Talk:Gender/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

The lead

I reverted Taranet's change to the lead and creation of the History section, because not only has the lead been worked on by a few of us who have been at this article for some time and I feel that a drastic change to it should be discussed first, gender is a complicated issue and shouldn't be condensed to a few sentences for the lead of this article. Per WP:LEAD, it definitely shouldn't be reduced to just a few sentences, given the size of this article and the fact that the few sentences do not adequately summarize this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, Taranet's change had a "Gender is social" lean to it instead of balance for the "Gender is also biological" viewpoint. Given that the lead I restored the article to shows that the "Gender is also biological" viewpoint is not a minor viewpoint anymore, especially with regard to transgender individuals, there should certainly be more balance for both views in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
While I do not believe that the fact that many of us have been here longer than Taranet has relevance here, I agree with the change. Gender does not "typically refer to social rather than biological characteristics." Its most commonly used definition is given in most dictionaries as "state of being male or female; sex." Its usage to refer to social roles is specific to the social sciences and requires explanation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in, Darkfrog24. I was not pointing out that some of us have been working on or looking after the article longer than Taranet and thus we have more say than Taranet. I was saying that the lead has been worked on by a few people who are still watching over the article and it has had WP:Consensus for a while now. Drastic changes to an article that a few or more editors have worked on, when those few or more editors are still watching over that article, are often reverted. This is because Wikipedia is a collaborative project and these editors have therefore worked together to form that preexisting version, which means that it is only natural that they would want any drastic changes to be discussed first. This is why WP:Consensus exists. This is why the WP:BRD page exists. It's one of the standard ways that Wikipedia operates. It's not a matter WP:OWN to revert an editor's change to a long-standing version in order to discuss the matter first and see if there is a need to form new consensus. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the 'view' (if we can call it a 'view') that Gender means sex is not that important. If this 'view' was important, they would have Redirected Gender to Sex and write everything there. The etymological history of the word shouldn't be in the first paragraph of the lead, Wikipedia is not a [etymological] dictionary (WP:NOT#DICTIONARY). I edited the article with two reliable references (WHO and Oxford dictionary). They say Gender "typically refers to social rather than biological characteristics. It shows that this 'view' is more accepted. The references I added were deleted in thess edits. Also important and related articels I pointed to in the lead, third gender and academic field of study Gender studies were deleted too. --Taranet (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

