Talk:Sex segregation

Sex Discrimination and Sex Segregation as a Negative Concept

The article seems to lead toward the idea that sex segregation is morally wrong. Any value judgments or leading statements are not fit for an encyclopedia. On top of that, this would be expressing an insignificantly minor viewpoint. Although, I don't think the concept should be so far removed that sex segregation seems 'morally correct' or 'the way things are naturally'.

To feature sexual discrimination with several paragraphs on this page also adds unnecessary weight to a link between the two concepts. I'd suggest finding a way to tone that down a bit; I'd also note that a continued link between religion and nursing in England has little to do with segregation.

Let's keep focused on the topic; this page really needs a cleanup. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. As the section discussing the San people notes, some sex segregation occurs even in egalitarian societies apparently without causing harm. Sex segregation present with inequality is considered harm as the references indicate, independent of its moral status or being a minority view. Civil liberties and individual liberties are important. It appears to be the case that sex segregation that causes or is linked to harm is sexual discrimination, but I agree with you regarding sexual discrimination per se and have opted for one experts approach. It seems that there is no religion on Earth that does not endorse and encourage sex segregation. Do you know of any that endorse and encourage sex integration? As I recall there were never any male nuns, although I have heard that originally cloistered populations were collectively referred to as convents even when all male. Is this what you are referring to and have you any references to suggest? Except for the change regarding sexual discrimination, I disagree regarding further cleanup. But, comments and criticism are always welcome. Marshallsumter (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I don't disagree that religion promotes sexual segregation and discrimination. I was simply stating that nursing having a religious background has little to do with the article, and I felt it assumed that religion is innately harmful or some-such (I do not disagree with this view either).--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

General structure

This article is so narrow and focused on religion that it is basically useless. Why shouldn't that information just be moved to the pages for those religions, or the general pages on sex and gender? I've added one sentence on occupational segregation, which is surely a major part of sex segregation, with a link - and faced hassle and reverts over it. What is the agenda here? Yyyikes 19:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added some material which I believe has increased the subject coverage closer to a worldwide view so I am going to remove the tag. Please feel free to comment, criticize, or retag, if needed. Marshallsumter (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could mesh the 'religion and sex segregation' area into one or two paragraphs. We don't actually need to explain what an atheist is in this article, and we don't need to separate each religion into its own section. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC) [thanks for that]

Thanks for the comment. Please put four ~ after your entries. I added the others including atheism to the section under religion to give a greater world-wide view. The direction to the main article on atheism is for defining it. I've been searching the scholarly literature for articles on atheism and sex segregation and found very little research, but many negative comments not necessarily about both at the same time. As you probably noticed the section on Buddhism just below strongly suggests that practicing Buddhists also practice sex segregation, but does not confirm that non-theistic Buddhists necessarily endorse sex segregation. I believe the real question here is whether any religion on Earth endorses sex integration; hence, the need for separate sections on each religion. Before I added this and other sections, the article contained only Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Marshallsumter (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

'Sex integration' is a change in policy due to a viewpoint on sex segregation. If that is your definition, then many religious groups have changed recently to further incorporate the female gender. Some Mormon groups, for example, have started letting women get involved in their preaching work. Catholics and other Christian denominations have been allowing women to become religious leaders for some time now. Anyway, I do believe all this should be merged into one 'in religion' section. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Islam section

The new Islam section isn't NPOV - and makes vast generalizations... there are many different ways to practice Islam, the wahabi will not be like the liberal. gren 07:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why is "Sex Segregation in ISLAM" given so much emphasis in this article anyway? How about "sex segregation in Judaism", "schools" and whatnot? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.111.209.176 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 1 August 2005.

Because sex segregation in Islam is the most prominent (but not necessarily the strictest) of the foremost three religions: Christianity, Judaism, Islam. Also, recent events stemming from 9/11 have brought forth Islam to the public eye, resulting in a focus on the various aspects of the religion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.27.191 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 15 August 2005.

