Talk:Woman

Definition of a woman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding more talk page headers?

I noticed that some other controversial pages on Wikipedia have additional disclaimers on the talk page. Specifically on Talk:Trans woman we have:

on Talk:Transgender we have:

Is everyone okay with adding one of these to this talk page. It would help quite a bit with the discussion on this talk page. I think it's justified, especially since Woman is certainly featured on WP:List_of_controversial_issues. Personally, I prefer Round in circles header as we can appropriately link to the correct discussions which are archived. This should help editors frame their thoughts in context of what has already been discussed and established as consensus. If no one objects, I am happy to do this.Theheezy (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Theheezy, do you think those banners really make much difference? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think they're hurting anything at the moment. We should wait and see to see if they have a noticeable effect. I really hope everyone can start pointing to them in discussions when the same arguments get repeated, as the current content, to me, is adequately WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Theheezy (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't remember the last time I saw someone point as such banners – it's certainly been years – and I don't ever remember it doing any good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I got the idea from reading talk pages for Trans woman where it was added in the last year or so according to the talk page history. Hopefully, it helps reinforce the consensus achieved on this page, which I realize that most people are unhappy about. Most people being unhappy is, I think, preferred as it means that compromises were made on everyone's perspective to achieve NPOV.

I don't think it's doing any harm *shrug*. I think it has some benefit given that it gives editors on this page a simple and stress free choice to not engage with the same arguments which are repeated ad nauseum. Personally, I just ignore the arguments if its been brought up before unless I see something truly new not mentioned earlier. If the argument dies down on its own, all good... if it ends up boiling over to what seems like WP:CON, I mention whether it has been argued before and why those arguments were decided against by past editors.

My goal in adding this header is to give a voice and weight to the editors who have given up long ago in moderating or improving this article. This topic can be toxic and stressful to engage with, which is why so many editors have stopped bothering. However, their ideas and arguments continue to be sound and I haven't really seen any major shift in WP:RS on this topic since then. Hopefully this clarifies my position. Theheezy (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The official policy is that Wikipedia:Consensus can change, so we probably shouldn't have anything (on any page) whose primary purpose is to reinforce the consensus achieved in the past.

Adding a bunch of stuff at the top of the page makes it less likely that anything will be read. Banner blindness and TL;DR are real challenges. Or, as I usually say, Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, so there is relatively little point in adding anything, and everything we add makes the existing content less useful. In practical terms, if you add "We're tired of re-hashing these subjects", people will be less likely to read "Special ArbCom enforcement rules" or "This page isn't an internet forum for anyone who has opinions about women". Because so much is at the top now (it's two full screens on my laptop), people will be much less likely to see the discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed consensus can change, and WP:LCI asks for additional care on controversial topics. The last 6-7 pages of talk archives haven't yielded any productive consensus changes, but instead has been lots of flaming and unproductive discussion. I prefer not to WP:LAWYER this.

If other editors find the banner unproductive and unhelpful, we should remove it. If other editors find it has merit, we should keep it. I think it's unwise to make this decision between just the two of us. If other editors can offer their opinions, that's best. Theheezy (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

"Reproductive rights"

Why is the one sided "reproductive rights" label stand at tge top of this article, what relation does a picture qbput eugenics have to the topic, and wgy exactly is tjis even a segment in a wikipedia article about women? Also, seems the WHO is the only main source of this (explaining why it looks more like a bad opinion piece). I coukd just as well copy-paste or summarize a pro life website's home page and put it under "fetus rights" in the wikipedia articles about "baby", "fetus", and even "pregnancy". 45.80.90.99 (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

This section exists because of WP:DUE, that is, it is often talked about by sources. It is WP:VERIFIABLE and mentioned in WP:RS.

You're welcome to create a page on Fetus Rights or append said information to other pages given that it meets the same standards of quality, specifically WP:DUE and WP:RS. Although I don't believe that belongs here as the topic of this page is Woman. Theheezy (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:DUE, I do believe that reproductive rights should not be mentioned in the lede. The article is on woman, which is a very wide topic (at least including nature, philosophy, religion, society). Reproductive rights can be discussed under a section that discusses the rights of women as members of a society. Lightest (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change to definition of trans woman.