And on the top of the talk page it is written that Gender was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. This shows that the page doesn't have a WP:Consensus and is not in a good condition now.--Taranet (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There has been a consensus for the long-standing version of the lead. It was worked out extensively, with agreement that "Gender is also biological" should be in the lead. That gender can be biological is not just a viewpoint. Some studies have shown this; see transgender studies. Saying that "gender means sex is not that important" is not a valid argument when looking over reliable, scholarly sources on this topic. Even the WHO source you use (which is the source I added when I was only about defining gender as social, while also noting that it is often used interchangeably with "biological sex") makes a point to acknowledge that "[s]ometimes it is hard to understand exactly what is meant by the term 'gender', and how it differs from the closely related term 'sex'." The fact that sex and gender may be considered different or one in the same is most definitely lead material. Did you read WP:LEAD? This isn't about WP:DICTIONARY. It's about adequately summarizing this article per WP:LEAD. Your lead doesn't live up to WP:LEAD. Mentioning that gender means sex isn't the issue, since your version leaves in the slightly altered line "Depending on the context, the describing characteristics vary from sex to social roles & gender roles to gender identity." The issue is about adequately summarizing how gender can mean all those things. And while we're on the subject of Wikipedia not being a dictionary, dictionary sources are not the best to define such a complicated topic as gender. You speak of your two reliable sources. But what about the reliable sources you moved out of the lead? You say that your sources show that the view you added is the more accepted view. But, if that's the case, how do you explain the two reliable sources backing the line "in most contexts, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has expanded to include 'sex' or even to replace the latter word"? The WHO is not authoritative on everything; certainly not on the topic of gender.
As for third gender, that is already touched on in the second paragraph. If you want third gender specifically mentioned, I don't object. It used to be specifically mentioned in the lead before your version. And gender studies is already mentioned in the final paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Your viewpoint that biology affects Gender characteristics, behavior, and Identity can be mentioned in the lead BUT it's not about the DEFINITION for gender. When the article says "range of characteristics used to distinguish between males and females" it means "having a vagina or penis"! so why don't you redirect the whole article to page sex!? There's too much WP:POV on this article in this situation. As much that affects the definition of the subject.--Taranet (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm extremely busy at the moment, so I won't be able to contribute a more extensive comment at this moment, but, Taranet, I will state briefly that I strongly disagree with you... distinctions between males and females go beyond merely "having a vagina or penis" (please see Causes of transsexualism for some evidence that this is the case), and I think the consensus lede which you modified with this edit was a reasonable attempt to get this across in a fair and neutral fashion, and that your version is not at all adequate.
Also, I think your edit adding the statement "Gender is studied in the academic field Gender studies" itself displays a certain very restrictive POV: gender is additionally researched in clinical psychology, social psychology, sexology, neuroscience, sociology, anthropology, and other academic and scientific fields. - thanks, bonze blayk (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for weighing in and getting those points across so sufficiently, Bonze blayk.
Taranet, I've been putting off looking at your latest comment and replying because I'm trying to spend as little time on Wikipedia as I can and would rather not deal with situations that have the potential to stress me out. When the article says "a range of characteristics used to distinguish between males and females," it also says "particularly in the cases of men and women and the masculine and feminine attributes that they possess" right after that. The reason for "particularly in the cases of men and women" is because "gender" can also refer to non-human animals, which the lead addresses later on, as well as because "man and woman" are the two most common genders. After that, we explain what we mean by "a range of characteristics." It says "Depending on the context, the discriminating characteristics vary from sex to social role to gender identity." We don't redirect the Gender article to the Sex article because, while "sex" and "gender" are used interchangeably to mean the same thing, they are not the same thing. "Biological sex" is exactly about what the Sex article says -- it's about biological differences. "Gender" is about biological sex, social roles and gender identities; it encompasses all the ways in which males and females are distinguished, either by biology, society or personal perception. And I've already mentioned that there are studies showing that gender is also biological. Bonze blayk pointed to an article. Such studies are of course also mentioned at Transgender#Transsexual people and science. A lot of scholarly sources on the topic of gender mention biological influences, such as this 1994 source currently in the lead.
You say that there's "too much WP:POV on this article," but the lead and rest of the article give just about equal weight to sociological gender and biological gender. Your version of the lead does not. So it's humorous to me that you put the POV tag on this article, when the tag fits your version instead of this one. When the lead says "but in most contexts, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has expanded to include 'sex' or even to replace the latter word," for example, it's not saying "gender identity is biological"; it's saying that the words aren't often distinguished, that "gender" is used quite often to refer to the physical anatomy of individuals, in addition to social factors. See here. The lead I reverted to is more neutral and is certainly satisfactory to WP:LEAD. Look at this change to the lead of a different article; that is essentially what I did by reverting your edit. The lead is not satisfactory at one sentence, two or even a few for an article of this size. And I've made clear the complications with how gender is defined being lead-material. Gender is a term, and we should summarize that term as adequately as possible in the lead.
As for the expert tag you placed on this article, do you believe that you are an expert on this topic because you are with Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies? I would think that an expert would know that "gender" today is not mostly limited to social influences. And considering that you work on feminist topics, and feminists have been known to reject any biological causes for gender, I have to question whether some bias on your part is creeping its way into your edits here. As I stated before, I originally edited this article from a "gender is more accurately described as social" viewpoint, but that's because I rarely ever use the word "gender" to mean "biological sex" or vice versa. Once understanding that the lead needed to be more neutral in how gender is described, however, I let that go with regard to this article. Whatever your personal feelings are on the matter, I will be removing the expert tag, since very few articles on Wikipedia, including this one, require the attention of an expert. In fact, no expert is ever required. They are only desired for some topics. What Wikipedia wants more are editors who are at least very familiar with the topics they are working on and are editing those topics with reliable sources, while also following the policies and guidelines, with effort for accuracy. I don't heavily edit this article. If I did, then it would be in a lot better shape. I rather check in on it from time to time to correct things and revert vandalism. But I am very familiar with the topic. If you want to work out a different lead, which it seems that you do, then I am open to proposals from you. Just keep WP:LEAD in mind (read it, at least the first paragraph, if you haven't already). You should also read WP:Manual of Style because some of your formatting hasn't been in accordance with it. By that, I mean your heading formatting and uses of "&" instead of "and." Flyer22 (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Flyer22, so maybe we think the same way, I'm comming to you later.
Bonze blayk, I'm not talking about the causes of different sexes, genders, sextualiyies or whatever. I'm saying that the current sentence "distinguish between males and females" is the definition of sex, not gender. For gender, we can write "characteristics of femininity and masculinity".
And about the academic field called Gender studies, you have misunderstanding. It's an interdisciplinary field and in their programs they have literature and language, history, political science, sociology, anthropology, cinema and media studies, human development, law, and medicine. It also analyses race, ethnicity, location, nationality, and disability. It is available on the universities' websites. I WONDER when you call such an academic field of Varied studies as POV, then WHAT in the world would be NPOV?
Flyer, as I mentioned above, Gender studies is not equal to Feminism, and Feminism is not a singular point of view. Sometimes they call it Feminisms instead of Feminism. Because feminists have had different ideas and different solutions through the time, depended on the situation, thoughts, laws, culture, politics etc they lived in. They had several waves, and they helped improving the knowledge of humankind. Maybe you are a feminist too (the 3rd wave?). And I didn't add wikiprogect genderstudies because of being with them(!?). When I added that template by TW gadget it asked me which wikiprogect I suggest and I chose Gender studies because I do believe that this is the right academic and encyclopedic field for Gender article.
By the way, currently I agree not departing the lead into subsection "history" because it has some useful information of both views (biological and social) although I wish someone rewrite it later in a way that both views are pleased but with a better structure, suitable as a lead.
what I persist to change is the first sentence, not to have the word "distinguish", and say "femininity and masculinity and others described as third gender". So do you agree to write the first sentence as:

Gender is a range of characteristics of femininity, masculinity and others described as Third gender. Depending on the context, the describing characteristics vary from sex to social roles (gender roles) to gender identity. The academic interdisciplinary field Gender studies focuses on Gender. Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word "gender" to refer to anything but grammatical categories.[3][4] However, Money's meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. Today, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, like feminist literature,[5] and in documents written by organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO),[2] but in most contexts, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has expanded to include "sex" or even to replace the latter word.[3][4] Although this gradual change in the meaning of gender can be traced to the 1980s, a small acceleration of the process in the scientific literature was observed when the Food and Drug Administration started to use "gender" instead of "sex" in 1993.[6] "Gender" is now commonly used even to refer to the physiology of non-human animals, without any implication of social gender roles (for example dogs or cats).[4]

In the English literature, the trichotomy between biological sex, psychological gender, and social sex role first appeared in a feminist paper on transsexualism in 1978.[4][7] Some cultures have specific gender-related social roles that can be considered distinct from male and female, such as the hijra of India and Pakistan.

