Talk:Social construction of gender difference

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Feminism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Gender Studies (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.


There is no original research in this article. Could you please clarify what you mean by "original research?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecdjes (talkcontribs) 04:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC) [sic]

There is only original research in this article - it was posted by graduate students in social psychology and we only posted "original research" (Ecdjes (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)).

You should look at: (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute[edit]

Without any statement on the content of the article's actual veracity, I think this article leans heavily towards presenting fairly contentious opinions as facts. That is not to say they are not true, rather that there is a substantial enough body that disputes these statements that they should not be presented without consideration of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is that the article is written as to imply that the some opinions expressed by some very controversial philosophers and other researchers are true. For example instead of saying "according to x this and this is so", it says "this and this is so", then refers to an opinion piece... In addition the languages is really bad at places and the use of sources in general does not meet Wikipedia quality citeria. (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Research methods section does not mention research methods and has other issues[edit]

The section does not really discuss methods, but rather implies that a social constructionist can be a relativist of some sorts. I'm not sure that all social constructionists agree with this. (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Innate differences steming from biology is a major opposing view of social constructionism not mentioned[edit]

This page fails to mention that there has always been a major dispute about how much gender roles are truly "constructed" and how much they stem from biological differences between the sexes. The biology behind sex has been extensively studied and Wikipedia has several articles about the issue. For example: Therefore I think this article should mention this fact and link to one of these other pages that explains gendered behavior differences starting from experimental evidence. (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Lots of non sourced claims and citations[edit]

There are many citations from authors like de Beauvoir where the source is not given. Also, there are claims of the order "social constructionists believe that", where no "who" is given and where the claim probably is not something that social constructionists have ever made88.114.154.216 (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The problems on this page could be resolved with a merger[edit]

There are at least two other pages on Wikipedia that discuss this topic. The other two pages (see tag) are poor and have problems, and in those pages (discussion) merger has been suggested. I believe if all three were to be merged, the problems would be resolved partially. (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support These are very closely related concepts, and I agree that Social construction of gender difference is the best title for a combined article (seems like we could find something more concise, though). --BDD (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support It is redundant to attempt to explain the principles of social constructionism in each of the articles seperately and then proceed to define the terms. In addition to this, some of the articles currently have major problems like "walled garden" and poor sourcing and NPOV-tags. Therefore, I think the best would be to merge them all, and in that one article (which would also have a main or see also tag to social constructionism to avoid redundacy) explain the concepts. This could be done in subsections if necessary.Tpylkkö (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support For all the above reasons, I agree that the articles should be merged. (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I agree on adding Gender performativity and Doing Gender as part of Social Construction of Gender. I think cutting Difference from the title is essential to keep the page inclusive enough for both Gender performativity, Doing gender and other concepts such as Gender similarities hypothesis. Thom (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Had to remove some claims that were unsourced and clearly not true[edit]

The arcile had claims like "since there is no math gene, gender differences in maths cannot be biological". These kind of statements are simply not true. (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


The author of article attributes merit to certain theories in a such a way that encourages bias. IE: "Stronger versions argue that the differences in behavior between men and women are entirely social conventions, whereas weaker versions believe that behavior is defined by biological universal factors to some extent, but that social conventions also have some effect on gendered behavior. Other theories even claim that there are more genders than just the two most commonly accepted (male and female)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This Page is a Mess[edit]

This page is full claims of facts that are not only unsourced but at times appear to be non-sequiturs. Many of the claims have been sitting for months with a "citation needed" and they are still there un-cited. Soul Cream (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you try to bring some positive energy to this article instead of misspelling 'unsourced' and bringing negative energy into this talk page? (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)