I haven't even read the sex segregation in Islam yet and already I'm alarmed. It definately should not have such a prominant, dominating position in a potentially vast topic. I think it should be removed until the article grow to accomodate it in a proportionally representative way. It could perhaps be moved to a relevant page on Islam rather than deleted... but it is misplaced on this, which would otherwise be a stub. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JJM (talk • contribs) 05:33, 23 August 2005.

to the above comment -> Sorry, you wanting it just doesn't cut it, buddy. The fact is that Islam DOES segregate women from men, i.e. different wagons in the Cairo subway for them, among the lightest forms of discrimination), and there is nothing wrong in reporting things as they are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.205.34.228 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 7 September 2005.

Oh, I see whats happened here.. some random anon has confused the secular city of "cairo" (The biggest city in Africa) with the religion of "Islam".. it's not that common a mistake, but they've made it. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is almost completely devoted to segregation based on gender within Islamic society. Should issues about gender segregation (which on a minor note may be a more appropriate title) in normal society (i.e. western and non relgion specific soceity) not be covered here also? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.188.192.41 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 2 October 2005.

"Political Correctness" is often used as a blind for covering the truth, and the truth is that Islam has more disturbing elements against women than Christianity or Judaism - while Christianity and Judaism may have been sexist at one point, they have embraced the modern world and are moving towards a fairer society, while Islam in parts of the world remains largely unchanged from medieval ways of thinking. Perhaps you should READ the article first before you criticize it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.34.27 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 11 October 2005.

Sex segregation is one of the most visible aspects of Islam, so the nature of the article isn't surprising, especially as it appears to be new. However, I agree that the title implies a wider treatment of the issue than it is getting at the moment. Perhaps the answer is to simply edit the title to "Sex (or gender) Segregation in Islam" and let people get on with elucidating the issue as it applies there. If there are major differences between wahabi and liberal perhaps Grenavitar or others would be kind enough to add to the article to make it clearer. I, for one, would be interested to know. Igsy 12:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

No there really is segregation in islam. Women aren't allowed to leave the house without a man and are required to be covered from head to toe!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clayaikenfan365 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 20 October 2005.

I would not mention "Islam" but rather whichever conservative/fundamentalist parts of the world happen to segregate the sexes (be there muslim/christian or whatever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.42.2.66 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 13 January 2006.

            -------------------------------

I found errors & biases in the article in relation to Saudi Arabia. I (an American woman) live in Saudi Arabia and have frequented various McDonalds, Pizza Huts, Starbucks, and other places with my children or with my girlfriends, and while they are segregated, they are also as clean as they would be in the States. (And, to be frank, the number of segregated establishments is small in comparison to those that are not segregated.)
Women do attend university, work, and socialize outside of the home, they do own property and businesses (the building we live in belongs to a business woman!).
In Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, and United Arab Emirates one sees just as many women out and about as men. However, I can't comment on other countries (Afghanistan, Iran...), for I've never been there thus can't claim any knowledge of their customs.
In reply to the comment above, women are indeed allowed to leave the house without a man, many women work or study, and most have drivers to take them where they wish to go. Also, not all women cover from head to toe -that seems to be a personal choice. Aouandme 06:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)aouandme

NPOV tags

Until someone actually brings up an NPOV issue, I'm going to remove the tags. If you want to split out the section, that's fine, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it. Melchoir 06:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom, is there something you'd like to say here? Melchoir 12:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

After being reverted twice without explanation, I'm now reinstating my change for the third time. Melchoir 14:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's number four! Melchoir 15:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest utilizing WP:AN/3RR? That'll put a stop to revert warring when one party doesn't explain their reasons for reverting. Netscott 09:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but technically he stopped short. Melchoir 09:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. Irishpunktom, explain yourself or I will continue to remove the tags. Melchoir 20:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

They are factual errors/claims that are bordering on misleading. For e.g. on Saudi Arabia it states that women are prevented from holding property or forced to remain ignorant (presumably by being denyed education). This is untrue, women are free to hold/own property and the number of women in universities has exceeded that of men. Also in Iran the number of women in univerisities has exceeded that of men. This entire article has from the beginning an agenda to associate all types of repression of women with Islam.