@Taramalan: please state here why you feel as though this proposed change is an improvement to the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The way the sentence is written suggests a different definition of woman than stated in the beginning of the article. My edit also gives the insightful information that trans women are commonly referred to as women, despite not meeting the definition of this very article. It helps to disambiguate and differentiate the terms. Taramalan (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The definition at the top of the page is one definition for woman, but it is not the only one. Saying that trans women are not women as your proposal implies, is pretty problematic for the inherent transphobia and transmisogyny. Personally I would be in favour of amending the definition at the top of the page, as it is unnecessarily restrictive and not representative of all of the accepted definitions of woman, however that is likely a discussion for a different section. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

If you think that way, you should write a different definition for woman. This is the wikipedia article for "Woman". A definition for "woman" is given. Under these presuppositions, it is perfectly legitimate to write what I wrote. If you have a problem with the content added by my edit, you inherently have a problem with that article and/or the given definition. Therefore I suggest you change the articles inherent structure rather than edits which are perfectly legitimate in the pre-established climate of the article itself. Taramalan (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

article's* Taramalan (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Taramalan, your (mis-)interpretation of Wikipedia article text is no substitute for a reliable source. The way you interpret "female" in the first sentence of this article - which you then applied by WP:SYNTH to the passage about trans women - conflicts with the way many sources use "woman" and "female", namely, to refer to gender. Please refrain from editing to push a specific WP:POV. Newimpartial (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Taramalan, we're not doing that. Asserting that there is a contradiction is not helpful at all and could even backfire. We're obviously not going to assert that trans women are not women as that is extremely inflammatory and politically biased and out of step with reliable sources on the topic. I recommend you drop this. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

There are a couple of articles (1, 2) by Tomas Bogardus that are not quite so inflammatory and politically biased as most of the discussion in this topic area...  Tewdar  09:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

​Bogardus is a religious philosopher. His reframing of "trans women != women" talking points as merely the dispassionate and rigorous application of epistemology (notably, in support of his preconceived conclusions regarding gender essentialism) is arguably less "inflammatory" (and therefore, more worthy of WEIGHT) than the more polemic and explicitly bigoted forms of this discussion. Nonetheless, I'd be very hesitant to call his work "unbiased". RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 17:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Talk:Trans woman/Definitions has a list of reliable sources giving their definition of "trans(gender) woman". Saying although they are not women, they are usually referred to as such is a significant and untenable departure from reliable sources. Endwise (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, by my count only 6 (or perhaps 7) out of 37 of those sources literally say "a transwoman trans woman is a woman", as opposed to "identifies as a woman" or whatever. Not that those sources on that page are particularly representative, mind you.  Tewdar  18:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  Certainly none of the sources say anything to the opposite effect (a trans woman is not a woman but..."), and none could reasonably be construed as supporting a such blatantly POV addition. What do you consider a "representative" source on the matter? As an aside, please see Wiktionary's usage notes for trans woman vs. "transwoman". The latter may carry connotations which you don't intend. Regards, RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 20:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  I wasn't claiming this suports whatever Taramalan was trying to add, which I haven't looked at and could very well be provocative nonsense for all I know. A more "representative" sample would probably actually contain more "a trans woman is a woman" type definitions, at least the more modern sources. Finally, thanks for pointing that out, I made a mistake.  Tewdar  06:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

You're not gonna get a consensus for the changes you want to make. All you're doing is wasting your time & putting yourself in danger of getting a topic-ban. GoodDay (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Propose adding word "typically" to lede

A woman is typically an adult female human.

UPDATE (alternative proposal based on sources below): "A woman is an adult female human, typically characterized by one or more of the categories of biology, anatomy, genetics, gender expression, and/or gender identity" — Preceding unsigned comment added by The void century (talk • contribs) 01:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

This would make the article much more in line with WP:NPOV. WP is not a medical dictionary as the lede is currently based on. WP is an encyclopedia that should take into account all academic disciplines, legal and cultural developments. Adding the word "typically" will make clear that there is more nuance to the definition of "woman" than just biological sex, and will make this article more in line with articles like Gender, Sex and Gender Distinction, and Gender Identity. The article shouldn't give WP:UNDUE to those concepts, but it should consider those concepts as part of the modern concept of "woman". This lines up with the trend toward inclusivity in english language dictionaries, such as Merriam Webster"s primary definition of "Man": "an individual human; especially : an adult male human". Note the word "especially" in that definition. It also lines up with the global trend to distinguish between gender and biological sex, supported by major health organizations such as WHO. There are many more references supporting this definition in the ledes of the linked articles. This is a small change and a compromise that will make it less likely for people to keep reopening this discussion. The void century (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