While the social sciences sometimes approach gender as a social construct, and gender studies particularly do, research in the natural sciences investigates whether biological differences in males and females influence the development of gender in humans; both inform debate about how far biological differences influence gender identity formation. Taranet (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Taranet, I didn't state that gender studies is equal to feminism. I stated that feminists have been known to reject any biological causes for gender. And, no, I'm not a feminist, although I do agree with some of their views; most women who aren't feminists do, I'd wager.
Despite the fact that gender is about distinguishing between males and females, I am okay with compromising with you on the first and second sentence that you propose. I think Darkfrog24 and Bonze blayk would be okay with that too, although maybe we should wait to see what they have to state about them (you could also go to their talk pages and ask them to comment if days go by before they do). If your sentences are inserted, just make sure that you don't capitalize "third gender," "gender studies" and "gender." It should be "third gender" and not "Third gender," for example. Flyer22 (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually "sex" is the definition of "gender." More specifically, it is one of several correct definitions. ("Gender" has about five of them.) In ordinary speech, most people use the word "gender" to mean whether something is male or female.
The lead must address the fact that "gender" has many different correct usages head-on. We should say that the social sciences use "gender" as short for "gender role" and "gender identity" and that most other areas use it interchangeably with "sex," as in this dictionary definition: [1]
I don't think we need to mention dogs or cats. "Non-human animals" is pretty self-explanatory. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe that the social sciences use "gender" as short for "gender role" and "gender identity". "Gender" is an individual word in social sciences.--Taranet (talk) 03:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but when they say "gender," they mean "gender role" and "gender identity" rather than the state of being male or female itself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Bonze blayk Edit warring

You just revert my edits without taking part in discussion although you were present on this article (view history). Congratulations, You made me tired of editing this article for now by your Edit warrings and Canvassing ([2] and [3]). The lead I suggested in the talk page (above) is not my ideal, but It was OK to me.

Not related: Some sources that I connived to get to a consensus sooner that say "Gender typically references to social and cultural characteristics rather than biological ones." are:

  • "Definition of Gender". Oxford Dictionary. Retrieved 01 May 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  • "What do we mean by "sex" and "gender"?". World Health Organization. Retrieved 02 May 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  • http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_chapter/9781405118668/9781405118668_4_002.pdf
  • http://www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/sexandgender.html
  • and a lot more

Although on talk page I agreed not to include this sentence and just fixed the definition sentence which Flyer22 agreed too.--Taranet (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that Oxford should be taken as absolutely definitive. It should be considered an example of one respectable dictionary that highlights the social definition of gender. There are many more that do not: ([[4]]). As such, I do not believe that the OD source is sufficient to support the claim that the use of "gender" to refer to social roles rather than to the state of being male or female in general is used in everyday speech. I have replaced the word "typical" with "in some dictionaries."
Also, I don't really get what the reference to cats and dogs was doing there. "Non-human animals" seems sufficiently clear. I doubt people need to be told what a non-human animal is. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Taranet, I don't have a lot of time to stay at this article at the moment. I'm commenting in this section to state a few things real quick: Bonze blayk did nothing wrong. While you and I agreed to using your proposed first line and with you adding the second line about gender studies, there was no consensus for the proposals. This is why I suggested that you wait to see what Darkfrog24 and Bonze blayk have to state about your proposals or to ask them to weigh in about them, because, with their agreement, we'd have WP:Consensus. Besides that, you added things to the lead that you and I didn't agree on. Not that you needed my agreement, but it's understandable why Bonze blayk would revert until consensus is clear.
I've already been over why I don't feel that the lead should say "Gender typically references to social and cultural characteristics rather than biological ones." Two editors other than myself are against it, and you seem okay with leaving that out in light of the compromise we made, so there should no longer be a problem on that front.
And again, be careful with your formatting. A word like "medicine," for example, should not be capitalized unless it is the first word of a sentence or is a title of something. Do read WP:Manual of Style.
Darkfrog, I saw when "dogs or cats" was added to the lead some time ago and of course agree that it's not needed. I didn't revert when I saw it because it wasn't that bad of an edit. Just a little trivial. Flyer22 (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Also, Taranet, the one who canvassed was me. And I did it within the guidelines -- contacting those who are involved with this article. Read examples in which WP:CANVASSING is acceptable. The only two active editors other than myself who consistently edit this article are Darkfrog24 and Bonze blayk. Flyer22 (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
What Bronzeblayk reverted without discussion didn't have anything more than our agreement. Bronzeblayk has been present on the article so they could take part in the talk if would like to.--Taranet (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you added the additional stuff after Bonze blayk's revert. I just wanted to point out that I don't feel that Bonze blayk did anything wrong. The revert was made because Bonze blayk felt that consensus was still absent. I know that Bonze blayk is busy, so perhaps the revert was partially about Bonze blayk needing more time before weighing in. But I understand why you reverted Bonze blayk and were frustrated by the action. Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have no time in real life to deal with this ridiculous accusation of "Edit warring", based on two (polite) reverts and an assertion that I am engaging in illegitimate canvassing... based on Flyer22's efforts to bring editors who have previously worked on this article into the discussion? (Yet I'm wasting time on it anyway! - lol)
... and I have absolutely zero patience with the implicit assumption that editors on Wikipedia must be available immediately (within three days, in this case!) to argue over modifications that involve significant changes to an article whose content has been stable for some time, which should be based on sound sources represented in a balanced manner.
In my view, when Taranet makes the statement "When the article says "range of characteristics used to distinguish between males and females" it means "having a vagina or penis"! so why don't you redirect the whole article to page sex!?" (to which I responded in [5]), she is revealing a very restrictive view of gender, one which maintains that gender roles and gender identification are purely social in nature, rather than having some basis in biological differences between the average male and female person beyond the obvious reproductive differences, which appear (from my knowledge of the subject) to be affected by hormonal influences... both prenatal influences affecting the structure of the brain, and postnatal, which not only affect behavior and mood, but also have been proven to modify brain structure when hormone therapy is administered to transsexual persons ... see for example Hulshoff et al, "Changing your sex changes your brain".
I think this POV is manifested in Taranet's modification of the lead... and Taranet seems, moreover, to be unaware that in normal English usage nowadays, sex and gender are routinely conflated, that "gender" is assumed to refer to genital sex, and that the distinction needs to be articulated (somehow) in the lead to the average reader looking up information on this topic for the first time.
I don't see why the lead, which we spent some 3,500 words discussing last year in Talk:Gender#Lead-in_definition, should be modified dramatically without appropriate discussion of the matter.
It's a very complicated subject area which is very difficult to assess and present in a balanced manner. I don't believe that heated accusations of "Edit warring" over Wikipedia editing practices which are perfectly normal contributes to developing such an article. - Sincerely, bonze blayk (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I recently mentioned the following in the #Examples don't prove prevalence section of this talk page: Update: Because of these two edits,[6][7] the lead currently looks like that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Examples don't prove prevalence

Lead and third gender/biological sex discussion

I removed some content from the lead. One dictionary and a nursing university web site giving particular definitions of "gender" are not sufficient sources for the statement "this definition is widespread in medicine." Examples of a specific definition in feminist literature are not sufficient sources for the statement "this definition is widespread in feminist literature." (They would, however, be sufficient for some version of "this usage is not unheard of in medicine/feminist literature," "this usage can be found in med/fem," etc., but that's a level of detail that might be best suited to the body of the article rather than the lead.)

