Talk:Woman

Gender identity should not be under biology and sex

Subjective notions aren't a part of biology and sex past the brain. Gender identity is a complex word, rooted in psychoanalysis and a target for assessment in gender dysphoria. Nothing about gender identity in women is particularly relevant enough for this article that it shouldn't be under gender identity. Maneesh (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Maneesh, you are aware that reliable sources state that "woman" is, among other things, a gender identity, yes?

I thought the purpose of the paragraph you removed was to indicate that gender identity can differ from sex assignment, a fact that is certainly relevant to this article. Of course I would rather that gender identity have its own section in Woman, but I haven't yet achieved consensus for that. The supporting sources do continue to accumulate, though, so I see it as a matter of time. Newimpartial (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Section title is 'biology and sex' (not 'sex assignment'); everything in that section is, naturally, about female biology. 'Gender identity' isn't relevant to that section, that's all there is to it. Maneesh (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

If the scope of that section is people with what you call "female biology" (and I call AFAB), and some of those people are in fact not women but rather men in terms of their gender identity, don't you think it is helpful to the reader to point that fact out? This is literally the distinction on Twitter between "women" and "menstruators", and blood is spilled on that issue nearly every day. Newimpartial (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

"People with female biology" is not identically equal to "AFAB"; the purpose of the term "AFAB" is to indicate the map-territory distinction between sex assignment and sex. gnu57 00:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)a

Not identically equal, no, nor did I say that it was. But people who are identified as having so-called "female biology" are typically those who are assigned female at birth, that being the whole point of such assignment in modern and/or "Western" societies. Newimpartial (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It's covered properly under Terminology and in the lead; and bottom line, a 21 year old book from Basic Books is not a WP:MEDRS. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2021

{{subst:trim|1=

maybe an article about when a woman is perfect is in place here

Yohup (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Pre-RfC lead image options selection

Please discuss and help to select image options for an RfC for the lead image. Discussion at Talk:Woman/sandbox.

Previous discussions can be found by searching the archives for "lead image". Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This has indeed been discussed quite a bit and has been stable for a long time. I don't see any reason to try to change this now nor any issue with the one currently there. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes it has been much discussed and it is clear there is no consensus for the current image; it simply remains as the status quo because there has been no consensus on any option proposed thus far. An RfC will be necessary. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps... Hopefully you will ask for agreement on the wording used. I just remember that I thought your choice of a middle-aged white woman with long, kinky bleached hair was far from the best choice. Gandydancer (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, there is consensus for the current image. Consensus is not unanimity, of course. Per WP:RFCBEFORE, I would like to know what is wrong with the current picture. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The previous discussions already answered your question and meet WP:RFCBEFORE. This discussion is about selecting options for the RfC, one of which will be the status quo image. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which of these photos is best for the lead image? (Please rank.)

A. current image

B. preview

C. preview (original shirt color)

I had asked for advice at WT:RFC#Advice for Woman lead image RfC. Would this be ok? FYI Gandydancer Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any single lead image - I know that I (and many others) have said this in the past, but to reiterate: a series of RfCs determined that we should not have galleries of images in the lead of "topics about large human populations". The reason for this is the conflict selection of the images generates, and the difficulty of choosing just a small set of images to represent a large group of people. Those issues are exacerbated, not assuaged, by reducing the number of lead images to just one. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I guess another way of putting this is "any such RfC needs to include 'none'" — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Do you support this RfC as is but with no image as an option? Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I mean, if there are only three choices, it seems odd that two of the three appear to be the same person, but I'd defer to those who have stronger opinions about specific options than I do. Again, it doesn't matter so much what the image options are as far as my opinion goes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Yeah, it's just what I was able to find. One of the only portrait photographers on Flickr who I found who took normal photos of people took a lot of photos of this woman who I assume is his wife. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• These choices are poor. B. has and awkward pose with the body facing right and thus away from the text of the article (MOS:IMAGELOCATION). As for C., why on Earth would we use a manipulated photo for a topic like this where it is totally unnecessary? There are billions of potential freely-licensed photographs for this topic and it's a good idea to continue the unstructured Sandbox discussion for a while before jumping to an RFC. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I see that MOS:IMAGELOCATION says that "It is often preferable to place images of people so that they 'look' toward the text", not that they should be oriented or even facing towards the text, unless I'm missing something. But please do contribute more images that you find. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image candidates for RfC

Currently supported options

• 
  striped shirt preview
• 
  bracelet preview
• blue sash
  blue sash
• 
  hut
• 
  pink shirt2

The current image and "no image" will be options im the RfC.

Additional options

• 
  gray coat preview
• 
  sleeveless blue preview
• 
  orange floral preview
• 
  red wall
• 
  Asian women with politician
• 
  African and American politicians
• 
  Asian fashion founder

Discussion

I moved this image discussion over from Talk:Woman/sandbox, where @Nagualdesign, JoePhin, Randy Kryn, Volteer1, Finnusertop, Genericusername57, and Gandydancer: offered input. Are we able to narrow down the choices at all? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Per WP "The Han Chinese are the world's largest single ethnic group, constituting over 19% of the global population in 2011.[86] The world's most-spoken first languages are Mandarin Chinese (spoken by 12.4% of the world's population)." This suggests to me that the "blue sash" woman would be a good choice. Perhaps #2 would work as well. It would seem odd to use, for instance, a white-skinned woman when she is a minority, etc. Gandydancer (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

They're all acceptable to me, but if I were to state a preference, I would say blue sash or bracelet. I like having a full body image to demonstrate a thing, if possible, and while none of the images quite meet that desire, blue sash and bracelet do more. Also, while I don't think the image has to be a woman of Han Chinese descent, I don't disagree with User Gandydancer's reasoning on that front: a representative image isn't bad, not bad at all. Those are my two top picks. Joe (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• My top pick is "blue sash," but I'll wait for the RfC to vote. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut, I just added a couple of pictures to the "Additonal options" section. I was looking for a group picture because of the suggestion to have more than one picture. I think the "red wall" would have to be cropped. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hillary and Nancy may be representative of something (and by you saying that Nancy Pelosi would have to be cropped at least gives a common sense objection), but not of all women, thank goddess. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The current image of the woman working is perfect. It’s a blend of culture which is great. She looks professional and competent. I’m proud to have her representing all women. Props to the person who found it. TheRightofHerWay (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2021

A woman is not defined as an adult female. A woman can be a biologic or sex changed male or female who chooses to live socially as a woman. "Woman" is defined as a social choice, and anything making adult female equivalent to being a woman is incorrectly assigning them a social label. An adult female is an adult female. A woman is a person deciding to put a label on themself. Fixitperson2021 (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Oxford English Dictionary defines 'woman' as 'An adult female human being.' See also WP:RGW. Melmann 16:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Who defines "woman" as a self-labelling term? Dimadick (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Morrow and Messinger quote

Yikes more "gender identity" related problems in the article. The cite in the lede to Morrow and Messinger modifies the quote to "woman"(the very subject of this article) and "man" when the cite uses "feminine" and "masculine". This is really a misrepresentation of the source, especially in the context of this article. Maneesh (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Just want to say that I completely agree with User Maneesh's action here, it's such a bizarre modification, I have no idea what whoever added that in was thinking. The actual Morrow and Messinger quote isn't necessarily irrelevant here, it just doesn't comport to what's written on the page. Perhaps we should add it back and modify the text to fit the source? Joe (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm the original quote does not seem to say anything about the term 'woman'. It does say something about 'gender identity' but defines that term in terms of sex stereotypes (feminine and masculine). Maneesh (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Breasts are not a categorically distinguished part of female anatomy

TheRightofHerWay correctly removed "breasts" from "Female anatomy, as distinguished from male anatomy, includes the fallopian tubes, ovaries, uterus, vulva, breasts, Skene's glands, and Bartholin's glands.". Praxidicae reverted, I reinstated the TheRightofHerWay's edit which was again reverted by Praxidicae. It is well known that both males and females have breasts. My original edit summary: "actually the edit seems correct (the summary was a little rambly). Female anatomy is categorically distinguished from male anatomy with ovaries etc., but it is a matter of size/development with breasts (not categorical). Breasts could go in following sentence (with hips etc.)." Maneesh (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Breasts are a secondary sex characteristic of women. See the sources at that article. Mathglot (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Even that article correctly qualifies many claims with "female" and describes differences in terms of development. You need to look at the article breast. The fact that males have breasts and that female breasts develop more is nor OR as you have claimed in your revert. Look on google, look at reliable medical sources. How can there be a spectrum of disease in the male breast if males don't have breasts? Why does medical research talk carefully about human breast development? How could fetal male breast samples be used in such studies? None of this is controversial, it is basic anatomy. The differences between male and female breasts are a matter of development, but ovaries are a categorically distinct tissue from testes. Maneesh (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with Maneesh (talk · contribs) here. The definition of breast on our page for it includes the line Both females and males develop breasts from the same embryological tissues right in the lead. Given that we're using that definition, which since we're linking it in the passage in controversy I don't see why we wouldn't, "both males and females have breasts" is so obvious it doesn't need a source. Loki (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this change, if not the edit war which preceded this discussion. It's consistent with how Secondary sexual characteristics describes it. Male humans do have both breasts and mammary glands. Enlarged breasts are a female characteristic, but the past phrasing implied that they are a female-only anatomical feature. I'd also support alternative phrasing like Female anatomy, [...] includes the [...] fallopian tubes, [...] larger breasts, etc, but I think this edit is fine as it is. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 02:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Cheers to TheRightofHerWay for being 100% correct on this. I should not have referred to their edit summary as 'rambly' as, given the number of reverts, editors needed every hint they could get here. Maneesh (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ! I appreciate the support ...and the facts ! TheRightofHerWay (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Sex differences in lede are not reflected in body

I don't see the basic phenotypic sex differences that are outlined in the lede reflected appropriately in the body. The ones in the lede read to me as appropriately representative of the first order average differences between women and men. Maneesh (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Citations being used to support "Trans women have a male sex assignment at birth that does not align with their gender identity"