See my comment immediately afore. I think Merriam-Webster has confused you slightly. The word man is sometimes used as a (purportedly) gender-neutral term meaning human, especially in words like mankind, "one small step for man", etc. hence "especially a male human". Woman (at least in the most literal sense) does not have such a sense; it always means "a female [as in female-gendered] human". If you can find any sources which define woman using this exact phrase (typically an adult female human) that would help your case. I oppose adding typically. Regards, RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 19:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Is it standard to directly quote dictionaries on wikipedia ledes? I haven't seen that before so I'm curious if there is a rule I'm unaware of. The void century (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Also I don't think I was confused by Merriam-Webster. Check out this article where the lexicographer talked about the wording of those definitions. https://slate.com/human-interest/2017/09/why-a-controversial-definition-of-the-word-woman-doesnt-necessarily-mean-the-dictionary-is-sexist.html The void century (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I guess she's talking about adding the word "typically" to the definition of "male", not "man" in the article I linked, so maybe the real issue here is that the female article needs to be updated to have a more nuanced definition of female. The void century (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

(Re 1) Perhaps using this exact phrasing isn't quite what I meant. Rather, if you can point to any sources which treat this term with the same kind of fuzziness. If Merriam-Webster (or other prominent publications considered reliable defining woman) adds a "typically" to their definition of woman, it would greatly benefit a proposal like this. Sources lead, Wikipedia follows.

(Re 2) I see how especially an adult male human could imply sex-inclusivity in Emily Brewster's view, but I'm doubtful this was the primary intention. I still think a definition like typically a female [sexed] human creates a greater divide between "typical" cis women vs. "atypical" trans/intersex woman, as opposed to properly contextualizing female as the name of a gender identity (which it is).

(Re 3) Worth noting that the article Female does currently include the caveat that In humans, the word female can also be used to refer to gender. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 20:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I hear you. I found an article from the Chicago Journal of International Law focusing on how women are defined in the CEDAW international treaty. They lay out that "“woman” as used in CEDAW means all of the above: biological, anatomical, genetic, gender performance, and/or gender identity— meaning any of the listed categories standing alone would be sufficient as would a combination of two or more categories." That seems a bit verbose for a lede on this page, but it makes clear that woman can mean many things in common speech and legally. The void century (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The Dept of Justice of Canada defines women as "All people who identify as women, whether they are cisgender or transgender women." The void century (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

NYC amended its discrimination law to be more inclusive: "The City’s intent in amending the law was to make explicit that the law prohibits discrimination against people based on gender identity." The void century (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's "Feminist Perspectives on Sex and Gender": "This illustrated that gender metaphysics — or what it is to be a woman or a man or a genderqueer person — is still very much a live issue. And although contemporary feminist philosophical debates have questioned some of the tenets and details of the original 1960s sex/gender distinction, most still hold onto the view that gender is about social factors and that it is (in some sense) distinct from biological sex. The jury is still out on what the best, the most useful, or (even) the correct definition of gender is." This article also reviews the concept of "different arrangements of features in different individuals" from the CEDAW article above, but doesn't specifically endorse that perspective. The void century (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@RoxySaunders Based on those sources, would you accept something more expansive like this? "A woman is an adult female human, typically characterized by a combination of biology, anatomy, genetics, gender performance, and/or gender identity." I am open to copy edits. The void century (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Both sources are interesting, and as WhatamIdoing suggested below, a well-researched discussion of the surrounding definition discourse seems due in the Terminology section. But you will probably need more authoritative ones, in greater number, in order to change the first sentence. I'd personally be quite happy to take a radical pen to the definition and right great wrongs, but I cannot say the same for all contributors to this topic area. Don't mistake this for me arguing in favor of the status quo, but this is a perennial discussion, and we're all really sick to death of it.

The bar is astronomically high for demonstrating that the concise, mainstream definition of this term has changed, especially to the satisfaction of editors coming at this topic from different POVs. You might have a more fruitful time travelling to Massachusetts or Oxford to bribe or extort a dictionary editor (my lawyers have asked me to discourage you from attempting this) than you would trying to squeeze consensus from this particular turnip.