Please type four ~ after your contributions. As the Qu'ran apparently contains nothing endorsing sex segregation or its common association with discrimination, repression, and civil rights violations against women and men, the actual origins of such behavior probably lie with some other cause. As the additional sections about other religions demonstrate the problem is apparently world-wide. Yet, as the San people have apparently demonstrated some sex segregation and egalitarianism may be our common heritage after millions of years of development. So what has occurred in the last several thousand years or less to produce inequality and its associated harm? Comments welcome, especially with associated scholary references. Marshallsumter (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Judaism section

It appears that the section header only applied to one sentence. I've moved the remaining text out of the section (unless someone can explain that Josei Senyo Sharyo is derived from Judaism). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of this material may be useful

This is the material related to gender apartheid that was in the article Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid. Editors are encouraged to merge this information into the Sex segregation article:

Saudi Arabia's practices with respect to women have been referred to as "gender apartheid". According to Rita Henley Jensen" while Saudi Arabian women "have the right to own property, transact business, go to school and be supported by their husbands, while maintaining their separate bank accounts", "Women on Saudi soil must have a husband or male relative as an escort. We are not allowed to drive. When sight-seeing we must wear a full-length black gown known as an abaya. During Saudi Arabia's first elections, held the week before my arrival, women were not permitted to vote or run for office." She states that hotels have no female employees, and that segregated eating areas in hotels and beaches for women have poorer facilities. She also criticizes Saudi law for setting female inheritance at half of what men inherit (see Female inheritance in Islam).

Andrea Dworkin refers to these practices simply as "apartheid":

Seductive mirages of progress notwithstanding, nowhere in the world is apartheid practiced with more cruelty and finality than in Saudi Arabia. Of course, it is women who are locked in and kept out, exiled to invisibility and abject powerlessness within their own country. It is women who are degraded systematically from birth to early death, utterly and totally and without exception deprived of freedom. It is women who are sold into marriage or concubinage, often before puberty; killed if their hymens are not intact on the wedding night; kept confined, ignorant, pregnant, poor, without choice or recourse. It is women who are raped and beaten with full sanction of the law. It is women who cannot own property or work for a living or determine in any way the circumstances of their own lives. It is women who are subject to a despotism that knows no restraint. Women locked out and locked in.

Colbert I. King quotes an American official who accuses Western companies of complicity in Saudi Arabia's sexual apartheid:

One of the (still) untold stories, however, is the cooperation of U.S. and other Western companies in enforcing sexual apartheid in Saudi Arabia. McDonald's, Pizza Hut, Starbucks, and other U.S. firms, for instance, maintain strictly segregated eating zones in their restaurants. The men's sections are typically lavish, comfortable and up to Western standards, whereas the women's or families' sections are often run-down, neglected and, in the case of Starbucks, have no seats. Worse, these firms will bar entrance to Western women who show up without their husbands. My wife and other [U.S. government affiliated] women were regularly forbidden entrance to the local McDonald's unless there was a man with them."

Azar Majedi, of the Centre for Women and Socialism, attributes sexual apartheid in Saudi Arabia to political Islam:

Women are the first victims of political Islam and Islamic terrorist gangs. Sexual apartheid, stoning, compulsory Islamic veil and covering and stripping women of all rights are the fruits of this reactionary and fascistic movement.

According to The Guardian, "[i]n the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, sexual apartheid rules", and this sexual apartheid is enforced by mutawa, religious police, though not as strongly in some areas:

The kingdom's sexual apartheid is enforced, in a crude fashion, by the religious police, the mutawa. Thuggish, bigoted and with little real training in Islamic law, they are much feared in some areas but also increasingly ridiculed. In Jeddah - a more laid-back city than Riyadh - they are rarely seen nowadays.

Tiamat 11:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

References

Sports

You might want to be a little more specific by mentioning that in many Western countries, e.g., the US and Germany (where I've lived), that it is organized sports that are almost always gender segregated. As a cultural matter, it is very common for unorganized sports (such as volleyball, softball, and tennis) to be gender mixed, even among adults. Bostoner (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Pre 1950s

Sex segregation was very common throughout Western history, and this article only mentions contemporary social facts such as sports and nursing, and so it has a taste of modernism. There should be a more balanced historical approach, notably on the primitive origins of sex segregation. 69.157.229.153 (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it says something like, historically jobs such as nursing and secretarial jobs were associated with women. I would say this is a pretty modern development. If you go back 200 years both of these jobs would be primarily for men, unless you mean nursing as in looking after children/wet-nursing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.57.42 (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Israeli buses

There is no rule that states men must sit at front and women at back. Most city buses are like this. However, intercity buses generally not like this during school/work hours. (e.g. buses before 7:30am have the men at front and the women at back but after 7:30am until some time at night women are at front and men at back.) 192.118.11.112 (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Material cut for clarity.