The misrepresentation in the earlier cite that replaced "woman" with "feminine" has now been replaced but it really looks like WP:SYNTH. The quotes that are presumably being use to support the claim are: "A term used to describe someone who is assigned male at birth but identifies and lives as a woman.", there is no mention of 'trans woman' in the WPATH doc and " A trans woman is someone who identifies as a woman but was designated male at birth.". I don't think Vox qualifies as WP:RS here. None of the quotes define "trans woman" in terms of gender identity or make claims about alignment. "Identifying" as something is quite different than some sort of claim about psychometric assessment of gender identity. Maneesh (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you mean by "some claim of psychometric assessment". The term trans woman means a woman who is transgender or transsexual, and being transgender means having a gender identity which is different from assigned sex at birth. This sentence synthesizes those two definitions in a way which seems perfectly proper, and is essentially the same as the lead sentence of the article Trans woman. Is aligned with is taken here to simply mean is different from. Can you clarify the issue? RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 22:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I suspect you are not familiar with the use of 'gender identity" used by authors like Zucker on the WPATH (mentioned above) report. There are well known disparities between gender identity as used to diagnose gender dysphoria and "identification". Maneesh (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Maneesh, the same sources that use the term "identify" also define transgender people as "identifying as" in the precise sense of "having a gender identity as". This distinction between "identifying" and "having a gender identity" may apply to certain sources, but not to these. Newimpartial (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

High quality WP:MEDRS resource do not make this equivocation, see above.Maneesh (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Zucker is not a recent RS on this topic. Tending towards FRINGE. Furthermore, MEDRS doesn't apply to most of this article. Newimpartial (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

What a dubious accusation of FRINGE, *you* cited a paper that he is an author on. What in the world are you saying? Maneesh (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Have you not been following his career? There is a trajectory. As far as the paper is concerned, it has more than 20 authors, and he is last (though I suppose that is alphabetical). I wasn't citing it based on his personal authority lol.Newimpartial (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Not going to engage in any WP:FORUM discussion with you about WP:RS authored by Zucker (who continues to publish WP:RS). Maneesh (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Maneesh: If I understand what's being said, this seems pedantic at best. WPATH's glossary (p. 94) makes clear "For most people, gender identity and expression are consistent with their sex assigned at birth; for transsexual, transgender, and gender-nonconforming individuals, gender identity or expression differ from their sex assigned at birth." I'm confused what the exact problem is with the language in question. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Not pedantic at all. Gender identity is plainly a clinical tool used in the assessment of gender dysphoria, look at WP:RS sources below. This fact does not conflict with the your quote. Zucker is an author of quote you cite as he is the author of the papers I cite below. Maneesh (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

An idiosyncratic distinction made by one discredited sexologist between "identifying" and having an "identity" is not relevant to other sources which don't assert such a distinction, at least the first of which adequately verifies the content in question. (Which is basic content present in the lead of the linked article, as someone else pointed out above.) As the content is not medical, the invocation of MEDRS is peculiar. -sche (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The above comment disturbing in its attempt to smear the author of WP:RS and to suggest such research is "idiosyncratic". The disparity between identification and the meaurement of gender identity is basic knowledge in this field. Equating the two simply isn't correct. To suggest cited, peer reviewed published scientific work of this nature is not MEDRS is peculiar. Maneesh (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Maneesh: The wiki article you link to (gender identity) contradicts your point which, to be sure i'm understanding correctly and not misreading, is the claim that "gender identity" and "identifying as foobar" are not the same thing. The Zucker 2005 article you cite says it is addressing "an overview of various measures pertaining to gender identity, gender role, and sexual orientation that have been used in assessment studies of two clinical populations..." but this article explicitly states that it is showing "measures for the assessment of gender identity...". By saying "Gender identity is plainly a clinical tool used in the assessment of gender dysphoria" above, you appear to be confusing the instrument and its operationalizations for the concept itself. Gender identity is not the measures, its the latent variable the measures try to assess through manifest variables such as self report, observed behaviors, etc.

You say that Zucker is using "gender identity" differently, but I do not see that in the cited texts. Saying that "there are well known disparities between gender identity as used to diagnose gender dysphoria and "identification" is missing the distinction itself. A transgender identity need not be dysphoric. If dysphoria is present and causes disruption to one's life, negative affect, maladaptive behaviors, etc. then it's a disorder resulting from the dysphoria the gender identity produces. The gender identity, which is still what one identifies as, is separate from the measures of GID just as depression (the subjective emotional state) can be separate from clinical or major depression (the diagnosis).

The operational definition is not the theoretical definition; pulselessness, hypoxia, unconsciousness, non-breathing are not death but just indixators of it. The psychometric assessments themselves (IQ, PHQ, BDI, Bem's SRI, etc.) are not the concepts they attempt to measure (intelligence, depression, gender expression) and I don't see anywhere in this article where the instruments/measures/psychometrics are being referred to explicitly. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The interpretation of "gender identity" is fraught but the resolution is not as straightforward as you suggest with analogy to things like a pulse and death. There has has been a prominent public debate that broadly deals with some of these issues; getting into that would turn this into WP:FORUM. Rather than do that, it seems to make sense to avoid the controversy and avoid WP:SYNTH and use what the sources say accurately. This began with the discovery of a very problematic misrepresentation used to support "Trans women have a male sex assignment at birth that does not align with their gender identity", there is no world in which "woman" can be substituted with "feminine" in this way; the misrepresentation highlights the importance of being accurate here. Any previous consensus to keep the sentence on trans women was presumably based on this misrepresentation. The WPATH source is a long article that (clearly very carefully) does not mention any form of 'trans woman' once. The stonewall source says "A term used to describe someone who is assigned male at birth but identifies and lives as a woman.", if that source is reliable, just use that accurately (it is quite concise). There are obvious other synths to be made, e.g., "assignment" is just the observation of what sex someone is, so why not plainly synthesize it to say "A term used to describe someone who is male identifies and lives as a woman". It doesn't even make sense given that a number of 46, XX CAH females were "assigned male" but are (of course) female, these females are not "trans women". Maneesh (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Some editors would claim that they are. I came across a BLP article that was about a man that had been mistakenly assigned the wrong sex at birth, and this was not discovered till he was a bit older (but still young; and this was, I think, in the 1960s, or maybe 1970 when he discovered he was actually male). Anyway, the article called him a "transgender man"; and NONE of the sources said anything even remotely close up this, nor even mentioned transsexuality at all (and "transgender" didn't exist yet as a concept so they couldn't have mentioned that). These are some of the consequences of replacing plain "male" and "female" with "assigned at birth": which is really only appropriate in cases of intersex or errors (i.e., the

delivery room doctor's glasses had broken and she couldn't see well enough to make an accurate declaration and picked the wrong one) - and it's only a matter of time before some serious medical error gets made (like someone gets a sex-specific cancer because they weren't screened as they should have been or they're given the wrong medicine etc because some nurse writes down the wrong information due to hyper-wokeness taken to extremes. Sorry for the tangent; it is still relevent, though, because, like it or not, males and females have completely different sets of health and medical scopes that aren't determined by how they "identify", and being careless with language can have potentially disastrous consequences. Firejuggler86 (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Query to Maneesh - concerning your statement: there is no world in which "woman" can be substituted with "feminine" in this way; the misrepresentation highlights the importance of being accurate here. Any previous consensus to keep the sentence on trans women was presumably based on this misrepresentation - I don't see anything in the current version of the article that supports your interpretation that the "previous consensus ... was ... based on this misinterpretation". Do you have any basis, either in the current text of the article or in previous discussions among editors, for making this claim? It sounds like a misreading of the article as it currently stands. Newimpartial (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I had the same question. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

? Look a few sections up at "Morrow and Messinger quote". You don't see it in the current version because I removed the cite just a few days ago. It's good that it is gone, but that problem was long standing (casually looking at least since 2017) and must've mislead many readers.Maneesh (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Exploring sources

Ok, so Maneesh it seems that your primary concern with the current version of the article is the two sources.

• GLAAD (also here) says "Used as shorthand to mean transgender or transsexual" and "A person's internal, deeply held sense of their gender. For transgender people, their own internal gender identity does not match the sex they were assigned at birth." It also says "Transgender should always be used as an adjective. For example, "Susan is a transgender woman." If your audience needs clarification about what that phrase means, you can explain that "Susan was designated male at birth, and began her transition 15 years ago."" Both links use "transgender women" in them as well.

• American Psychological Association (APA) (also here) says:
  • "Gender identity: An internal sense of being male, female or something else, which may or may not correspond to an individual's sex assigned at birth or sex characteristics."
  • "Transgender: An umbrella term encompassing those whose gender identities or gender roles differ from those typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth."
  • "Gender Identity: A person’s deeply‐felt, inherent sense of being a boy, a man, or male; a girl, a woman, or female; or an alternative gender (e.g., genderqueer, gender nonconforming, gender neutral) that may or may not correspond to a person’s sex assigned at birth or to a person’s primary or secondary sex characteristics. Since gender identity is internal, a person’s gender identity is not necessarily visible to others. “Affirmed gender identity” refers to a person’s gender identity after coming out as TGNC or undergoing a social and/or medical transition process."

• CDC says "Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity or expression (masculine, feminine, other) is different from their sex (male, female) at birth. Gender identity refers to one’s internal understanding of one’s own gender, or the gender with which a person identifies."

• HHS uses "transgender woman" multiple times. BBC does as well.

I also found a lot of university sources, mostly from their diversity/inclusion units, defining these terms. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You can see the problems in using gender identity glibly from your own sources. APA says transgender could mean gender identity or gender roles. Are women who do not conform to feminine gender roles then "trans women"? The CDC definition has the same issue. By these definitions most people are probably transgender.

From Diamond: "Transsexual (male to female)...Here the individual is obviously aware of his sex as a male but yearns to live as a woman. Although he is aware he is a male, his sexual identity is female. And he knows his gender identity, as male, the way he had been perceived by others in his community, was not in keeping with the person he imagined himself to be. His present condition at this time, before transsexual surgery, is as a woman. After male-to-female surgery his gender identity and sexual identity will match.