Similarly, the idea the the concept of gender is not about the spectrum between male and female but between male, female and a third gender/sex requires a source because most dictionaries and definitions only mention male and female. Even then, it's a controversial statement and would probably be best phrased as something like, "Some scholars, such as professor of gender studies Dr. Firstname Lastname believes that gender is better understood as a trichotomy than as a dichotomy." Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep.
I'm happy to see that you've fixed this. thanks, bonze blayk (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes The term "third gender" needs references and explanation but whole of it can't be written in the lead. I add a section to explain it ( I think the lead of third gender article would be the best). Please point to this term in the lead of Gender article by yourself.--Taranet (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't object to including a summary of "Third Gender" concepts and sources to this article, but it should be a summary with a "Main article" pointer the the article on Third gender, not the entire lead - which would be impossible to maintain in parallel with the other article, as edits are made there?
But still: there is no "range between masculine, feminine, and third gender" - "third gender" is not a separate and distinct "gender" apart from mixes of masculine and feminine… as that article notes, usually it's feminine males who get placed into a separate category because they are born with "male equipment". - thanks, bonze blayk (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, there are many opinions about what counts as "third gender," and indeed whether it exists at all. If there are some people out there who believe that there is a specific third category that's not male or female but some third, affirmative thing, then it would be okay to cite their studies and say, "The Such-and-such people of Where-they-live believe in a true third gender. Their society has a social role that anthropologist Dr. Firstname Lastname claims meets all howevermany criteria for a true third gender."(ref)(ref)(ref) It's also okay to say "Other scholars believe that the term 'third gender' should apply to people who see themselves in terms of male and female, such as trans men and trans women."(ref)(ref) It all comes down to 1. the sources and 2. stating the information in such a way that acknowledges that the scholars might not be right when "right" is interpreted in terms of physical realities rather than social roles or arbitrary, human-invented classifications). Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
And there's also the possibility - from my POV, the likelihood - that some scholars are not "right" when they engage in the interpretation of "social roles or arbitrary, human-invented classifications", especially w/r/t gender roles, where what some "experts" view as "arbitrary roles" are sometimes derived from differing tendencies in men, women, - (and those in-between?-) - to gravitate towards certain roles as a result of inborn psychological differences - not black-and-white differences, but different thresholds for triggering certain behaviors, e.g., nurturing infants, or aggression? (This is what John Money argued, BTW.)
Then again, there's oppression to take into account, and women are more likely to be oppressed socially than men because of their relatively weakness physically.  ?
This relates to the attempts to codify and categorize "Third Gender" or variant-gender types in non-Western cultures because those scholars so often take the current state of those folks in Third World countries as "natural" for their culture, when in truth all of those cultures have been subjected to Western colonization, and those "types" of gender-variant person subjected to harsh disapproval and oppression because they provoked horror in those wedded to the traditional Judeo-Christian perspective on the behaviors appropriate to the sexes… and they had both political power, and great influence in trends of social thought and perception.
PS: my sig got added to your comment, Darkfrog24, because the quadruple-tilde that you embedded in your previous edit attempt was uncovered for the postprocessor when I removed the ref tags… which then proceeded to sign it using my login name when I saved the fix.
"You see, the quadruple-tilde sigtag is a symbol for an identity, which is then interpreted by an automaton into another symbol, the signature with my handle, itself standing in place of my name - which in my case, it is? Now, my real name in itself, as a chosen name, reflects upwards symbolically towards my self-identity, while at the same time becoming instantiated at the level of signs within the binary codes stored on Wikipedia's servers… specifically, on disk drives, where those codes are transformed into bit patterns preserved on magnetic media …" (cut to wide shot of audience snoring) - bonze blayk
Oh, I used to do the semiotics thing professionally, you see… as a software developer? Some of the academics who imagine they're doing semiotic analyses leave me howling with laughter… and dismay… because they amount to nothing without accurate "facts". … But yeah, I try to stick with the WP:RS, however deficient they may be.-) - bonze blayk (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow, anti-colonialist generalizations! Sure, we all bring our own biases to our interpretation of what we see, and almost all of the world has at least been exposed to Western culture, but let's not assign it any magical auto-oppressive powers. The Judeo-Christian worldview doesn't have a corner on gender oppression.
My point is that we can put opinions in the article, even ones far more outlandish than these, so long as they're properly attributed and acknowledged. An article on evolution can have a quote by Michael Behe (AKA "Intelligent Design Guy") so long as that quote attributed and the fact that Behe's views are not accepted by 99% of the scientific community gets a mention. We can talk about real and even imaginary third gender issues, even ones that some people think are bunk so long as we say who's saying it, what they consider the term "third gender" to mean and mention whether their view is mainstream or not in which academic circles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, it just so happens, Darkfrog24… that I largely agree with you here? I am not a big fan of the "Third Gender"/genderfluid/genderless ramblings emitting from many of the postmodern/ish adepts of "Gender Studies", so deeply influenced by the (to me truly bizarre) "insights" of psychoanalytically-oriented "theorists"… e.g., see my comment on a revert of an animadversion against "the gender binary" as a hellish invention of Western culture over in the article on Gender binary in Talk at "The gender binary is largely a western construct"… you see, I'm a racist because I disagree with that position? (facepalm)