I've trimmed outside of a private home. Within these facilities, there may be individual facilities provided, as in the case of toilets. from the lead-in, because it just didn't make sense as it stood. Prisons, changing rooms, and so on, aren't found in private homes, after all. I just couldn't see what the second sentence was intended to convey - could someone who does understand what it meant please supply a clearer version, if they think it's needed, please? Kay Dekker (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Improving references

While the article probably needs more references to a greater variety of sex segregation world wide, I believe for now that there are sufficient references for the Refimprove tag to be removed. Please feel free to comment or criticize. Marshallsumter (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Religion

I have reinserted the quotes regarding religion and sex segregation. Please do not remove them. They are supported by refereed articles and do pertain to understanding the possible origins of the inequality associated with sex segregation. Marshallsumter (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

In the section "Christianity" there is a lengthy paragraph regarding gender apartheid within the Roman Catholic Church that contains many statements in need of citations. If you contributed this paragraph, please add the appropriate citations. According to the current legal meaning of the term "citizen" worshippers of the Roman Catholic Church as well as other religious worshippers are not considered citizens of these respected religions. While there may be inequality associated with the way in which the governing body of any religion conducts itself or with its recognized political sovereignty, the including of this here should be documented. I removed the illegality comments as apparently it is legal within the Roman Catholic Church for only unmarried Catholic males to be considered for election to pope. See the article College of Cardinals. Comments and criticism are welcome, especially with appropriate citations. Marshallsumter (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

What is this article about?

I came here expecting to find the article about the physical separation of people along gender lines. That's what the definition at the top says it's about. Instead it seems to roam all over the shop, making it cover exactly the same ground as sexism. I suggest that we either put it back to being about sex segregation, or we make it a redirect to sexism. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. The first sentence refers to the separation of people along gender lines. This includes but is not limited to physical separation. Sexism is the application of stereotypes, which do not necessarily imply any kind of separation on the basis of sex, to sex differences. Though sex segregation usually accompanies the application of sex stereotypes. The origin of some sex segregation is sexism. In turn, the origin of some sexism is sex segregation. This article is about sex segregation and portions of the article on sexism are also about sex segregation. Putting the two together would make the resulting article too long. Redirecting would be inappropriate. Sex segregation probably has its origins in sex identification and labeling, which can result in egalitarianism or inequality, sexual discrimination and sexism. Marshallsumter (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's good. LIke I said, I removed some of the parts that were not about sex segregation. Feel free to remove any I have missed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I cleaned this up, but I had to go back three months to get a good version that I could base this on. Further help would be ideal. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The appropriate procedure is to discuss such changes beforehand. If there is a consensus, then such changes are executable. While I agree with some of your comments on some sections. I strongly disagree with what you've done. We need more input before any cutting should be done. The sections you cut on sex segregation came from refereed journal articles on the subject, not personal opinions. Marshallsumter (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia:Be bold in editing. Second, what were you doing adding this stuff back? You said above the article was about sex segregation, not a clone of sex discrimination. I simply removed stuff that was off topic. If you think the scope of the article should be extended, please say why.