From Zucker and Bradley: "Gender identity refers to a person’s basic sense of self as male or female. It includes both the awareness that one is male or female and an affective appraisal of such knowledge."

From Bailey, affective vs. cognitive gender identity: "A third area of likely difference is gender identity, that is, degree of comfort with assigned sex and desire to be a member of the other sex. We are concerned with affective gender identity rather than cognitive gender identity, that is, believing that one is a girl versus a boy. The distribution of the affective component is continuous, ranging from normal comfort with and unquestioned acceptance of assigned sex to extreme discomfort and rejection. At the most extreme during adulthood, this is transsexualism."

These definitions include ideas like "knowing", "awareness" and "affective appraisal". With these definitions a "trans woman" would have a male gender identity and some negative affective component associated with that knowledge; quite different from something like an "internal sense of being female". Maneesh (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The Diamond source from 19 years ago is definitely out of date with regard to terminology. In today's reckoning, trans women have a female gender identity because gender identity is defined based on someone's internal feelings alone. Sexual identity nowadays is the identity of one's sexuality or sexual orientation rather than of their sex. I'm not really seeing any grounds for changing the sentence's wording. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Gender identity is a vague word but it hasn't somehow inverted itself in a few years in the academic literature. Clinical work on gender identity disorder/dysphoria uses the word carefully as the quotes show. "Gender identity" rarely refers just to the cognitive knowledge that one is male or female, it refers to the relationship between the accurate knowledge that one is male or female and the negative affective component that relates to that knowledge. Maneesh (talk)

And to be sure, Diamond isn't out of date. Still cited in recent years in highlighting the controversy around terms like "gender identity", from Ware: "Do sex-and-gender, as conflated, reasonably apply to transgenderism? If they are conflated, then an identity of gender encompasses an identity of physical sex and implies a need to be a sex as well as a gender. But the sex and gender correlation is inverse with trans people, even if we don’t know exactly how much so (Collin, Reisner, Tangpricha, & Goodman, 2016; Conway, 2012; The Williams Institute, 2016). So “gender identity,” in practical application, really means—what? Just gender? Both sex and gender? Is sex identity something we are not supposed to mention (Diamond, 2002; Kotula, 2002)?". Maneesh (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by the accurate knowledge that one is male or female, above? Are you referring to physiology, or identity, or something else? That just isn't a kind of statement I've seen recent sources use. Newimpartial (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Just a guess, but I would think that would be opposed to "delusional" (inaccurate) knowledge.

@EvergreenFir: Or a matter related to cognitive development as the sources above discuss.Maneesh (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Maneesh: It appears that you wish to debate how the term should be used in academia. We are here to determine how it is used and reflect that without judgement (WP:NPOV). The mainstream use of "gender identity" is as the APA describes. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Nope, these sources show how it *is* used in clinical science in the context of doing things like understanding "tomboys" and treating gender dysphoria. Maneesh (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

We are by no means limited to clinical psychology here. This article and the topic of gender identity are not about diagnoses in the DSM EvergreenFir (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll leave it at it would be best to avoid relatively fuzzy notions like "gender identity" in an article about adult human females. Gender identity can mean very different things in different contexts and is the subject of controversy.Maneesh (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I tend not to think of concepts that have been operationalized by demographers as fuzzy notions, myself, but evidently perspectives differ. Newimpartial (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2021

Change “…13th century had begun…” to “…13th century it had begun…” 174.23.144.245 (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

On my intersex edits

I changed it because that’s not technically how intersex is defined in biology.

In the book right here on pages 116 to 117 define intersex as organisms with a mixture of male and female sex characteristics.

This article follows a similar definition.

So does this book

So I’m not making shit up here. CycoMa (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The current way intersex is discussed in this article is very poor: "intersex women have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology" may be true, but that claim is also true of any low prevalence condition (cervical cancer, tetrachromacy etc.). The sentence is misleading since it suggests that intersex women are generally something other than adult human females. No matter what common definition of "intersex" is used, most intersex women are plain old adult human females. Intersex isn't worth mentioning in this article and is WP:UNDUE. Maneesh (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You have a source for No matter what common definition of "intersex" is used, most intersex women are plain old adult human females? Because I for one thought that the whole reason for the mention was that intersex women meet certain criteria for female but not others.

And to CycloMa - this article isn't only about biology, so maybe check your attitude. Thx. Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You can go to Intersex#Population_figures. What proportion of females with intersex conditions meet the criteria for being female? Maneesh (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't that depend on the defining characteristics used for "female"? Newimpartial (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It does, luckily there is a very clear WP:MEDRS consensus around the idea of female.Maneesh (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This is actually a hilarious discussion. Maybe you could answer the question I asked of CycloMa, From your own preferred source, what percentage of intersex women do have all of the sex characteristics that are typically "female"? That would be more relevant than debating what definition of "female" will fit on the head of a pin. Also, you know perfectly well that "female", like "woman", is a term used in many contexts in which MEDRS is a complete irrelevancy. Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Not engaging any further. Female is a straightforward biological category that is elementary in biology and medicine and commonly understood, not much to it past that. Maneesh (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Female is a straightforward biological category that is elementary in biology and medicine and commonly understood - yes, and intersex women as a group lack at least one of the typically female sex characteristics. The fact that they are not the only group of women that do so (for example all infertile women lack at least one typical female characteristic, and most of these women are not intersex) is strictly irrelevant to the fact that they are a group for whom boundary issues arise. Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not anything resembling credible reasoning. Females with intersex conditions are not defined by "lack[ing] at least one of the typically female sex characteristics" nor do boundary issues arise for *any* females with intersex conditions.Maneesh (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

That sounds a lot like a dogmatic POV unsupported by evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Um the article says. “while intersex women have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology.” It is talking them not being the typical notion in female biology. It clearly misunderstands what intersex is from a biological perspective. CycoMa (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

From your own preferred source, what percentage of intersex women do have all of the sex characteristics that are typically "female"? Newimpartial (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: I believe you are missing my point. What I am trying to say is that sentence is talking about biology but misunderstands biological terms. CycoMa (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I am finding this discussion very funny. You know that the article text is referring to sex characteristics in relation to norms, right, not in relation to the typical notion in female biology? (Whatever that would even mean.) So, do you think you could humor me by answering my previous question? Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad Crossroads is trying but I think the contrived nature of the claim is even more apparent now: "...while intersex women may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology". There is a well known list of very different intersex conditions, which ones is this sentence trying to refer to? Maneesh (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Replying to Newimpartial: You appear to be misunderstanding how 'female' is defined in biology and medicine. It is not based on all of the sex characteristics that are typically "female". It is defined by the developmental pathway for bearing the larger gamete (ova), which in humans develops when there is no Y chromosome. The correct statement is that intersex women "may have" characteristics that differ from typical notions, not that they necessarily do or that it was observed at birth. For example, the condition that is by far the largest of those sometimes considered intersex, LOCAH, is not observable at birth ("late-onset" is in the name), and is asymptomatic in many women: Many women have no symptoms at all: “Probably many affected individuals are asymptomatic,” notes another recent review (White, 2001, p. 25). [1] (Note: this is a highly cited peer-reviewed paper that just happens to be hosted on the author's personal site.) Crossroads ^-talk- 04:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

And it follows that why is a set women that women with LOCAH are representative of, need to be mentioned in this article (WP:PROPORTION)? Women with LOCAH are, plainly, women (the effects of LOCAH are, of course, rather sex specific). There are many many other sets of women that should be mentioned in this article if LOCAH has some special status. Maneesh (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, the article now reads may have, which I understand to be acceptable terminology. Whether or not LOCAH is considered an intersex condition - and I have seen editors make unsupportably opportunistic arguments on that point to "win" very narrow talk page arguments - the fact remains that intersex conditions often do result in atypical sex characteristics. What is more, the article is actually referring to typical notions of female biology, not a narrow MEDRS definition of female. While the phrase used in the article may not be the most elegant one possible, your move to a purely chromosomal definition is, ahem, not entirely appropriate in the context of this article's lede. Newimpartial (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This is, again, not credible reasoning. Crossroad's claim that female is defined by the developmental pathway for bearing the larger gamete (ova), which in humans develops when there is no Y chromosome. is a reflection of *elementary biology* and generalizes just fine to "intersex" X0, XXX females. Maneesh (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

That may or may not be true, but it has no particular bearing on the present article, which is not about biology: *elementary* or otherwise. Newimpartial (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It is true, is very relevant to the section and the article. Maneesh (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

If you'd like, we could RfC whether the chromosomal definition of "female" is DUE for the lead section of this article? Newimpartial (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no real "chromosomal definition" of female, there is just the biological one. In humans a female is one who has the potential to produce ova, you only need to look out the window to know that is true. "Humans with XX chromosomes" covers >> 99% of such people, is a fine first order approximation and is covered appropriately in this article with "typically". This article uses "female" without any concern that I can see. Even on the intersex line under discussion here, it is not the way "female" is being used, it is about the concerns that I've already outline above. Maneesh (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I would advise not getting into a debate about ontology here. Put LOCAH aside for a moment. The fact is that some intersex women - people who identify and present as women but with whatever birth anatomy - do not have the anatomy that is detailed before that in the lead. So intersex women "may have sex characteristics that do not fit [the aforementioned] typical notions of female biology". Crossroads ^-talk- 05:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of intersex women *do* do have the anatomy that is detailed before that in the lead. Be specific.Maneesh (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