Now I absolutely have my own POV here, since I'm a largely binary-identified trans woman, and agree with Julia Serano's comments in "Whipping Girl" that "Third Gender" concepts wind up being used to characterize trans-feminine identities as Other and not being genuinely "feminine"… I'm open to argument here, myself, I think that some people are quite possibly "relatively" genderfluid… but find much of what I read on these topics unpersuasive when the author adopts an "omniscient" stance, since so much of gender-related awareness is difficult to pin down when one attempts to analyze it. (I invariably recommend Deborah Rudacille's The Riddle of Gender as the most POV-free, balanced book on gender… by a cisgendered science writer, mirabile dictu.)
Anyway, I would like to see articles in this topic area reasonably balanced and based on decent WP:RS sources… but that appears to be an ongoing struggle given the politicization of these "identity wars" in our culture, where the "gender identity struggles" are viewed as a major battlefield by so many parties. thanks! - bonze blayk (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I haven't come across any scientific discovery that a person can be "not male or female but some third, affirmative thing." Like I stated above, "while intersex individuals can be considered a third sex, science doesn't typically describe a third sex...since intersex individuals are [physically] male and female (not a new sex, unless you consider the combination to be a different sex). Scientists/researchers do describe a third gender, however. And an intersex person usually identifies by either the gender category man or woman."
If there were a true third sex, meaning not male or female or some combination thereof, though, considering reproduction, I don't see how nature could have human beings or other animals evolve into such, lest they be completely physically sexless/indistinguishable from one another, it would have been reported all over science journals and in the news by now. The only physically sexless/indistinguishable organisms are those of the asexual reproduction variety. Flyer22 (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
See, that's what I'm talking about. It's my understanding that trans individuals still describe themselves in terms of male and female. I would only believe in a third gender if someone could describe a third set of affirmative characteristics that are as much in opposition to masculinity and femininity as those two are to each other (if something is more masculine then it is almost always automatically less feminine). I don't see intersex or hermaphrodite individuals as being off the binary scale. Even the hijra describe themselves as "neither man nor woman" but not some third affirmative thing. However, if we want to include the viewpoint of someone who does not share that view, we could do so as long as we attribute the ever-livin' crud out of it. For example, one article on restrictive clauses or something used to have the line "Most linguists, especially sociolinguists, think that [the rule requiring a comma and "which" before a restrictive clause] is "a really silly idea." Being a total punctuation snob, I found this text offensive. I dug into the source and found out that it was only one guy who'd said that. The article now reads "Regular Language Log contributor and linguist Dr. Hislastname has referred to this as 'a really silly idea.'" The reader might end up giving this point with which I disagree more credence because of Dr. Hln's clout, but he or she will not get the impression that this is a view held by the preponderance of sociolinguists. That's how we should treat information about third gender models. Say who's saying it and what their credentials are.
As for whether a three-gender biological system could work in nature, Flyer, I bet it could, depending, but that's the domain of science fiction. I know of at least one work of xenofiction that described such a model. As far as I know, it doesn't happen anywhere on Earth, not in vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, fungi or microbes. It's either one gender or two. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Update: Because of these two edits,[8][9] the lead currently looks like that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Update 2: The category of intersex is now beside the category of male and female, despite the implications; see the following links:[10][11]. If there is any objection to removing intersex from that part, I obviously don't mind. Flyer22 (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The only reason i added intersex is because sveral countries have amended their passports to allow for a third categor with X including new zealand australia and nepal. You can revert if u think its undue though. Pass a Method talk 14:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a push to do the same in Britain which may have ramifications accross the Commonwealth. Pass a Method talk 14:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'd also seen your addition to the Intersex article. As for the Gender article, like I stated with this WP:Dummy edit, I don't much mind the intersex category being included where you placed it, since some intersex people state that they do not fit into either the male or female categories, but gender identity is already covered in the same line. Flyer22 (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, should i revert myself or remove the gender identity entry? Pass a Method talk 14:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Per what I stated above, I'm not sure that you should revert yourself. But the gender identity mention should not be removed...because it is one of the main ways that gender is defined and does not only apply to intersex but also to transgender topics and genderqueer topics. Flyer22 (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Summary of lead of third gender article: further biological sex discussion