Now I look carefully most of this stuff was added by you. Where was the discussion you had before adding it? DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look above! Also, almost everything I added came with appropriate references. Where are yours? Marshallsumter (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Be bold in editing: "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating pages. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc. We would like everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. How many times have you read something and thought, "Why aren't these pages copy-edited?" Wikipedia not only allows you to add, revise, and edit articles: it wants you to do it. It does require some amount of politeness, but it works. You'll see. Of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally! They, like all of us, just wish to make Wikipedia as good an encyclopedia as it can possibly be." At least we agree on this! Marshallsumter (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not in agreement with what DJ Clayworth (talk) did. Put the added material back and you'll see it's referenced to sex segregation. Sex segregation + inequality can be sexual discrimination. The old version is much worse. Marshallsumter (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Dropping in from WP:EAR#Sex segregation, I think it inevitable that there will be some amount of overlap with sex discrimination. I suggest that, if you cannot achieve consensus here, you ask for input at WT:WikiProject Gender Studies and / or raise a WP:RfC. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Like DJ Clayworth (talk) I've also left some comments at WT:WikiProject Gender Studies. I'm not sure if NPOV is the problem but I have looked at WP:RfC. If experts' text can be cut arbitrarily perhaps the problem is closer to that which Melchoir had to deal with. But, I am puzzled. DJ Clayworth (talk) has performed many edits and apparently added text to a number of articles as have I, and we both left our four ~, unlike the previous similar problem. So, if appropriate, and for the purpose of attempting to reach a consensus rather than allowing the latest reversion to stand, let me ask: what is it DJ Clayworth (talk) doesn't understand about sex segregation that creates the conclusion that text from experts on sex segregation and its origins and occurrences has nothing to do with sex segregation? Or, should we continue our reversion war, which I did not start? I do not wish the reversion war to continue but leaving the current version suggests agreement which is clearly not there. Also, I am concerned by something else. There is a web site http://www.dweec.com/dweecs.htm which lists DJ Clayworth and the tactics which he and others have used as a group to possibly censure Wikipedia. The tactic used here matches one of them. While I only know what I just read, and cannot attest to its objectivity, may I suggest that the article be reverted and locked and if need be block both of us until discussion begins. So far I've read nothing further by the other editor, but its only been a day. Cheers! Marshallsumter (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, we need to clear up some things here. Nothing here is about neutrality, or even about correctness. What I removed was text that was very far removed from being relevant to sex segregation and did not have any context explaining its relevance to sex segregation. I only later discovered that Marshallsumter was responsible for adding this text - my intention was simply to clean the article up. I'm also not suggesting this information doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and I'm very happy to try to find a home for it, if it doesn't already exist somewhere.

I think our best way forward here is to talk about why we think the passages I removed are appropriate or not. I've already stated my view; maybe Marshallsumter should state why he thinks they belong here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy you stopped by!

1. The material on origin is about sex segregation and its possible origins as the experts have stated. If you look up above I described it to you and you agreed it was good. Now if you like I can start another article Origin of sex segregation which is what these experts are striving to determine through proper experimentation and investigation. They have done their homework.

2. On the religion material one other editor commented above that a general article on religion and sex segregation or at least a combined section dealing generally with religion rather than specifying each one would be more appropriate. I disagree for the following. At the top of the article is a tag asking for a greater world-wide view. One way to accomplish this with respect to sex segregation is to cite authorities per each religion, including atheism, who have determined how sex segregation manifests itself. Another possibility is an article entitled, Sex segregation in religion. All of the citations I had inserted on this matter could go there.

3. The negative side of sex segregation is its common association with inequality; hence, the cited texts regarding various aspects of this. In a number of English speaking countries sexual discrimination is a crime which has special requirements, many of which are not on the Sexual discrimination page. This aspect of it is often overlooked and can cause many individuals to believe sex segregation + inequality = sexual discrimination. This is not true! I had included a number of cited texts by authorities who attempt to deal with the left hand side of the equation. One example of course is the sports issue, the second is occupational sex segregation which has many forms in addition to or besides physical sex segregation.

4. Secretary and nursing. By the way I did not put these sections in the article, but I did add to them.

5. Please refrain from statements like, "Nothing here is about neutrality, or even about correctness." I am being and have been neutral and correct. You deleted everything I and others contributed without discussion in clear violation of Wikipedia principles. And, I agree that you were not about neutrality or correctness. I am asking you to refrain from further such statements because they cannot be allowed to stand uncontested. It sets a bad precedent. Enough said.

6. The Holy See section. I did not put it in, don't mind that it's gone. Too many secondary issues like citizenship, legality, etc. I'm not really interested.

7. The sections on sex segregation examples in each country would get really long since there are so many countries and everyone of them do it, often associated with inequality. I believe this material is important, but I'm not sure what to do about it. Leaving it in Sex segregation may be okay. A separate article may be okay. I believe the material would get lost in the articles about each country or political division.