But some do not. And the first sentence of that paragraph - Typically, a woman has two X chromosomes and is capable of pregnancy and giving birth from puberty until menopause - is also not true of many intersex women. Newimpartial (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Chromosomes are not anatomy. Triple X women have normal fertility. Turner are usually (not always) infertile but capable of pregnancy and giving birth via IVF (EDIT: I should say donated eggs to be specific). Maneesh (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Did I ever say or imply that any intersex women have none of these characteristics at all? Or did I ever confuse anatomy with chromosomes? No; no, I did not do either of this things. Newimpartial (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Read Crossroads original claim above yours. "Not true of many" doesn't really matter, it's about what represents the class of intersex women. WP:PROPORTION tells you that intersex women aren't a particularly distingushed class of women, they're just women with a diverse set of conditions that mostly are specific to their sex. Maneesh (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Is Crossroads' statement, some intersex women - people who identify and present as women but with whatever birth anatomy - do not have the anatomy that is detailed before that in the lead true? Yes, it is. Is my statement that the other sentence from the same paragraph, Typically, a woman has two X chromosomes and is capable of pregnancy and giving birth from puberty until menopause, is also not true of many intersex women - is that statement also true? Yes, it is. Are those two statements, Crossroads' and mine, relevant to the question of "who comprises the class of women as a whole"? Yes, they are. Please step away from the horse carcass. Newimpartial (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, WP:PROPORTION. You are free to leave the thread if you like. Maneesh (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

If you would like to RfC or take to NPOVN whether the third paragraph (of the lead) is DUE or not, those would be appropriate routes for you to take. Monological contributions to this Talk page, however, will not help to resolve the issue. Newimpartial (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't need to say more than WP:PROPORTION, it captures the problem quite well and perhaps will invite responses from other editors andmay help resolve the issue; that is totally appropriate in my view.Maneesh (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

My strong suspicion is that everything you do as an editor is totally appropriate in [your] view. However, unless you convince other editors that the correct application of WP:NPOV (the policy of which PROPORTION is a part) requires that the mention of intersex women be expunged from the lede, you are as they say whistling into the wind. Newimpartial (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Convincing other editors takes time and that's what this thread is for, you're free to keep responding and claiming that it doesn't work. In the meantime I would like to hear from CycoMa and Crossroads given I've been addressing them mostly. Maneesh (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Lead image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is that the article should have a lead image, especially in light of MOS:LEADIMAGE, the consensus for which is much broader than this particular RfC unless there is "no easy representation of the topic." Because the choice over which image to use has many implications beyond the mere concept of "woman" (including race, age, occupation, pregnancy, clothing, etc.) any choice is, editors have agreed, going to be contentious. The efforts to tabulate the various responses is duly noted and appreciated! Representing a woman, however, is easy-- my sense of the discussion is that Version C has at least as much support as any of the other proposals, and should therefore become the article's lead image, even if it is in some ways less than perfect-- perfection is not the goal. C was consistently a high-preference choice among discussants, though No image might have been an outcome with greater consensus if not for MOS:LEADIMAGE. Note: although I am closing this discussion, and although an administrator was specifically requested for closure, I am not an admin. I am closing this discussion because I have some experience with discussion closures, and I carefully reviewed the discussion and relevant policies to arrive at a conclusion. If there is any serious disagreement with my closure, I will rescind my claim of consensus and the discussion can continue. What this discussion seems to need most of all, however, is for someone to look it over and close it with an acceptable justification/ conclusion. I hope the participants will agree that I have done this, and can now move on. A loose necktie (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Which of these is best for the lead image? (Please rank.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• 
  A. current image
• B.
  B.
• 
  C. preview
• 
  D. preview
• E. preview
  E. preview
• 
  F. preview
• 
  G. preview

And some more...

• 
  H
• 
  I
• 
  J
• 
  K
• 
  L
• 
  M
• 
  N
• 
  O

Added image below, 12:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• 
  P

Pinging recent discussion participants: @Nagualdesign, JoePhin, Randy Kryn, Volteer1, Finnusertop, Genericusername57, Gandydancer, Kokopelli7309, WhatamIdoing, and Rhododendrites:

Survey

• I am opposed to the current image which represents a "mechanic" more than just a "woman". I think we should use the same reasoning as in Talk:Human/FAQ. My ranked choices:

  D, Average looking woman. I like that she looks like a statue and that more of her body is shown.

  C, Very simple and real, but less of her body is showing.

  G, High quality photo, but looks very "LinkedIn".

  F, Distractingly disheveled, but real.

  E, Too glamorous, looks like a teenager, and my preference is less culturally specific. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• B (no image) for now - None of the presented choices "give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page (WP:LEADIMAGE) because they don't show enough dimensions which would, at-a-glance, communicate the topic of the page as "woman", and don't show enough differentiation from "man". For example, a number of physical features typical of women (as different from men) are not represented clearly - such as lack of defined breast or hip shape - a fully nude image would accomplish this. Other indications of typical societal role aren't apparent either - for example, as the only population which carries children, a picture of a pregnant woman would be far more valuable. The current image "A" exemplifies what I'm saying as it offers few visual clues about the actual topic and doesn't immediately read as a "woman". The photo "G" is particularly low-quality (the pink and black areas don't show much definition, becoming two solid blocks of color which visually "blow out" the overall image) and badly-posed. The most important thing when considering images for this is to imagine you cannot read the text of the page, the caption, or the filename of the image. If you saw any of these images on a Wikipedia page from a language you can't read, would you be reasonably be sure you are on the "Woman" page vs something else? Because, for a basic concept article like this, its quite likely a lot of readers coming here are English learners. -- Netoholic @ 03:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  Netoholic, would you still support[2][3] the nude pregnant woman I added (not that I do)? Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  That or something like it is fine. It instantly communicates the topic of the page in line with WP:LEADIMAGE. I stand by my linked comment as to the reasons why. -- Netoholic @ 15:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  So your first choice is P? Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• C, an average representative woman. Nationality seems hard to pin down, so not overtly any one type. Average age, average weight. A blend of the world's women to represent all women, at least my two cents worth of viewpoint (although I still like her in the original red blouse, it pops the page more). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• B - I'll clarify that by this I don't mean simply "none of these" but oppose any single lead image. A series of past RfCs determined that we should not have galleries of images in the lead of "topics about large human populations". Some cite the reason for this as the amount of conflict selection of such images generates on our article talk pages. But more importantly, it's about the difficulty of choosing just a small set of images to represent a large group of people. Those issues are exacerbated, not assuaged, by reducing the number of lead images to just one, so the past RfCs should stand. Consensus should change, but this should be broadcast widely if that's the goal. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  The consensus of the WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES RfC does not say not to use single images. We have single images at Man, Girl, Boy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  As I said, I think we should follow the example at Talk:Human/FAQ, which states in part: "... no article on Wikipedia tries to visually encapsulate every permutation of its subject matter. This is a good thing. If our goal in choosing an image is not to illustrate every major 'type' of humans, but simply to depict any old random human, there is vastly less potential for our biases to infect our selection." Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  Also, "No image" doesn't work. From a 2019 discussion: "The first image is the default lead image (the one that is pushed to previews such as mouseover and search engine results). ... Deleting the lead image and going back to the way it was in October 2018–January 2019, with an image of the female reproductive system as the lead image, is not an option." Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  The consensus of the WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES RfC does not say not to use single images - this seems very much like a spirit/letter distinction. the arguments there would apply to a single image more than a gallery, for the most part. As for the issue of needing a lead image, I do recall now that you or someone else mentioned this previously and I forgot. So I went and tested it with some mouse-over pop-ups. The pop-up for links for African Americans to not just pull up the top image; it doesn't include any image. I don't know what the technical reasons/limitations/quirks are, but that would seem to indicate there's a way to avoid having an image. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• From most to least preferred: D, C, E, A, G, F, B. I honestly wanted to rank G higher, but her hand being behind her back for no reason is really distratcing. I don't see a reason to go without an image. One representative is different than fighting over galleries. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• M, L, I, J, K. Mathglot (talk) 10:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose B, K, L and N. One high-quality photo of one woman, please. Other than this, no preference. — Bilorv (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• B, no image as one image is not going to be representative of the subject. I feel the same way about the article on men as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• C or D are best, J and M are okay, most others I don't think are very good bar some more marginal cases (like e.g. F). D/C to me seem like a cut above the rest for reasons already laid about above. C is easier to see because it's more zoomed in, but you can see more of her body in D, so I don't have a preference between the two – actually, I think C is best. I think also that it makes little sense to say we should use no image at all because no one specific person can represent "woman" – this is the case for almost everything! There's no one representative cake, or one representative sport, or one representative example of science. Nevertheless this doesn't impede us, we chose a layered pound cake, soccer, and the timeline of expansion in the universe to illustrate those subjects, and those articles benefited from it. I don't see why the same can't be true of this article. Edit: all of which is to say, I oppose B. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  Far too much subjectivity involved in this topic, and definitely not for a primary image for a topic like this. I wouldn't be opposed to a gallery of high quality photos of different professions/races/ages being available deeper in the article, but this is for a "lead image", which simply is not necessary for something with so many variations (and again, I feel the same way about "men"). —Locke Cole • t • c 16:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  I feel like a gallery of different of groups would be worse, because then it seems like we are implicitly making a statement about the groups we chose to leave out. We're obviously not going to be able represent everyone, but what does that say about the e.g. ethnicities/cultures/etc we choose to leave in or choose to leave out? I think the previous RfC on the matter is sensible: "articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members". Picking a fairly normal run-of-the mill woman at almost random (that is, grab a couple images and pick a good one like in this RfC) avoids this problem, and doesn't seem to me to cause any significant issues; while the illustration does provide a boon for the article. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• C feels the most basic and representative. No distinct age or ethnicity and no identifiable background or clothing. Question: is there a possibility of a collage of 3-6 woman of multiple ages and ethnicities being used as the lede image? KieranStanley (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  Probably not, see MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES; there is already an existing guideline on that. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• C or D are the best images out of the lineup imo (high quality, one human woman, no headgear, facing the camera, shows more of the upper body, not a headshot, not artwork). No preference between the two. Oppose having no lead image and oppose a gallery/collage; a gallery/collage is needless per WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES, and Talk:Human/FAQ already addresses the "represent a large group of people" concerns. Some1 (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• So far I like "African and American politicians" best. Why was it discarded? Gandydancer (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• B, C, or J because they are high-quality photographs with neutral expressions. No photo might be ideal but if the article uses one at the top then C or J. < Atom (Anomalies) 06:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Prefer M, J, I, E, which are high-quality and reasonably representative of at least one aspect of one culture's understanding of women (with the obvious caveat that it's not really possible to be representative of a population of this size) - I can definitely understand the argument that E is too glamorous / stylized or that more "day-to-day" looks are better, but I would argue that the cultural image of women is also something we want the lead image to represent. Second choices would be C, G, H, O, D which are also representative in that manner but not quite as high-quality. Oppose F because its quality is low enough to be distracting - at least on my screen it looks visibly pixelated even in its smaller view, which should be immediately disqualifying. Oppose A for the reasons mentioned - too much going on in it, which dilutes the focus. Same for N; the fact that it's a well-known work of art makes it unsuitable because that distracts from what it's supposed to represent. Oppose the ones with multiple people (K, L) for somewhat similar reasons; having a bunch of people makes it less clear what it represents, not more, and makes it harder to identify at-a-glance the way lead images are supposed to (I oppose galleries for lead images for similar reasons - by necessity that makes each individual image tiny, which ruins at-a-glance recognizability.) K also confuses things by showing a child. Strenuously oppose P because a naked figure here (where it wouldn't reasonably be expected) violates MOS:SHOCKVALUE. Strenuously oppose B because it's nonsense to go with no image when we have so many perfectly usable ones; yes, no image can perfectly represent all women, but several of these are sufficiently representative to serve the article's purposes, and we have repeatedly used images on comparable articles (Man, Girl, Boy as mentioned above.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh, I didn't realise N was a well known work of art..I don't think I've seen it before. I still think it would be fine, though - it's not quite so well known that using it would be ridiculous, like putting the Mona Lisa as the lede image for Woman. Firejuggler86 (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• B no image. There are already some of these pictures in the article so no need to specifically add one in the lead. At best an anatomical image would serve best if anything at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.2.69.77 (talk) 2021-05-01T12:18:34 (UTC)
• N I like the idea of using a painting rather than a photograph for articles such as this ("man", "woman", "human", "lady", "bawd" etc). They're less contentious and less personal than photographs of real people; I also think this painting in particular is well rounded (no pun intended), it strikes a good balance between glamorous and average, mundane and unconventional. Firejuggler86 (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• C, A, H, G, E, L, J, M, O I, high quality photographs with neutral or friendly expressions, showing either one woman or multiple adult women, with preference towards photos that include more of the subject's body. I'd be more open to supporting the paintings or nudes if this were a project-level RfC to decide analogous pages such as Man, etc. but don't think that we should make the change to this article alone. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• B It will be ideal to keep it with no specific representation. Sea Ane (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• K, L, N, O - Idealigic (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• A, oppose all others. Nothing so terribly wrong with the current image that we absolutely need to change it and, as is evident from the discussion above, there are no strong contenders. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• A, current image is a fine image of a woman; most of the proposed pictures are lower quality. (I'm surprised C has support from people who think the current image is not womanly enough, when C's features are so manly. And the facial expressions in F and I are distracting, IMO.) G and H would be my second/third choices. (I wouldn't mind P, either, but I see some people above think it'd be too shocking.) I'd like to point out that B / no image (which I'd find an OK last-ditch choice, though we manage to have lead images in Girl, Boy, Man, and Human) doesn't fully solve but just moves the issue: if we don't have a "lead" image, we still face the issue of what the first image will be, which gets displayed as the article's thumbnail when using things like preview popups or when linking to the article from elsewhere on the web. -sche (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  Finnusertop, opposing all images because "nothing is wrong" with the status quo is Status quo stonewalling, see WP:Status quo stonewalling#A !vote of "no change needed"

