Talk:Gender

Citation Suggested

The rise of criticism against the WID approach led to the emergence of a new theory, that of Women and Development (WAD). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhum.group2 (talk • contribs) 17 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Citation suggested

In contemporary times, most literature and institutions that are concerned with women's role in development incorporate a GAD perspective, with the United Nations taking the lead of mainstreaming the GAD approach through its system and development policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhum.group2 (talk • contribs) 17 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Merger proposal - from Gender identity

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.

---

Much of the content between Gender and Gender Identity is largely the same. I believe the two pages can be tactfully merged and it would be positive, so that editors don't have to double check between the two pages (EDIT: Before making edits), and readers have a better experience. Born25121642 (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Gender is the larger concept article, and gender identity is a component. The concepts and article contents are very different. Per WP:NOMERGE, this merger of discrete subjects does not appear to benefit readers and would create a long and unwieldy article. Beccaynr (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose This article, Gender, already has a "readable prose size" of 9,954 words (63 kB). As per WP:SIZERULE, being over 9,000 words and 60kB, this article "Probably should be divided ..." as it stands, before making any additions.
Gender identity has a "readable prose size" of 5,430 words (35 kB), so if they were combined, even allowing for some omission of duplicated material, there would be further pressure for this page to be divided. What would it be divided into? - An obvious split would be into Gender and Gender identity, so we would be back where we started, after a lot of unnecessary work. - Arjayay (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. It makes sense to have two separate but related articles for two separate but related subjects when each subject merits a substantial article, as these both do. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, these are distinct topics - the nature of the overlap is not enough to justify attempting to merge large articles together. And per above. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree with everyone else who opposes. Masterhatch (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Gender identity is not the same as gender. It is merely a component of it and it would be scientifically wrong to merge these two pages that explain two different subjects… 76.65.140.121 (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks like there is basically unanimous opposition.

Born25121642 (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2023 (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.

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies-17

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 February 2023 and 19 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LuciBee123 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by LuciBee123 (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Decisiveness of the leading line

The leading line gives a rather broad description of gender, but still relatively decisive. As is clearly indicated by the entire article, it is not too agreed upon how gender should be defined, besides a few overlaps. I think this is the key concept that should be incorporated within the description.

The most problematic phrase is 'or other gender identity.'

1. Neither of the two sources mention this, although I assume it is instead just summarising parts of the page, so not a massive point.
2. The leading line on the 'gender identity' page is "Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender." Incorporating that definition gives: "gender includes the ... aspects of man, woman, and other personal senses of one's own gender," which is circular and not particularly helpful.
3. Is not neutral. Given gender is not widely agreed upon. Points of contention should be highlighted. E.g., not everyone agrees that there is more than two genders.

There are several other problems:

1. 'Man' and 'woman' are not the best choice of terms. Usually refering to 'adult male', but really 'male' is the more precise term. This is discussed in the first source.
2. The category/label and concept of gender is used interchangeably and sometimes ambiguously. I think it should clearly say that it's talking about the concept.
3. Discussion of non-binary/gender binary. There just isn't enough material on the page on this topic to justify this being a large part of the lead.

I'm not a particularly good writer, but this can outline atleast some changes that could be made, even if written in a better fashion:

• The concept of gender refers to the social, cultural, psychological, and behavioural aspects of being male or female; although may include other groups (i.e. non-binary), or other aspects (i.e. biological). It is a relatively recent invention in human history, with its recent growth in usage commonly attributed to the influence of feminism.

I think from here, it should be discussed on what the different usages of gender is. Gender binary should be a short sentence about how in some societies there are other genders, and the term non-binary is used to include these genders. It's a bit late for me write now, so I can't write up a suggestion on how to write that. Vituluss (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Lack of transgender

This article has a sidebar claiming that it belongs as "part of a series on Transgender topics", but the concept is never properly addressed, only mentioned in passing deep within. Is this not a glaring omission?

In comparison, 'Non-binary gender' is linked and explained in the opening paragraph; the 'Nationality' article addresses changes of nationality and how nationality is assigned in its second paragraph, not that that is perfectly analogous. PurpleQuaver (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Number of genders in the lead - missing

While I expect the exact number is a matter of dispute, it would be good to address this in the lead somehow. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It can't go in the lead unless it is already in the body and I'm not seeing it there. Also, it isn't even a meaningful thing to try to include because most conceptions of gender (other than those that insist on their being only two) do not see it as an enumerable set of discrete entities. If you ever see three people arguing about whether there are 2, 5 or 17 genders then you can safely ignore all of them as they are all making the same mistake. That said, I don't think that you ever will because I have never seen anybody seriously trying to count all the genders. (Although I have seen people doing that as a joke or as a way to be annoying.) The lead is currently doing a good job by saying "man, woman, or other gender identity". This correctly tells the reader that there are two extremely popular named gender identities, which they are presumably already familiar with, and also a range of others. I'm not seeing how we could improve on that. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Delete the article altogether, since there is clearly no clear discernible difference between 2, 5 or 17 or 6 billion genders. This article is far too politically charged to be truly factual or conclusive. I recommend going with DNA as a standard measure of gender, not "identity" (or personal preference). 2600:6C48:7006:200:5C10:C716:750B:C3B2 (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)