By the way, if you want to add more to a comment you've already published, and no one has yet responded to it, you can edit your own comment. That might make the thread a little easier to follow. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments for more details. Best wishes, RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 02:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

If such a list is added, it should include Gender role.

It might be helpful to readers if we organized this long list into two categories:

• biological sex (or Sex assignment): anatomy, hormones, genetics
• gender: expression, identity, role.

I'll echo Roxy by saying that it might be both better and easier to focus on getting this clearly stated in the body before trying to change the first sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

In re "properly contextualizing female as the name of a gender identity (which it is)":

Different cultures and even different situations hold different opinions on this. The idea that gender identity could be more important than biology is a new one in Western cultures, and in some non-Western cultures, respect for gender identity has historically been strictly unidirectional (AMABs could become women, but AFABs were always women).

There are different valid(!) definitions of woman. Sometimes the relevant definition is "human perceived to be a woman" (e.g., by a perpetrator of sexual harassment). Sometimes the relevant definition is "human who could get pregnant" (e.g., if a law or safety rule specifies that "pregnant women" should receive a specific protection, then we want that to apply to everyone who is pregnant, and not exclude people who are non-binary or trans masculine). Sometimes the relevant definition is biological. Sometimes the relevant definition is cultural. Sometimes it's individual and personal.

I think we need to address the existing diversity of definitions directly. While it probably won't stop arguments over the all-important first sentence, it might actually educate people who read past that point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

This is WP:UNDUE. Mainstream dictionaries, from the everyday to the scholarly and historical, agree with the current definition, as do other sources. The complaints I've seen have largely been attempts to leverage a particular tendentious understanding in order to delete the lead's later reference to trans women, and none of the objections I can recall has been from an experienced regular editor. As noted, there is an asymmetry between how dictionaries define 'man' and 'woman' because the former is sometimes used to mean "humankind". The proper comparator is how that dictionary defines 'woman', which essentially matches ours: [3] Crossroads ^-talk- 04:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Relying entirely on dictionary definitions for the lede to woman is WP:UNDUE and having experience as an editor doesn't make you an expert on any one subject. This proposal is obviously not trying to remove any lines about trans women. Dictionaries are institutions of their own with spotty histories when it comes to social change. Even so, Merriem-Webster uses the word "typically" in its primary definition of female and also has a secondary definition: "having a gender identity that is the opposite of male". The issue is that Wikipedia devotes female article entirely to biological sex. If you go to the disambiguation page for female on wikipedia, there is a link to woman. So the lede to woman could theoretically begin "Woman (also known as Female)" like other articles that have multiple possible titles. The fact of the matter is that the lede is currently WP:UNDUE in the weight it gives to biological sex. The void century (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Also see my other suggestions here The void century (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll also add, WP:UNDUE is not the only quality in a WP:NEUTRAL article. There is also WP:BALANCE. Gender links to this article in its lead paragraph when referring to the gender binary. I think that's a pretty clear indicator that this article is intended to be about female gender. Clarifying that and giving WP:BALANCE by providing a gender-based lede is not WP:UNDUE. Gender article opens very clearly: "Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to femininity and masculinity and differentiating between them. Depending on the context, this may include sex-based social structures (i.e. gender roles) and gender identity." If the lede in Gender includes a line about both Sex and Gender Identity, then this article should too. Sex and Gender Identity are not mutually exclusive paradigms. Including one doesn't unbalance the other. The void century (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

a very familiar line of argumentation at this point, but deeply US-centric unfortunately, it's really not as clear cut as some would have us believe. Acousmana 16:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE states "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." The reliable sources on this are generally in agreement worldwide: To define what it is to be a woman, one must consider both gender roles and gender identity. That's why the gender article does exactly that in its lede. The void century (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

there is a particular line of argumentation that is prominent right now, but there is no global concensus, as such, just yet, so us lending undue weight to, for instance, Meyer's article, is not the right step at this juncture and would certainly be premature. Acousmana 17:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