  -sche, I don't believe anyone said the current image wasn't womanly enough; please reread the arguments.

  If it is unclear whether there is consensus to change the image, I will ping past discussion participants: @Basilicofresco, Levivich, Schazjmd, EvergreenFir, Gunkarta, Vontheri, Feminist, WanderingWanda, Qzekrom, SlimVirgin, SharabSalam, Betty Logan, Insertcleverphrasehere, Pincrete, HRwatcher, Nsae Comp, LokiTheLiar, and SMcCandlish: which do you prefer for the image at Woman? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  Image A is almost certainly 'faked' - ie it is actually a woman modelling as a mechanic, rather than somebody really doing any kind of mechanical work. At the time that this image was adopted, a few years ago, I gave a detailed account of how and why the engine parts, tools and clothes (all of which are brand new and pristinely clear apart from other considerations) make no sense it terms of actually doing any kind of assembly, repair or disassembly work on any kind of engine that I know of. This becomes even more obvious when the uncropped picture is looked at. Nobody seemed to think that important at the time the picture was adopted, and may not do so now. Personally I think it highly relevant and I think sends a message that women are employed for their photogenicity, rather than their skills. Pincrete (talk) 08:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  I opposed all alternatives to A not only because there is nothing wrong with A, but also because all alternatives are inferior to it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  Image A is almost certainly a photo of a model pretending to be doing some kind of mechanical work - though what work and where isn't clear. Nobody 2 years ago was able to offer a remotely plausible account of what task she is supposedly performing on - what appears to be an engine crankcase - however a crankcase containing no moving parts, which would be the case whether she was assembling or disassembling. Nor do the tools she holds make any sense- there are neither nuts nor bolts on the crankcase for her to either tighten or loosen and she would anyway be using much more precise tools were she actually doing work, and hey yes engine crankcases have oil on them - ancient dirty oil if disassembling and clean fresh oil (and many protuding moving parts) if re-assembling. It's a nice picture of someone modelling! Pincrete (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• D just shades C for me. I think C is probably most like a photo you'd get on a passport, but I would prefer it if there wasn't anything obscuring the face i.e. head wear, glasses, heavy make-up etc. I also like the idea of a middle-aged woman, it just seems a bit more representative than a 25 year-old model. Betty Logan (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Betty Logan: Sorry if this is a silly question, but when you say "D just shades C", do you mean that C is better or D is better? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  I have a slight preference for D but it is only marginal. I would be perfectly happy with C. Betty Logan (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• C > D > G > most of the other ones > K/L. IMO, what we're looking for here is a photo of a single individual who is unambiguously a woman at a glance, and who has as few other characteristics that could belong to some other article as possible. The current photo doesn't fit these criteria very well, IMO, because she could be a mechanic and she's not so obviously a woman at a glance. Most of the other photos do fine but many have some feature or other that could mean something other than just "woman": e.g. I'd prefer to avoid O since it could be an example of a woman wearing hijab, I'd prefer to avoid J because it could be an example of a woman wearing a bindi, I'd prefer to avoid N because it could be an example of that painting, and so on. I think the photos that most successfully portray a generic woman are C, D, and G, in that order for mainly aesthetic reasons. Loki (talk) 03:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose B because having any lead image would serve the very useful purpose of representing that this article is about a classification of humans. As to which image should be chosen, meh. Realistically Woman and Man are simple enough concepts for most people to grasp that the choice of image won't matter that much. I am sympathetic to the view that represents a "mechanic" more than just a "woman", especially when the current lead image on Man doesn't represent any particular occupation; though I'd note that File:Outdoors-man-portrait (cropped).jpg has significantly better lighting than many of the options above. In terms of choice I'd say C > G > D > most others. D has somewhat poor lighting compared to C and G. feminist (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• L is best, P is second best, and I'd strongly oppose B and oppose N. I'd like the main image of the page for both Woman and Man to show a full body, or at least more of the body, if possible. I'm a big fan of having more than one woman in the image too, and if there was a picture with a diverse assortment of women all standing together with different ages and heights and whatnot, that would probably be my first pick. (The current Human main image does an ok job of this). While I don't think there's anything wrong with showing a woman who also happens to be a mechanic, I can see why one might have a preference for a more generic image. Generic is good. Having no image at all would be embarrassingly terrible; what, we can have a main image showing an example of a green tree frog but not a woman? Get out of here with that tosh. Also, a minor note as it relates to image N, while I'm not opposed to using a painting in principal, I do have a slight preference for a photograph of the thing itself. Joe (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose options B, K, L, as they are not really of a singular woman. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose P, as unnecessarily nude and unduly focuses on pregnancy as a womans defining characteristic. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• C, Collage, B (no image) Nsae Comp (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• D is my choice. Gandydancer (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• M Of the options it is the only one assessed as a featured picture (unless I missed something). As long as the picture shows a women it suffices. If we have to choose lets stick with the one judged as being high quality. Aircorn (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• D. I generally concur with Kolya Butternutt. And with many of the later criticisms of later-added images. G as second choice, though I agree it looks little like a social-media portrait. That's not necessarily bad; most of these images are posed, not candids. Opposed to the painting because the proportions are stylized not realistic. Opposed to the nude because there's no need for nudity here, and we not using a nude male in the corresponding article (Cf. Male gaze, etc.; there seems to be presumption here that naked ladies are a good thing, but not naked dudes. And it can be seen as tying in with the pregnancy, i.e. a woman as modified by "interaction" with a male, rather than on her own, default terms.) Most of the rest of these seem to be more about traditional dress than about women/a woman. Many are not representative (most women are not just exiting their teens, nor entering their eighties, nor pregnant, nor hardhat-wearers, nor daily wearers of hijabs or other headgear which in an image of this sort is just a distraction and an occlusion). I don't oppose using a collage approach. The fact that one RfC extended "no ethnic galleries" to a more general stance doesn't mean that consensus cannot change. However, the ones I see proposed here (below) are all of relatively light-skinned people, so someone more obviously of Sub-Sarahan African heritage should be in there (probably in place of ancient or medieval art).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: As it seems this RfC will probably go in the direction of either C or D, could you share your reasoning for preferring D to C? It would probably be quite helpful. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  That was covered by "generally concur with Kolya". :-) I think it's more helpful to the reader to show more of the whole woman. Women aren't just different on average from men from the ribs upward. :-) Aesthetically, it also has better lighting instead of looking like excessive flash-fill from a cheap phone cam, and the lighting is even on the best side for right-hand placement in the article where the infobox will be.