8. Oh, if you want to keep 'physical sex segregation only' as an article topic, there are many interesting studies out there that Wikipedia readers would enjoy. I had put some of them in already, like the coffee drinking one. A separate article titled something like Physical sex segregation, or Socio-spatial sex segregation, as one authority refers to it as, is a possibility.

9. Sex segregation + inequality, attempts to justify. The sections on decency, sacredness, modesty, female safety, family. I wrote each of these to demonstrate that while sex segregation itself may be neutral, often it becomes associated with inequality. The excuses can fall under attempts to justify the resulting inequality on the basis of decency, sacredness, modesty, female safety, and family. Inequality is correlated with homicide, infant mortality, obesity, teenage pregnancies, emotional depression and prison population, among others, as the cite from The Guardian asserts. As inequality increases all of these increase. I have seen good and bad comments directed at The Guardian so each of these could be separate articles with more respected citations.

10. Sex segregation as a cause of homosexuality. It is! I did not insert this section, another editor did. It's still being developed. It too could be another article: Sex segregation and homosexuality.

11. Cited references: please refrain from attacks on any of them. I put a lot of effort into each so unless you bring forth additional ones, you're wasting both of our time. As I said they've done their homework.

12. Reinserting some or all of this material back into Sex segregation: all of it is about sex segregation in some form, not technically about sexual discrimination. I have also stated this above. Clearly, the present article needs improvement as the tags indicate.

13. There may be some portions of the earlier version that need comment so when I find them I will toss them out for discussion. I also hope some additional editors from the project page help out.

What do you think? Marshallsumter (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things should be cleared up. First, when I wrote "Nothing here is about neutrality, or even about correctness" I meant that I wasn't removing things because I thought they were incorrect or not neutral. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. The sole reason behind my cleanup was relevance. Nothing was removed because of who wrote it. I didn't even look at who wrote what until afterwards.

Let's focus on some specific passages. The passage on 'sex differences' has five paragraphs. One of them is about the evolutionary origins of lactation in mammals, one spends four or five lines to say that "the human mind is sexually dimorphic", which could be summed up in that one sentence. Do we need to spend a whole paragraph on the evolution of lactation? The passage on "sacredness" spends more than half of its length on defining sacredness, and makes only one statement of even peripheral relevance to sex segregation:"Segregation may be unconstitutional and a sin, making segregationists heretics", a statement that completely lacks context explaining who thinks that, where it might be unconstitutional and who it is a sin against. The passage on "Family" has precisely one sentence in it of relevance to sex segregation, with three sentences defining different kinds of family. The passage on "wage differentials" does not even mention sex segregation, and I don't see how it could. Differences in pay for doing exactly the same job are not a form of segregation, no matter how broadly you define it (though it is a form of discrimination).

You write: 'sexual discrimination is a crime which has special requirements, many of which are not on the Sexual discrimination page'. In that case the remedy is not to put the information on this page, but to put it on the Sexual discrimination page.

As for the naming, I think most of our readers will expect this article to be primarily about the literal meaning of sex segregation: "physical sex segregation" as you term it. A suggestion for dealing with the less literal kind might be Occupational segregation by sex. I'm sure there are other kinds, but that seems to be the most important non-physical part. OK, what do you think? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sex difference: This passage is from the Origins section. The source Reskin who wrote the article "Sex segregation in the workplace" has indicated that in some instances when "employers' assumptions about the sexes lead them to assign individual men and women to different jobs, they are discriminating and sex segregating on the basis of sex differences." That's the reason for including a short introduction to sex differences from the main article. The source Browne mentions lactation in context, and connects sex differences with sex segregation as a possible origin. Browne is an evolutionary psychologist who has discussed a sexually dimorphic mind as an origin of sex segregation. In many other articles on Wikipedia there are short inclusions from other associated articles such as this. The word 'lactation' occurs three times in the entire earlier version in one paragraph, all within the section dealing with Browe's work on sex differences as an origin for sex segregation. Two sentences which add clarity do not have a cite to Browne. If you believe they do not add clarity then we need a third party. The whole paragraph is on Browne's theory with a contribution from Trivers. The paragraphs dealing with Browne's work in evolutionary psychology are not 'a whole paragraph on the evolution of lactation'. Do you have a suggestion on condensing the description on sexual dimorphism more suitable to Wikipedia readers?