I summarized lead of third gender:

A human being can be genetically classified as a male or female but in other sciences the term "Third gender" is using such as sociology for gender role and psychology for gender identity and sexual orientation. The term has been used to describe hijras of India, Bangladesh and Pakistan, Fa'afafine of Polynesia, and Sworn virgins of the Balkans. Some Scholars defined even 4th, 5th and "some genders". Being third gender may means an intermediate state between men and women, a state of being both, the state of being neither, or the ability to cross or swap genders.

I am not native English-spoken so feel free about editing this text.:)Ladsgroupبحث 16:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The term "other sciences" gives me pause. Other than what? Do you mean "other societies"? Again, other than what?
Yes, we would need sources to add something like this to this article. Also, because the idea of gender as a dichotomy is the overwhelming majority view, it would be best to treat "Third+ gender" as a subsection, as an opposing view.
The use of the term "genetically" implies that the genes are the only non-social determinant of gender, and they are not. Genes, gene expression, body chemistry, primary sex characteristics, secondary sex characteristics and brain anatomy are all physical (or chemical) realities largely independent of social or individual decisions. A broader word, such as "physical" or "biological" might be less misleading. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
@Ladsgroup: Good job!
@Darkfrog24: For changing the word "genetically" with other words, you need to provide enough sources or it would be original research.--Taranet (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
What?
"@Darkfrog24: For changing the word "genetically" with other words, you need to provide enough sources or it would be original research.--Taranet"
This is not even close to being a reasonable objection to Darkfrog24's comment, given well-known variations in the "standard issue" human genetic structures relating to sexual differentiation. There's no citation given (which would be bogus anyway, given for example cases of 46XXY, etc., see True hermaphroditism), so how is "changing the word 'genetically'" in the phase "genetically classified as a male or female" Original Research?
And to boot, the writing here is really very poor English. I would welcome comments of this type, which may offer good suggestions for material to be included in the article, but can't see this as being anything close to suitable for use in this article as is. - bonze blayk (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I saw this section soon after Darkfrog's response, but decided to hold off on responding...since I was busy with other matters. But I had typed up the following response: "Physical" wouldn't be that much better, since people can be physically both -- as in intersex. As for "biological," I've seen you [Darkfrog] argue against "biological" the same way that you are now are arguing against "genetically." As we know, researchers do, however, use "genetically" and "biological" when speaking in terms of people who were born physically male or female. And I'm certain that what Ladsgroup is trying to get across is that people's chromosomes (usually) identify them as male or female. Yes, it is not the only biological determinant, as you state in this edit summary at the Third gender article, but it is the determinant that makes DNA designate people as either male or female. Being male or female simply based on chromosomal makeup is the biggest aspect that transgender and intersex people argue against, which is why the Intersex article addresses it sufficiently, such as its Conditions section stating the following: "Citing medical research regarding other factors that influence sexual differentiation, the Intersex Society of North America challenges the XY sex-determination system's assumption that chromosomal sex is the determining factor of a person's 'true' biological sex." But because the XY sex-determination system is the determinant that makes DNA designate people and most other animals into the categories male or female, I found it acceptable that the Third gender article stated "(on the basis of the XX or XY or a variation thereof chromosomes, though intersex people are born)." Again, chromosomal makeup is that initial aspect that classifies most animals (people included) as one sex or the other; it is there before androgen exposure begins. And when the XY system doesn't keep someone from physically looking like both sexes, doctors and researchers sometimes go to the chromosomal makeup as the default, which, like I stated, is an action that has been criticized by transgender and intersex people. But like the Intersex#"True hermaphroditism" section currently states, "With some conditions of intersex, even the chromosomal sex may not be clear. A 'true hermaphrodite' is defined as someone with both male gonadal tissue (testes) and female gonadal tissue (ovarian tissue)." Although...such cases are extremely rare.
Most of our Wikipedia articles on reproduction and biological sex, and some things associated with them, like anatomy, mention the XY determining system as determining the sex of people and other animals, and that is because the reliable sources are discussing what some would consider the narrow definition of biological sex -- chromosomal makeup plus genital anatomy. I understand Darkfrog removing the XY sex-determination system part of the line from the Third gender article. But for our articles on reproduction and the topics associated with it, we can't help but mention the XY sex-determination system. And for a lot of such topics, delving into gender identity and intersex aspects would be either off-topic or WP:UNDUE. Flyer22 (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the XY system shouldn't be mentioned. I'm saying that we shouldn't imply that it's the only determinant of physical gender. A statement like "Most people fit cleanly into male and female categories, but some do not" or "Most people can be readily identified as male or female based on their genes, anatomy and other traits, but some cannot" might be better for this passage.
Also, this passage gives me a vibe of passing someone on the street or looking at a new baby and figuring out whether this person is male or female. We don't usually figure that using karyotypes; we usually use our eyes.
As for "biological," it all depends on context. I had an anthro prof who kept asking "Do you mean biologically?" when I'd say "physically male." The difference between "genetically" and "biologically" is one of specificity. If "genetically" means "apples," then "biologically" means "fruit" or even "food." The two are not interchangeable, and one may be more suitable than the other for a given context. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, but the wording you revised in the Third gender article (the mention of the XY part only) is the type of wording used by most reliable sources that discuss reproduction and sexual differentiation; there usually isn't mention of other factors, such as gender identity and/or intersex aspects, which, as I stated, is why most of our articles on reproduction and biological sex, and some things associated with them, like anatomy, don't mention those aspects. That, and because it can be off-topic or undue in some cases. As for "genetically" vs. "biologically," I've seen the two used interchangeably so much, both among the general public and in scholarly texts, that I don't know what to think about it all anymore. I'm guilty of using the two interchangeably as well; I've used them interchangeably more than I've used "sex" and "gender" interchangeably, LOL (I've told you before that I usually don't use the latter two interchangeably). Flyer22 (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Studies relative to gender

There are many studies relative to gender made from a biological point of view, so I propose to change the sentence in the lead section "Gender studies is a branch of the social sciences" by "Social sciences and biological sciences study different aspects relative to gender.--Auró (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind your change. But there isn't a Biological sciences article. And there are already these lines at the end of the lead: "While the social sciences sometimes approach gender as a social construct, and gender studies particularly do, research in the natural sciences investigates whether biological differences in males and females influence the development of gender in humans; both inform debate about how far biological differences influence the formation of gender identity."
While gender is studied from a biological point of view, I never see gender studies called "a branch of the biological sciences." But I do see it called a "branch of the social sciences." So all that in mind, I don't see the need for your wording change. I would rather "Gender studies is a branch of the social sciences" be removed altogether; the first version of it (which has different wording) was added during #The lead dispute with Taranet, and there was never any true WP:Consensus for it. Flyer22 (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Flyer22, I have looked to the discussion, and take the following sentence from bonze blayk "gender is additionally researched in clinical psychology, social psychology, sexology, neuroscience, sociology, anthropology, and other academic and scientific fields". I think it is something that all editors of the article will agree to. The sentence "Gender studies is a branch of the social sciences" is misleading, so I propose to change it to "The social sciences have a branch devoted to gender studies. Other sciences like psychology, sexology, or neuroscience, are also interested in the subject".--Auró (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't mind that; I just didn't/don't want an addition that is redundant to the lines I mentioned above. I feel that the second paragraph should go back to starting off with the line about John Money, and that your proposal should be placed at the beginning of the paragraph that is about researching gender as a social construct vs. researching biological differences influencing gender (the final paragraph). Flyer22 (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