• Oppose P I agree with Emir of Wikipedia. The image is unnecessarily explicit and is not representative of all women Wikignometry (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• B. I concur with the positions of Netoholic and Rhododendrites. We shouldn't have an image at the top of Man, Girl, nor Boy either. — Goszei (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
• B, with a collage as a second choice. Any single image we choose might get consensus now, but I wouldn't expect that consensus to be stable. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• In my opinion one should make a collage consisting of all photos to counteract prejudices and to reflect the diversity of people. If this is not possible, i prefer M because it's the most neutral picture. Otherwise choosing no picture is the worst option because it is very likely that this discussion will be repeated. — HRwatcher (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  HRwatcher, can you expand on why you feel that M is the most neutral? It looks to me like an elderly woman with a distracting facial expression like she may have no teeth. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  It doesn't look posed but more authentic. The picture doesn't provide direct information about religion or culture and is therefore neutral. — HRwatcher (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I don't really have a horse in this race, but image A is a terrible stock photo that represents neither women nor mechanics. First of all, the person is not working on an engine; there are huge piles of scrap metal (brake lines, door panels) in the background, and you can see that most of the bearing surfaces on the engine block are corroded. Furthermore, mechanics don't wear hard hats to take apart engine blocks. At best, it is being parted out at a junkyard, and at worst, it is just a photoshoot with a stock photo model. Also, in another image in this series (featuring the same woman and the same engine), you can see a wrench being "applied" to a nut that in this image is obviously too small for it to bear on. As far as women doing technical tasks goes, looking in my list of cool pictures, File:Margaret Hamilton - restoration.jpg and File:Y12 Calutron Operators.jpg appear to depict this actually happening (I am sure there's many more but I don't have them immediately at hand). jp×g 19:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• D , high quality, shows more of the upper body and a good representative of the average woman. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Question @Randy Kryn, KieranStanley, Firejuggler86, Gandydancer, Aircorn, HRwatcher, and BristolTreeHouse: could folks who only !voted for one image rank some more so there's no chance of a spoiler? Thanks! Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Kolya Butternut, if i had to set an order, i would go like this: collage, M, D, G, L, I and O. In order to show the diversity of women a collage would be the most appropiate solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HRwatcher (talk • contribs)

  @Kolya Butternut, D>G>L or retain A. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• B (no image) - The body of the article is already filled with many images of women from all over the world. Furthermore, I think this discussion has shown that no single image will please everyone, and even with the discussion below of putting a collage with images of different women would still cause quite a stir because you're not going to represent "every" women (which obviously is impossible) or people will find some "bias" in the imagery. The fact that users below were debating on how many "white" women/women of European ethnicity should be included and removed speaks for itself. I also personally disagree with some of the comments I'm seeing about taking into account a photo because of the subjects "ambiguous ethnicity/nationality". I've made it known elsewhere that I find all these "racial" and whatever labels ridiculous, and I feel that if only one image has to be chosen, I'm not sure why a persons ethnic background or nationality should be a "determining factor" for the reasons I stated in the second sentence of my post. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• A. Current imageYousef Raz (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Image RfC)

Above, left to right: The Birth of Venus, Isadora Duncan, Lesbia; Sacagawea, Marie Curie, Marilyn Monroe, Mata Hari; Wu Zetian, Joan of Arc, Nefertiti, Indira Gandhi

• With so many people asking "why not just use a collage" - and other citing MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES - I have to ask, why not WP:IAR and just put one in? All other major language Wikipedias use a collage. I suggest commons:File:Collage of famous women.jpg used on several language versions of this article. Its less busy than some of the others. -- Netoholic @ 17:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

  Venus is not a woman. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

  She is a mythological representation of womanhood, well-known to many cultures of the world, regardless of language. Her image accomplishes the goal of artistically depicting the key features of women as different from men or girls. -- Netoholic @ 01:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  Nah, the reasons given at NOETHNICGALLERIES apply and I see no need to IAR. Plus, it's way too much emphasis on nudity to have Venus on there. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  This image is also painfully unrepresentative. I count, of the 11 people in the image, 7/11 (almost 2 thirds) of the people are white/European (mythological or real). Maybe you think you can fix this and swap the images out and get a more representative gallery of ethnicities, but – why bother? You will be eternally chasing your own tail and it will never feel representative to everyone. There's not an issue here if we just choose an image of one (almost random) person. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'd say don't let perfect be the enemy of the good, but I suspect it won't convince you. The problems of numerical representation you are so concerned about are only magnified by reliance a single photograph. The quest for ideal representation will always lead to decision paralysis, which is exactly what is being displayed in this RfC and the several discussion threads that led up to it and that will follow it when it closes as no consensus. A gallery at least adheres to WP:LEADIMAGE in that it give readers (especially non-speakers or English learners) visual confirmation that they have reached the right page, especially because it contains famous, recognizable women - particularly women that exemplify womanhood. Even if they recognize only a few of the women, that's enough for them to get the subject of the page. That's the only goal - not complete "representation" of categories that are external to "woman" like ethnicity, etc. Sheeesh! What a monumental task that'd be! How could we -ever- agree on the "perfect" set of images? -- Netoholic @ 09:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  We couldn't aim for perfection, but we could at least try and avoid displaying Wikipedia's unfortunate racial bias proudly front and center, which it seems to me that this image does. I disagree that using one image (and, by the looks of the discussion above, image C) has this same problem. We aren't saying anything about the women we chose to leave out, we're not implying that for the most part the only women that have mattered throughout history are the white ones. We just chose a random woman. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  A collage that is not "perfectly" representative also doesn't say anything about "the women we chose to leave out" - only your sensitivities do that. Its just that by your logic, a single image leaves out even more women. It also does a poorer job of being a good WP:LEADIMAGE because its harder for a reader. A collage helps the reader by making them think "what is the common element between these pictures? Oh, they're all women". -- Netoholic @ 15:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• While I completely oppose any collage, here is a version which crops out the non-human goddess Venus and two other white women. Do you support this Netoholic? Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think its am improvement because core to the concept of "woman" are the physical differences that make them distinct from men or girls, and so we should not be censoring ourselves by hiding the nude form. Also, I think its gross to be tallying the number of "white women" and excising what you consider to be too many just for the sake of it. I don't particularly care what ethnicity the images are from or whether they are in the "right" proportions of representation. -- Netoholic @ 15:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  Do you support a naked man illustrating "Man", to distinguish them from women and boys? Crossroads ^-talk- 04:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  Of course, particularly if its an artistic photographic or illustration - something equivalent to File:Michelangelo's David 2015.jpg for example. -- Netoholic @ 05:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  You weren't addressing me, Crossroads, but if I recall, I think you can actually find me advocating for just that on the Man talk. (Heh, man talk, that's a thing you have with your father when you're a boy - 'son, I need to have a Man talk with you!' lel). What was I typing? Oh yes, I just wanted to put in my two cents that I'd be all in favor of some full body nude shots for Human, Man, Woman, etc., anything really. We have a full-body nude Duck and a frankly scandalous full-body nude Ophraella, so why not show the human body too? Others have replied to me, along this line of reasoning, that humans do wear clothes as part of their natural repertoire, and so a clothed image is better, and while I can sort of agree with that - there's no reason we can't have both if we're doing a collage! Hence, I'm all in favor of the collage. Dang the stupid rule about ethnic galleries to heck! Joe (talk) 07:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• I explained my rationale for rejecting a collage above, but to repeat: My problem is that the purpose of a lead image is to be instantly recognizable at a glance in a "you're in the right place" manner. A collage, by necessity, makes each individual image tiny, which interferes with that, especially on smaller screens. I also don't really agree that eight or so women, no matter how well-selected, are really going to be that much more representative than one - it's just too broad a topic, so we're going to have to bite the bullet and accept that in order to have an image at all (which I think we should for the other reasons I mentioned.) I'm sure these are all well-selected but at a glance, at the size they'd be in the article, they look like a confusing mess of meaningless squares rather than a collage of women. --Aquillion (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Marilyn, internationally known and even deified, would instantly become the brain's focus of attention in the eight-image composite because of recognizable familiarity. The male gaze also would lock onto Marilyn, at least this male gazer, and because of all these factors she would then become the de facto representative of "Woman". Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just pointing it out. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey, if other editors are down to ignore the stupid 'no galleries' 'rule,' I'm all for it too. The thinking behind it strikes me as basically boiling down to, "we'll never be able to catch ALL of human diversity without having a picture of every single person, and since that's impossible, we must have only one picture!" - and if you ask old Joe, that's dum-dum-stupid reasoning. We don't apply that flawed reasoning to 'dogs' or 'decapods', so why should we impose it upon poor Man and Woman? The only part of the reasoning given I have any sympathy for is "selecting these people is often very contentious (such as when a famous person's ethnic origin is contested)" but I feel the correct way to avoid that problem is to simply avoid including individuals of contested membership in [INSERT ETHNIC GROUP] in collages, not to avoid collages altogether. I see that this has already and (without much contention) been done for Venus, above, and I'm sure we could scrounge up several uncontested examples of women for this page. There must be at least a billion images that we can all agree depict women! Plus, the two collages proposed are both very fetching and diverse. I'd happily approve of either of them. Joe (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The guideline can't be overturned via a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Earlier, you gave the example of how we have pictures for other species, but we don't have a collage of the same species. We don't need a collage of multiple women. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, you say "but we don't have a collage of the same species", but, we do. Dogs aren't even a species (dogs are a subspecies, arguably) and we've got a collage of dogs. Not all dogs look the same, so a collage with several examples makes sense. Do all humans look the same? Do all women look the same? Others are thinking about this in terms of 'you can't divide groups of humans' but you absolutely can: women aren't a monolith. My ideal collage of women would show examples of: women of several races, young, middle aged, and older women, taller and shorter women, and possibly some notable examples. I maintain that the 'no ethnic galleries' 'rule' is generally dumb and specifically unhelpful when dealing with categories like man, woman, human, etc., that aren't ethnicities.