If you think there is no global consensus, then provide the preponderance of reliable sources that make your case. From my perspective, the vast majority of reliable sources currently cited on wikipedia and elsewhere are in agreement that the female gender, i.e. what is described in woman/girl, is, depending on the context, a word that evokes "sex-based social structures (i.e. gender roles) and gender identity.". That's how the gender article describes it, as well as practically every article relating to gender on wikipedia (with the exception of fringe articles). The void century (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

if you can demonstrate that a global consensus exists for the definition you propose above, what's the problem? Have you considered an RFC on the matter? Acousmana 18:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I am trying to read the room first by discussing this among editors who are actively involved in the page. Once I have an idea of what might be an acceptable change, I will open an RFC. For example, it seems like a few editors would be open to unlinking the lede from the female article and then adding the line "For biological sex, see female". That would allow keeping the lede copy as is while clarifying that "female" isn't narrowly referring to biological sex in the lede. The void century (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

sorry to ask, but is this your only Wikipedia account? or do you edit more broadly using an alternate account? Acousmana 18:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

this is my only account The void century (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I supported unlinking female last time it came up (can't remember when), and I still support the move. If there were a section of the target article discussing "female" as gender, I'd suggest a section link. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tvc, as RoxySaunders said, this has been discussed ad nauseam and it is very difficult to change. Which doesn't mean impossible, and doesn't mean you shouldn't try, but it's good to be aware of the history. To give some perspective: the article "Woman" was created in May 2001 by Larry Sanger (one of the co-founders of Wikipedia) when he started it off with the definition "An adult, female human being". Since then, there have been over 4,000 edits to the article by 1,800 editors, and there are 642 editors watching the article. In addition, as WhatamIdoing mentioned (echoing WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY), it's a better approach to work on an expanded definition with all the nuance and detail needed in ithe body of the article (which likely might not work as a summary in the WP:LEAD, let alone the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE), before moving on to the lead. Different dictionaries and other sources will have different definitions, and the fact that there is disagreement among sources may also be part of the story, which can also be told in the body (as long as the disunity is itself discussed in sources), and if so, alluded to in the lead (perhaps in the fourth paragraph). But just be aware of the history, and that jumping into ideas about changing the first sentence of an article that has a lot of history, not to say controversy, may be difficult.

I applaud your approach to "trying to read the room" is a good one, but as the page has a long history, it doesn't go far enough: in particular, don't limit it to who is around "lately". Eevery aspect of this has been talked about before, often many times, and if you want to have a decent chance at actually changing the lede, then you need to familiarize yourself with the Archives (see those numeric links in the box at the top of the page?). Here is just a smattering of links to previous conversations that have all proposed or discussed the word typically in the lede:

• Archive 7 : " typically capable of giving birth..."
• Archive 14 : a long conversation, with a couple dozen proposals to add typically to the lede
• Archive 15 : ""Typically, a woman has two X chromosomes..."
• Archive 18 : "Typically, women" vs. "Biological women"

Take some time to read through those, but that is just the tip of the iceberg, so a deeper dive would be better. You'll come back better informed, and also, I hope, with a deeper appreciation of how your proposal may fit in with previous discussions. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Re: characterized by one or more of the categories of biology, anatomy, genetics, gender expression, and/or gender identity - this proposed phrase is accurate enough, and I believe it would easily be substantiated by reliable sources. (It is also certainly better than your earlier proposals, void century, relating to "femininity", which strictly relates only to gender expression out of all of these concepts.)

However, I am not convinced that it is either close to comprehensive or balanced. Gender, for example, cannot be reduced to gender expression and gender identity - it also prominently includes gender roles and norms, gender stereotypes and other non-subjective aspects of gender. On the flip side, identifying biology, anatomy and genetics as three aspects is also odd (what is "biology" in this context apart from anatomy and genetics?).

So from a logical standpoint, something like "biology (anatomy and genetics) and gender (including gender expression and gender identity)" would, I think, provide better balance and align better with the sources. The idea that the category "woman" never refers to biology, or that it never refers to gender, seems implausible in any contemporary context.

