had to tag three citations with {{better source needed}} for the following reasons:

• [3] A news source (The Telegraph) is being used to support a medical claim, and should be replaced with a MEDRS source
• [4] A citation to a book review, where we could probably cite the original book
• [5] A citation to a 12 year old list of statistics, that doesn't directly support the claim made in the text. I've also tagged this one as {{synthesis inline}} for obvious reasons

I also tagged one source with {{page needed}} as the citation is too non-specific to support the text.

I've also partially rewritten and updated the text on maternal deaths in low and lower middle-income countries. I discovered when checking if the WHO citation that was in use for that paragraph was still live that it redirected to a newer version of the article, and used that to update the text. I'll hopefully get the remaining sections cleaned up some time tomorrow. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Linking "female" to the disambiguation page

My edit linking "female" to Female (disambiguation) was reverted by Gilgul Kaful with the edit summary: "Female is an article."[6] My feeling is that Female is too specifically about sex to be properly linked from the lead (and Female (gender) is incomplete and too specifically about gender). Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree there's a problem, but I also know that links to disambiguation pages like this are not recommended by guideline, and I don't think this is an IAR case. Not all the links at the dab page are relevant. I would also prefer not to make any big moves until the AfD for Female (gender) is closed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Please don’t use the Female (gender) article to do WP:POV editing. To claim that when reliable sources say female they mean Female (gender), or we don’t know what they mean actually is WP:OR. The use of female should be clear in the reliable sources, not up to us for interpretation. If it is unclear, then the safe bet is to use the most prominent definition (i.e. most common usage) on reliable dictionaries. The current link already follows this guideline. Theheezy (talk) 05:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

It is clear that when reliable sources say female they mean female sex or female gender. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The main meaning of female is at Female. A disambiguation page containing Female (novel), Female (2005 film), and Female connector is not good link here.Gilgul Kaful (talk) 07:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe wikt:female#Adjective, which reads Belonging to the sex which typically produces eggs (ova), or to the gender which is typically associated with it? I think both this solution and your solution are really not very good, though. Endwise (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

That might have the same problem as linking to a disambiguation page because there are more meanings listed than the intended target. What about using MOS:SECTIONLINKS? Maybe a new section "Female humans" under Female. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

What's the problem with the non-species specific female link ? --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

This sounds like quite a bit of WP:OR to me. I am strongly opposed to any movement of the current Female link intended to give additional due weight to Female (gender). I haven't seen any indication in the reliable sources in the lede that their usage of Female is any different from the common everyday general purpose usage of female. The most prominent and common usage of the word female agrees with the current link on this page. Do note that Female also mentions Female (gender) in the lede thus clearly satisfying the requirement of they mean female sex or female gender. Theheezy (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, www.merriam-webster.com/ does have " b : having a gender identity that is the opposite of male" as a secondary definition, but the Wikipedia Female also has " In humans, the word female can also be used to refer to gender. " at the end of the lead, so Wikipedia already has its bases covered. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

A new section on female humans would not give undue weight to anything on... female humans. As I said, the current link to Female gives undue weight to sex. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

How is it undue weight when the most prominent and widely used definition on MW is exactly the topic we're linking to? This is really getting into WP:FORUM territory. Theheezy (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Nailed it. Any other link is not only undue but also completely unnecessary because female describes both meanings in the lead and the body. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Linking "female" to Female human subsection

Continued from above

Anyway, if there were consensus, linking "female" to Female#Human female would in my opinion clarify for readers what female human means and correct what I believe is a weight problem. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion continued at Talk:Female#Proposed_human_subsection. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Trans references should be removed from page

WP:NOTFORUM Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The discussion of transwomen should be removed from the top of the page as the topic is about women. 172.242.175.212 (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC) Trans women are women. The void century (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC) The Root definition of woman fits this page perfectly. Trans is a prefix. Prefixes change the meaning of root words. Without the prefix the root word doesn't change. Woman are exactly what this page describes. Stop demanding the word change without the prefix. "The void century". Consigiliere (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)