“ If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. ”

I don't expect to see a collage of women any time soon, I don't really think I'm gonna get a consensus here, that's just my two cents. Yours, Joe (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Plus, dogs are divided into recognized breeds, and decapods are divided biologically down to species. Humans aren't so simply classified. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Do we need a picture at all? I dont think so, because it has no real purpose other than orientation. PS: no-image would need though to take away also the image at man. PPS: my vote otherwise is clearly C. Nsae Comp (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the no-collage rule I wonder why this is such a strict rule? At the woman article in other languages of Wikipedia they use the following collage and seem to be fine with it. I do see the flaws of a collage, but there are important pros, most importantly underlining diversity (which in particular, is secondary), so I wouldnt have a problem with a collage, evident as I got into this by just inserting it last year without consultation (sorry it was a too obvious edit for me, coming from the german Wikipedia).

Nsae Comp (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

PS: I love the element of collages that they are a space where images can be added and taken out more dynamical and true to the idea of Wikipedia and its conversational and collagorative constant changing nature. It underlines with this dynamic yet again the most suitable purpose for a lead image in this case, namely depicting diversity! Nsae Comp (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

A number of those images are of art, at least some of which depict goddesses rather than women per se. The Venus of Willendorf was probably never meant to be a realistic depiction, either, and may depict a goddess or spirit as well. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: True, thats why any image/collage should say something like "depiction of a woman"/"depictions of different women". Because any image is a representation, in my opinion not different to a prehistoric figurine of a women. PS: I dont know when a person seases to be a women and becomes something else, as you tried to draw a line to e.g. a goddess. Nsae Comp (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• C, Collage, B (no image) ... my proper vote now Nsae Comp (talk) 07:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nsae Comp: you might want to put this into the survey section? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry oversaw the sectioning. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I also like this collage user Nsae Comp posted. Very like. Much Woman. Spiff. Joe (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

These collages looks good. If a collage is chosen here then maybe Man can be next. I'm a C vote above, but also appreciate M as well as the benefits of the collage. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

A collage wouldn't be any more representative than a single image of one woman. I agree with another editor's comment above that a gallery/collage would be worse since we are "implicitly making a statement about the groups we chose to leave out." Why were those particular images chosen for the collage? Why doesn't it include a woman with facial disfiguration, a woman with pink hair, a cross-eyed woman, a woman with Down's syndrome, a 400-lb woman, etc.? Talk:Human/FAQ says it best IMO: "The function of a lead image is not to encapsulate the full range of its subject's diversity and variation. Indeed, there is no lead image on all of Wikipedia that even attempts to summarize every aspect of its subject." "Even if it were possible to depict so much in an image, it would be less useful than just showing an example." Some1 (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Just as a matter of fact, a collage is a more representative sample and a single image is less representative sample - ask anyone trying to create a statistical model if they'd prefer ten data points or one data point. If capturing all diversity is what one wants, then a single image doesn't do that. If one is not concerned about capturing all diversity, then there's nothing wrong with a collage. I don't think any reasonable person would demand that a collage (say, of dogs) contain every variant of breed, age, sex, etc. So why should we demand that impossible standard for humans? Are we not animals? Arguments to the effect that "we can have collages for other things but not humans" amount to little more than special pleading. Joe (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• A. Current imageYousef Raz (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Copied to survey section above and crossed out original. Hope thats ok.Nsae Comp (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• I know its not a poll, but if I may give an overview how the above survey stands at the moment: D and C are each six times mentioned as first preference, and B seven times but with several oppositions. All others are less than three times favoured. Nsae Comp (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

This RfC is effectively two RfCs in one:

1. Should we have an image? (Y/N)
2. Which of these images is best?

If there is no consensus on the first question, the status quo is to have an image. We then move on to the second question which no longer includes B as an option, so I would say there is clearly a consensus for C. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Close proposal

VOTERS DATA

The - sign before data means oppose. [ [ "Netoholic", "B" ], [ "Rhododendrites", "B" ], [ "Locke Cole", "B" ], [ "Atom", "BCJ" ], [ "216.2.69.77", "B" ], [ "Sea Ane", "B" ], [ "Emir of Wikipedia", "-BKLP" ], [ "Goszei", "B" ], [ "Clayoquot", "B" ], [ "Clear Looking Glass", "B" ], [ "Kolya Butternut", "DCGFE" ], [ "Crossroads", "DCEAGFB" ], [ "Gandydancer", "D" ], [ "SMcCandlish", "DG" ], [ "BristolTreeHouse", "D" ], [ "Randy Kryn", "C" ], [ "Volteer1", "CDJM" ], [ "KieranStanley", "C" ], [ "Some1", "CD" ], [ "KieranStanley", "C" ], [ "Rosguill", "CAHGELJMOI" ], [ "Betty Logan", "CD" ], [ "Loki", "CDGKL" ], [ "Feminist", "CGD-B" ], [ "Nsae Comp", "CXB" ], [ "Finnusertop", "AGH" ], [ "JPxG", "-A" ], [ "Yousef Raz", "A" ], [ "Mathglot", "MLIJK" ], [ "Aquillion", "MJIE-B" ], [ "Aircorn", "M" ], [ "HRwatcher", "MDGLIO" ], [ "Idealigic", "KLNO" ], [ "Joe", "LP-BN" ], [ "Wikignometry", "-P" ], [ "Bilorv", "-BKLN" ] ]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Whole number based methodology

This one shouldn't be taken seriously as it has some serious flaws.

Considering how it's evidently hard to represent all aspects of a female human being and by taking into account MOS:LEADIMAGE I came to the following conclusion. Based on the data ("votes") presented above I've calculated weights of choices and got the following plots. The methodology is simple:

• favoring a choice would count as +1 , e.g. — I like D
• opposing the choice would count as -1 , e.g. — I oppose B
• final result is counted as $t=f-o$, f - favor, o - oppose

As you can see the WP:CONSENSUS is leaning toward C. Whether acceptable or not I'm ready to close this RfC as C image to adopt. In my personal the C is chosen as the least worst image here, which has little good weight. But anyway. Anyone got objections if I close this discussion by pointing out to the C as final choice? --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Err, no. That's entirely inappropriate for methodology. B is implicitly different from the other options. It is the only option which is, by its nature, going to draw actual opposes whereas most of the rest of the images are simply ranked. It further implies "oppose everything else" rather than simply being "first choice" except where specified, and it would not make sense to require that participants literally write out "oppose A and C and D and ..." in order to fit into this idiosyncratic approach to closing. If this is the approach to closing, it would need to be spelled out from the beginning so people know that they need to perfunctorily write out when they oppose certain options. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: Well the ... oppose B ... counted as 6 can be excluded from counting as -1 weight altogether considering that all 6 opposing B voters elaborated on which Image they would choose. The rest can be counted simply as +1. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• The "B is different" argument cuts both ways; if we're disregarding ranked choices and opposes, and are looking at numbers rather than arguments (yes, I know, but it at least gives us a vague sense), I think it's reasonable to insist that B should require something akin to an absolute majority rather than just a plurality, since if any vote for B is implicitly a vote against all other unspecified options, then any vote for some image that doesn't specifically mention B is implicitly a vote against B. If B's advocates are still unconvinced that their preference was eliminated, they could run a second "should we have an image yes / no RFC" but I think it's clear at this point that that isn't going to get a consensus for no image. (And, plainly, having an image of some sort is part of the WP:STATUSQUO, so a clear consensus for removing the image, at least, would be necessary.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Aquillion: I have ranked every user's choice based on preference position in the next subsection. See below. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 22:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I appreciate the move toward closure. Speaking as someone uninvolved in the RfC, I share Rhododendrites' concerns about the handling of B votes. Separately, I worry that any method counting all in favors as +1 invalidates the ranking that participants were asked to engage in. Would Aquillion, for example, have !voted the same way if they'd known their second tier choices (including C) would be weighted just as heavily as their preferred options? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

When there's more than two options, there's no way of structuring a vote to eliminate tactical voting (there's an actual mathematical proof of this IIRC.) But at least for me in particular, it wouldn't have made a difference, since my entire first tier (M, J, I, E) is plainly below the level where any interpretation could reasonably say they reached consensus, while C was the first among my second tier; obviously I'm fine with it being the selection once M, J, I, E are eliminated, or I wouldn't have ranked things the way I did. Beyond that, RFCs are not simply about numbers; just based on the arguments people made I think C is the clear winner. If supporters of B think that there is a chance that they could have a consensus to remove the image (I think there's absolutely no possibility of that based on these results, but whatever), I would suggest a second, simple yes / no "should we have an image" RFC to decisively settle the issue, but I think it would be a waste of time because to me this RFC makes it reasonably clear that that option was rejected. --Aquillion (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fraction based methodology

@Rhododendrites and Firefangledfeathers: If the following methodology is taken:

• For a particular user's sequence of choices (A,C,D..)
• favoring votes are assigned a weight in the range of [0.8, 0.66, 0.5, 0.33, 0.2, 0.11, 0.05].

  e.g. $A=0.8,C=0.66...$

• opposing votes (oppose A,C,D..) are assigned the same weights but negated

  e.g. $A=-0.8,C=-0.66...$

• every choice's weight of every voter is summed up

  $A_{total}=A_{user_{a}}+A_{user_{b}}...+A_{user_{x}}$

• the oppose B votes are ignored

the distribution is following:

The difference (compared to previous approach) here is due to different ranking of choices made by every user. E.g. in sequence of D,C,G and C,D,G the C will have different weights: 0.66 vs 0.8.