Note that I am not weighing in on "typically" itself, since I think that option is more of a red herring than anything else. Newimpartial (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@MathglotI had read through some of the previous discussions linked in the header, but I hadn't seen the previous proposed edits with the word "typically", so thank you for that. I agree with what's been said so far for the most part. @Newimpartial makes a good point that the list above could be condensed into "biology" and "gender" which would be broader. So perhaps it could be "A woman is an adult female human, characterized by biology and/or gender." That would have a similar effect to unlinking the lede from female. But first I will read through the archives a bit more to try to glean more ideas. The void century (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I strongly oppose "...characterized by biology and/or gender" for a couple of reasons: it's kind of empty and kicks the can down the road, and it fails WP:PRECISION in that the exact same wording could be used for Man, in which case it has almost no useful information to convey to the reader and could simply be omitted. Mathglot (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot what about rewording to "A woman is an adult female human, characterized by female biology and/or gender." I was trying to avoid using the word "female" twice, but maybe adding it there would be more WP:PRECISE The void century (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I hesitate to respond, because I think you've not sufficiently considered the points made previously about WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. That said, since you pinged me with a direct question, I'd say that was closer, but I find female biology a fuzzy expression that uses biology as a kind of vague stand-in for—what? anatomy? hormones? sexual characteristics? The expression does occur, even in scholarly articles, but I wonder what readers would take away from that expression? I'm guessing they would get "born with a vulva" from that, and it is also language occasionally used in discussions about trans women, which opens a can of worms, and do we want to leave that somewhat vague expression in the lead sentence and let readers wonder about it? When you say, female biology, what do you mean by it? What do you expect readers to understand by it? Mathglot (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Using the word "biology" instead of a more specific word is similar to using "female". It includes many examples of women and provides balance, as laid out by @Newimpartial above^^. For example, a transgender woman with sex-reassignment surgery has female biology, and someone who has undergone hormone treatments also has female biology. The phrase "biology and/or gender" is (or is attempting to be) an umbrella that includes all women. The void century (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a fuzzy statement without a clear meaning:

For example, a transgender woman with sex-reassignment surgery has female biology.

A trans woman has: female external anatomy, no internal female reproductive organs, no female gametes, male chromosomes ("XY"), and no internal female hormones. Saying "female biology" is vague and invites misunderstanding. That's why I asked what you understood by it and what you think users would understand by it. It is because of these complexities, that this ought to be worked out in the body of the article first, and then you can come back to this later. Mathglot (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I think what you're going for would be female sex and/or gender. I'm not really a huge fan of that phrasing, though, because I think really the thing we ought to do is fix the definition on Female rather than this page. Loki (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah the problem is Female is a biological article, so it's not limited to humans and would be WP:UNDUE to give gender more prominence there. This article could be alternatively titled "Adult Female (Gender)", as implied in Female (disambiguation). At the very least, this should be the place where female gender is covered. The void century (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

There have been several arguments put forth in this chain. I'd like to respond to them with some precision.

Reputable dictionaries such as MW and OED not reliable sources.

Dictionaries can be secondary or tertiary sources. However even if they are serving as tertiary sources, their content highly agrees with consensus amongst secondary sources. This is especially so for reputable dictionaries. Furthermore, they also summarize how each word is used in everyday speech, i.e., the common usage and interpretation of a word. Thus I find it hard to argue that the consensus among secondary sources is somehow radically different from those given in reputable dictionaries. Note that this is among all secondary sources. I'm sure it's possible to find secondary sources which disagree, but again, we are trying to establish consensus with appropriate weight.

MW also uses "typically" in their primary definition.

I don't want to get really deep into Sentence diagram here, but my reading of the primary definition on MW for female is "(of, relating to, or being the sex) that typically has the capacity..." I think typically here is covering the case where females are infertile, not implying that females somehow can also mean the sex which produces small motile gametes.

Female as gender, not as sex

This is strongly in contrast to MOS:LEADNO. When more than 50% of the content is related to female as sex, not as gender, I find it hard to argue that in the lede we should emphasize gender and not sex. See Woman#Genetic_characteristics, Woman#Hormonal_characteristics,_menstruation_and_menopause, Woman#Morphological_and_physiological_characteristics, Woman#Gender_distribution_and_life_expectancy, Woman#Health, Woman#Maternal_mortality, Woman#Reproductive_rights_and_freedom, Woman#Fertility_and_family_life. Of course, as suggested by @Mathglot, one option is WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, I'm okay with this decision. One future issue that will come up is whether current and future additions with regards to female as gender meet due weight among reliable sources.

This is also the position I have with creating Female (gender) and linking to that instead of Female. I certainly encourage the creation of Female (gender) but linking to it in the lede sounds like MOS:LEADNO due to similar reasons.

Echoing the feedback of other authors, I also recommend reading through the archives. They're long so may be combined sometimes with whiskey, and sometimes with popcorn. I took the time to read, or at least skim through, all 20 pages before I felt confident enough to contribute my voice to the discussions here. Theheezy (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)