As a principle, I do not like to suppress content if it can be improved. Your proposal is Ok, but I think it would be better to modify it, specially considering the history of this sentence.--Auró (talk) 06:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Suppression? I suggested that your proposal fits best at the beginning of the final paragraph, which is about studying gender in different fields. Your proposal would still be implemented, but it wouldn't be the first and second sentences of the second paragraph. I do not see how it fits best as the first and second sentences of the second paragraph, just like I do not see how the current sentence that's there fits best as the first sentence of the second paragraph; and I'm the one who moved that sentence there, on February 17, 2013, after your February 17, 2013 edit, because the lead was even sloppier before I did so (considering that, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Paragraphs, single-sentence paragraphs should be avoided when they can be); so that edit is mine and has only been there for a couple of months and some days. Flyer22 (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Then, if we agree to remove the sentence "Gender studies is a branch of the social sciences" from the second section of the lead, I will not change anything else for the time being.--Auró (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
You can obviously go ahead and implement your proposal. Then I'll move it to the last paragraph as suggested. I didn't agree to having no mention of gender studies being a branch of the social sciences, since Taranet would probably add it back in some ungrammatical way at some point, just like she added it in an ungrammatical way before. What I agreed to is your proposal. Flyer22 (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sociological

Hey all, I'm feeling as if there is a lack of the sociological and anthropological arguments about gender here (and some psychology as well), namely that it is regarded as a social structure, with some groups placing emphases on power or inter-related systems of oppression. This article is already huge, and there is the corresponding gender role and gender identity articles. I'm wondering, as a new editor, how to go about rectifying this situation, is a separate article required handling the academic definitions? Or several articles? Or shall I just go for it, and let all you wonderful wiki people pick apart my writing more/better than any of my university supervisions? Thank you for advice. Shelly Pixie (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. By "university supervisions," I take it that you are here as part of a class project? Or was that just a figure of speech? I replied to you above. While I can see that there is a lack of anthropological arguments about gender in this article, and I have made similar comments about that, I'm confused by your assertion that there is a lack of sociological arguments in it. Like I stated above, this article is mostly full of sociological, not biological, definitions/aspects of gender. It also has a lot of psychological definitions of gender in it as well. As for creating spinout articles, such as the Third gender article, that should only be done when needed; see WP:SPINOUT. And whether adding to this article or creating a new one, you should make sure that your additions are reliably sourced; see WP:Verifiability, which addresses WP:Reliable sources among other things. Unsourced information can generally be removed at any time per the WP:BURDEN aspect of WP:Verifiability. Read those guidelines and policies if you want to better understand where I'm coming from on this.
As for this edit you made, I changed part of that back because of the WP:REFERS essay that some editors cite. For leads, except for occasional instances, it's usually better to state "is." Stating "considered to be" should generally be avoided unless the statement is dubious and/or controversial. There is nothing dubious and/or controversial about defining gender as pertaining to all those aspects.
And, again, remember to properly sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above. I will also provide you with a Welcome template. Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I just found an article on the sociology of gender, nevermind. I'm going to go and read that and come back to this discussion thread to comment on your comments. Thank you. Shelly Pixie (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
re- university supervisions, it was a joke. I am a trainee sociology academic. My university/subject has tri-weekly one-to-one teachings called supervisions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Cambridge#Teaching Shelly Pixie (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I see. And when you stated "I believe that many students at my university came unstuck in their papers on 'gender' due to reading this article." in the aforementioned discussion section, I figured that your students may have edited or attempted to edit something about gender at this article or other Wikipedia articles. We do sometimes see teachers and/or students editing Wikipedia as a teaching demonstration and/or class project; see, for example, Wikipedia:Assignments for student editors and Wikipedia:Education noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

So what are the different genders?

So how many different genders are there, and what are they? And how do you know which one you belong to? Should this information not be in the article?

Speaking for myself, I should like know because almost every form I fill in asks for my gender, and I'm buggered if I know what it is. Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Paul Magnussen. The Third gender article goes over multiple genders. It doesn't state how many researchers believe there are in total, and I don't know how many have been reported either. And, LOL, about being confused when a form asks you what your gender is. If you were serious about that, then I apologize for that statement having gotten a smirk out of me. It's just true that gender can sometimes be that complex. Flyer22 (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I suppose I was semi-serious: I know what sex I am; and as to gender identity, I suppose I'm what used to be called 'normal'. But what the appropriate word for that may be in terms of gender identity, I have no idea. Paul Magnussen (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. I get the gist of what you are stating on this matter. And thank you for your WP:Copyediting work, including the bit you recently did on this article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The introduction and non-Western views of gender

Masculinity, I am not saying that your views on gender are necessarily wrong, but if you're going to do such a substantial rewrite of the introduction, you really should provide sources. The idea that there's no concept of sexual orientation outside the West, for example, sounds a bit incredible and should be sourced. Also, from a strictly organizational standpoint, the article should say what gender is, as in what the word means, before getting into how it's understood in different parts of the world.