--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 22:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

...Or, better yet, we could just not devise a complex mathematical determination of something that is explicitly not supposed to be a numbers game. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Well, this is just a way to count votes based on every opinion taken into account. I think my second approach is more honest. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 22:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I know you're just trying to help -- and the tally is helpful -- but determinations of consensus are based not just on numbers but on strength of arguments according to established policies/guidelines. Extended examination of raw numbers tends to complicate the task for anyone who takes on the task of closing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: As I pointed out above - this case is hard to argue over. There is simply no perfect image that would satisfy comprehensively the subject of this article. See Talk:Human/FAQ#q1. This is opinion expressed by Kolya Butternut. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 22:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

It is hard to argue over, and I agree there's no perfect image. But the premise of this entire exercise (and a large part of the division between (B) and all other options) is that past RfCs about infobox images for large populations should be irrelevant here. The first thing whoever closes this will need to determine is whether that's actually the case -- whether sufficient arguments have been presented here that separate this case from ethnic galleries, large human populations, and/or whether a single image is somehow less problematic than a gallery. Once you move past that point, numbers become more relevant I suppose, absent clear procedural issues to the contrary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Well I presumably can close this as WP:NOCONSENSUS as it's evident from the charts that three top choices nearly overlap each other. And this makes sense because that's what I've concluded while reading the thread. Adopting the B variant would make a weak consensus and will likely cause more disputes later.

... separate this case from ethnic galleries ... This argument wasn't firmly invalidated so summarily I conclude that opinions tendency is toward following WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES for now. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 22:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The RfC closure should really be about determining which image gained enough support to replace the current lead image. Judging by the !votes and two graphs above, C is the winner (basically between C and D, some editors voted for both with no preference or ranked one above the other but are fine with either) and should be the image that replaces the current lead image (A aka the status quo doesn't even come close, so a "no consensus, A stays" wouldn't work here). If editors don't want a lead image or want a collage instead, then they should launch a separate RfC (e.g. "Should this article have a lead image? Yes/No" "Should a collage replace the current lead image? Yes/No") and gain consensus that way. Some1 (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Some1: ... about determining which ... Not that really. NoConsensus is a real option here.
@Some1: ... and two graphs above ... Well the first two graphs (first approach) are flawed because it doesn't take into account precedence of image choices. It counted every choice as equally good meanwhile people made it clear that they range them from most to least preferable. That's what the second approach takes into account. You shouldn't be looking at the first graphs, they are false.
@Some1: ... they should launch a separate RfC... This is the venue that nom should probably take, I'm sure that.

NoConsensus is the lazy way out. Even if I were to look only at the second graph, C is still the clear frontrunner and gained much more support than any other images, including the status quo. I'm ignoring B because as Aquillion stated above, "if any vote for B is implicitly a vote against all other unspecified options, then any vote for some image that doesn't specifically mention B is implicitly a vote against B." Another editor counted below that while '9 people voted for no image, 26 people voted for an image.' Anyway, the closure for this RfC is better left for an admin to do, see WP:BADNAC point #4; they can read through the past lead-image related discussions to find the criteria and assess the different arguments being made. Some1 (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, any close of this favoring a collage is automatically invalid per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY (aka NOETHNICGALLERIES), which explicitly rules out galleries for "similarly large human populations", not just for ethnicities. I would challenge any such closure. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Davronov, thank you for the quick graphics! I'm torn between suggesting a runoff and my desire for closure. Either way, good luck to whoever closes this eventually. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I would argue that the consensus is rather subtle. B prevails though, but the margin is short. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 06:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Just an FYI, Kolya Butternut listed the Woman RfC at Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Talk:Woman#RfC:_Lead_image for an admin to close. See Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Inappropriate_closures point #4. A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations... The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator. Some1 (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Instant-runoff method

Using the standard Instant-runoff voting method, I made the below table:

Ranked choices and runoffs

		Ranked choices	Eliminate EFGHIJKL, NOP, collage	Eliminate A, M	Eliminate D	Final
1	Kolya Butternut	DCGFE			C	C
2	Netoholic	B				B
3	Randy Kryn	C				C
4	Rhododendrites	B				B
5	Crossroads	DCEAGFB			C	C
6	Mathglot	MLIJK		eliminated
7	Bilorv	anything but BKLN or collage			C	C
8	Locke Cole	B				B
9	Volteer1	CDJMF, anything but B or collage				C
10	KieranStanley	C, collage				C
11	Some1	CD, anything but B or collage				C
12	AnomalousAtom	BCJ				BC
13	Aquillion	MJIECGHOD, oppose FANKLPB or collage		CD		C
14	216.2.69.77	B				B
15	Firejuggler86	N	eliminated
16	Rosguill	CAHGELJMOI				C
17	Sea Ane	B				B
18	Idealigic	KLNO	eliminated
19	Finnusertop	A		eliminated
20	-sche	AGHP		eliminated
21	Pincrete	oppose A				oppose status quo
22	Betty Logan	DC			C	C
23	Loki	CDG, most others, KL				C
24	feminist	CGD, most others, oppose B				C
25	JoePhin	group photo, LP, most others, oppose BN	most others, oppose B		C	C
26	Emir of Wikipedia	singular woman, oppose BKLP			C	C
27	Nsae Comp	C, collage, B				C
28	Gandydancer	D			eliminated
29	Aircorn	M		eliminated
30	SMCCandlish	DG, oppose NP, etc.			eliminated
31	Wikignometry	oppose P
32	Goszei	B				B
33	Clayoquot	B, collage				B
34	Hrwatcher	collage, MDGLIO	MD	D	eliminated
35	jpxg	oppose A				oppose status quo
36	BristolTreeHouse	DGLA			eliminated
37	Clear Looking Glass	B				B
38	Yousef Raz	A		eliminated

Ranked choice tallies

	Round 1	Round 2	Round 3	Round 4	Ping uncounted !voters
A	3	3	0	0
B	9	9	9	9
C	8	8	9	15
D	6	6	7	0
E	0	0	0	0
F	0	0	0	0
G	0	0	0	0
H	0	0	0	0
I	0	0	0	0
J	0	0	0	0
K	0	0	0	0
L	1	0	0	0
M	3	4	0	0
N	1	0	0	0
O	0	0	0	0
P	0	0	0	0
collage	1	0	0	0

I think the close should be based on a combination of these votes and the !vote arguments. We should also ping editors whose votes wouldn't end up being counted with this method and ask them to weigh in on B and C. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC) update BristolTreeHouse Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

But based on the existing votes and !votes, it looks like the result is either option C or no consensus. No consensus would result in the status quo option A, which has little support, so we're back to choosing between option C and option B (no image). I think most of us can agree that option C is an improvement over the status quo. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: There is actually another option exists: to start a new fresh RfC with a new, better image. Option A is inevitable unless the question is "A or Nothing". It was the best first to decide whether parties would like to have no image before voting for a new one. But anyway. I see good job out there. Bilorv btw didn't vote for Collage. I don't see where he did that. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: I disagree though that IRV voting is good here. It's majoritarian system and we have huge spread (uncertainty) here, meaning, that we have no good candidate. By choosing the most liked (populism) wouldn't stabilize this political system. But anyway, I will let someone uninvolved to look at analysis and close discussion. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The instant-runoff method at least works to get us down to two choices where it will then be easier to evaluate the arguments.

Bilorv voted against a collage.

This RfC has been years in the making, so starting over isn't as easy as it sounds. Picking a "better" image isn't all we need; we're not just deciding on an image, we should be evaluating what the desired criteria are for this image. Most people who discussed image criteria expressed a preference for an average woman. Also note that while 9 people voted no image, 26 people voted for an image. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: ... at least works to get us down to two choices ... Mine got us to one, but even then I have serious doubts that it's stable consensus.
... we should be evaluating what the desired criteria are for this image. ... See my post above. It's hard to choose the appropriate one. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe if we got it down to two, then to have them both as a compromise? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Have no Idea. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

"C" seems to be the average consensus choice and the woman is average enough in many ways, which seems to deem her a good choice. If C is chosen after of all the back and forth then I would like to call another discussion regarding which color blouse she should appear in, the original red color which I think is going to make some of the naysayers happier, or the pale blue photoshop of the chosen image. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: "C" doesn't prevail, the results are contradicting. The best would be to wait for more opinions. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be either C, no picture (which breaks the consistency of having a lead image held in Man, Human, and probably every other page about a major animal), or "no consensus" (which keeps the present staged-model image which, as Kolya has pointed out, has little support). Enough opinions have been rendered to make a close, and by tossing out the babe with the bathwater (Marilyn) C looks to be the consensus choice. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn:

... which breaks the consistency of having a lead image held in Man, Human, ... Well if we take this into account, probably we have to go for "C" for now...

... which keeps the present staged-model image ... This doesn't prevent you from voting again or extending the current vote, seriously. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

As I said above, if there is no consensus on whether to have an image at all, the status quo is to have an image. At that point the division is between D and C, but people seem to like them based on the same arguments, with minor aesthetic preference for C. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

As for aesthetics, to me C's original image in her personally chosen red blouse pops a bit more and accents her photographic essence better than the photoshopper's choice of color. Which is why I suggested, if C is left standing after this discussion, a run-off be between red blouse and blue blouse. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Typically, women" vs. "Biological women"

User:Transcendent Presence left this message on my talk page, regarding this change that they made (which I undid):

I noticed you undid one of my recent edits to woman and was wondering if we could in the spirit of Ebert and Woodburn discuss the issue.

I was under the impression that it was simply more specific and not any less accurate as there a three kinds of woman from an anatomical perspective Transgender, Intersex and Biological and as only Biological women who are assigned female at birth possess the aforementioned psychical abilities I thought it less confusing and vague than "typically" If I am incorrect and it is less accurate I would love to learn why. thanks

A couple of points:

1. Mainstream sources rarely use the term "biological women". The phrases "cisgender women" or "assigned female at birth" are more widely accepted. (If you search NYTimes.com, for example, you'll find that the paper hasn't used the phrase "biological women" in its own voice in a decade, while it has published recent pieces that use the phrase "cisgender women".)

2. A woman might be cisgender, and pre-menopausal, and endosex, and still unable to give birth! As the female infertility article discusses, there are many reasons why a woman might be infertile.

WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

For similar reasons, I strongly support typically over biological. I'm not sure either wording is perfect, but I don't have any better ideas lying around at the moment. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

This makes sense I apologise for my prior edits which I now know were not entirely accurate but I assure you were in good faith.

PS: Do you know the reasoning for the terminology change in recent years? Transcendent Presence (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)