Also, we don't need a comma before a coordinating conjunction when there are only two items in the series: "masculinity" and "femininity." Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I reverted Masculinity's introduction to this article before, as well as his introduction to the Gender role article yet again (after someone else did it before me a few days earlier). Leads (otherwise known as introductions) simply should not be written that way, not on Wikipedia. They should stick to reliable sources, be neutral...concise, not overcomplicated. Masculinity, read WP:LEAD. Flyer22 (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This notion if sexual orientation being only a Western concept is ludicrous. You can be executed for being gay in Iraq: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Iran#Post_Islamic_revolution Lets at least try to be semi-accurate in our pursuit of accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.150.21 (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I think what Masculinity is talking about is probably the idea that Westerners believe that a man must be gay or straight while non-Westerners don't put people in categories, but I absolutely agree that any claims on this subject must be sourced and attributed, especially considering that the Kinsey scale is a Western invention and most of us have no problem understanding that bisexuality exists. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
One thing that I think is relevant to mention is that the article dedicated towards "third gender" is being debated at this time. The issue surrounds whether it is deserving of it's own article or if it would better fit into the category of gender. I think that after reading the existing entry on gender and debates regarding cultural approaches to the issue that the combination of gender and third gender would remedy two issues and make for a much more comprehensive article regarding the subject of gender as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgayhea (talk • contribs) 20:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The Third Gender article is definitely deserving of its own article; it passes WP:Notability and there is a lot to say about the matter, so much so that it shouldn't be crammed into this already big article. See Wikipedia:Article size. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the article is rather large, but I think the article on "third gender" could at the very least be used as an example to follow regarding the cultural treatment of the issue, which at this time, is lacking and has a definite Western point of view; therefore, being biased. Cgayhea (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Cgayhea
WP:DUE WEIGHT comes into play on this matter. Per WP:DUE WEIGHT, we go by what most reliable sources report on the topic of gender over what the minority of reliable sources report on the topic of gender. Most sources, an overwhelming majority, do not define gender with regard to third gender (or four or more genders); that's not only or mostly a Western matter either. Flyer22 (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey all, I added in 'social structure' to the intro of this article. I believe this may also lend some support non-western forms of gender. At the moment, this article is sorely lacking non-western, anthropological and sociological definitions of gender. As a person of colour and sociologist, I support this article expanding to integrate this info. I realise this is different to the above, regarding the re-write of the section around sexual orientation. 77.98.45.95 (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, IP/Shelly Pixie. This is where you added "social structures." However, unless tweaked in the way I will suggest in a few moments in this paragraph, it should be removed because it is not directly supported by the sources and is redundant to "social roles"; "social roles" are, of course, aspects of "social structures." If we worded it as "sex-based social structures such as social roles (especially gender roles)" instead of "sex-based social structures or social roles (as in gender roles)," that would be better/more precise. As for the article lacking sociological definitions of gender, you must mean non-Western sociological definitions of gender...which is largely covered by the Third gender article. I state that because this article (Gender) is mostly full of sociological, not biological, definitions/aspects of gender. And it's mostly full of that because that is how gender is mostly defined. I also don't see what being a person of color has to do with defining gender.
Also, remember to properly sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your IP username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
How would you feel about "sex-based social structures and social roles (as in gender roles)"; alternatively, I'll find another source to add? There is a distinction between sex-based social structures and sex-based social roles. The first is broader and encompasses social roles. I'm also wondering about an oxford comma being used after 'social structures' to denote that the 'gender roles' in parenthesis belong to 'social roles'. This would maybe remove some ambiguity that social structures are broader than social roles.
Regarding the sociology, no, not just third gender, but broader sociology. But I have started a discussion about this in a new section below. This article, at present, has a post-modernist bias to sociological gender, fails to credit relevant theorists, and fails to deal with the complexities of argument over what 'gender' actually is, of which there are many. I recognise that consensus cannot be reached within a wiki article, nor can the article cover everything. But adding in central theorists/arguments would be of use. I believe that many students at my university came unstuck in their papers on 'gender' due to reading this article.
Thank you for the heads up about signature! First time on the talk page.
Shelly Pixie (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
It's because "social structures" is broader than "social roles" and encompasses "social roles" that I stated that wording the text as "sex-based social structures or social roles" is redundant and less precise. That wording makes it seem as though social roles are completely separate from social structures. So does using "and." I would suggest using "including," but the word including in that line could be taken as a general unneeded addition, to mean "as well as," instead of as pertaining specifically to "social structures." That is...unless it were put into parentheses as "sex-based social structures (including social roles/gender roles)."
As for consensus within the article, what you are striving for is WP:Neutrality. But keep the WP:UNDUE WEIGHT aspect of WP:Neutrality (which is mentioned/linked above) in mind. We certainly shouldn't create false balance or consensus.
And you're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed it to "sex-based social structures (including social roles and gender roles)." I dropped the slash, per WP:Slash. I then changed the order and made it "sex-based social structures (including gender roles and other social roles)." Flyer22 (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Genderscapes

A common theory in sociology is that gender is culturally constructed phenomena. Sociologists Joan Z. Spade and Catherine G. Valentine use this theory as the foundation of their book The Kaleidoscope of Gender. [1]

In order to understand gender in American more clearly it is important to analyze it from a cultural scope. The interaction between gender definitions and culture is called "genderscapes".[1] I believe it is prudent to add a new section to this Wikipedia page discussing the topic of genderscapes, as I believe it adds tremendously to the knowledge already presented.

The lack of a universal definition or experience of gender can be attributed to genderscapes. Which thus explains why gender inequality is different across cultures.

Dagreco (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Spade, Joan (2011). The Kaleidoscope of Gender. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge PRess. ISBN 9781412979061. Cite error: The named reference "The Kaleidoscope of Gender" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
The view/factor that gender is socially-constructed is already covered in the Gender article, of course. I don't mind what you propose being added to this article, as long as it is not too redundant to what is there and is not given WP:Undue weight. But read WP:Undue weight; that is a Wikipedia policy stating that we "should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also' to an article about those specific views." While the argument that gender is a social construct is common, arguing that this aspect is a part of "genderscapes" is not. "Genderscapes" is not a common word/concept; therefore, I don't feel that we should have a section on it. Information about it should be placed in one of the already existing sections, if it is to be included in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Flyer22. I've not heard that particular neologism and it's not really part of the canon to my knowledge. While I think it's important to balance novelty with canon, I've not heard much talk of "genderscapes" in the gender literature (cf., CJ Pascoe's work on masculinity and the discussion it's caused in the gender literature). EvergreenFir (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Dead link which is anyway a smoking gun

http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/58fr39406.htm

Google finds for the title a larger publication of which this paper seems to be a component. There is a section C with a title concerning the inclusion of both genders, which seems to be the smoking gun. No indication is given that this is the first paper where the FDA adopted this terminology. It's not really a reference. It's an exhibit.

I dearly wish this article would clarify precisely which senses of the word sex have been delegated to its subordinate term.

Certainly not sex as an activity or an aspiration or a primer mover of human affairs or that night job sex has taken on ever since Darwin's The Origin of Species.

Gender seems to have established its niche in regard to its divisions, both natural and artificial: phenotypic expression, social behaviours, social roles, social norms. I personally tend to regard sex as the biological mechanism, and gender as encompassing the divisive human politics.

Could a single word feasibly cover that much ground in a society that speaks openly about all of these issues? Sex strikes me as the biggest small word in the English language. — MaxEnt 17:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender/Archive_4&oldid=1188585904"