"Sacredness" section: it contains two cites by Oakley and uses the definition from wiktionary. Oakley's point is that sacredness is subjective. As sacredness is often used to produce sex segregation the section is relevant and should be left in. The term 'sacredness' is used 12 times in the earlier version including in the current version at the beginning. If reducing or eliminating the definitional paragraph adds clarity, we can reduce or eliminate it. But, I included it to show that sacredness can be good or bad, it's a subjective concept. The work by Oakley should be reinserted.

"Family" section: the point is "in societies with a sexual division of labor, marriage, and the resulting relationship between two people, is necessary for the formation of an economically productive household. Sexual division of labor is sex segregation, though not necessarily physical sex segregation. The term 'family' is mentioned in the first paragraph of the current version, and the Holy See section, among others. Sex segregation in egalitarian societies with families seldom produces necessariness. The earlier cites help to clarify the term 'family' and are from the main article Family. They indicate that necessary provisions are irrelevant. Single parents taking care of children are families too. Sex segregation in the work place plus inequality makes it harder for them to provide for their family, for example.

Wage differentials: the point Anker is making is that pay differentials between married women and married men, where all else is equal, are apparently due to the women (sex segregation again) being married. Married men get more pay than married women for the same job. That's sex segregation (married women on one side of the differential, married men on the other side) + inequality (unequal pay), but not necessarily sexual discrimination. Put this section back in with maybe what I've just written here in some form if you believe it adds clarity.

Sexual discrimination: the information I've added here usually refers to the crime and its association with sex segregation. Please note the following which I have copied from above and pasted here.

Dropping in from WP:EAR#Sex segregation, I think it inevitable that there will be some amount of overlap with sex discrimination. I suggest that, if you cannot achieve consensus here, you ask for input at WT:WikiProject Gender Studies and / or raise a WP:RfC. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jezhotwells (talk) on the inclusion of some sexual discrimintion, so please return the text.

Naming of article: the article title is Sex segregation. It comes in many forms, including physical. Letting our readers know this is important, don't you think? An additional article on Occupational sex segregation, same occupation + sex segregation would be okay, while writing about occupational sex segregation here is appropriate, relevant, and could link to the additional article. So, reinsert most if not all of the previous version, and let's continue the discussion if you have other concerns. It's easier to read it there than going back in history to the earlier version. Not reinserting it now is not about relevance. The material is relevant and it's from several editors. You ignored a Wikipedia primary principle when you boldly deleted it. Bold censoring (deleting without discussion and keeping it out through persistence) is not the same as bold editing on the basis of relevance. Please put the sections back in or revert the article to the earlier version if that's easier. I believe I've touched on each of your points.

What do you think? Marshallsumter (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time for a detailed reply now, so let me just pick a couple of points.

You write that "Oakley's point is that sacredness is subjective". I'm sure that's true, but the text of the article didn't say that. Since the word "sacredness" only appeared in the article once outside that section, there is no clear indication of why we are talking about sacredness at all, or why it is important that it is subjective. Maybe rather than putting in a long discussion of sacredness itself we should put in more detail about how sacredness is sued to further sex segregation.

LIkewise you write "in societies with a sexual division of labor, marriage, and the resulting relationship between two people, is necessary for the formation of an economically productive household". Again I'm sure it's true, but if that's the point a single sentence to that effect, backed by a reference, would be sufficient. It's not necessary to talk about family of orientation, or family of procreation. They may be relevant, but the text in the article doesn't explain why they are, and unless it explains that then statements about them appear to be irrelevant.

Wage differentials:if the pay inequity you describe, based on marital status, is not sexual discrimination, then it's not sex segregation either.

I think what may be going on is that you have some ideas about sex segregation in your head, and you wrote in the article things that are relevant to those ideas. But unless those ideas are in the article as well, then the relevance to the subject is not apparent to the reader. If that's the case then the thing to do is explain in the article more about how those things are relevant to sex segregation. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about what we can do to make progress here, and I think the best way is to add back some of the sections that were removed: but rather than restoring the old versions we can create new ones without the same issues. I would suggest starting with the workplace section, since it's the one with least relevance issues. Here are some suggestions for content:

• We need a brief explanation of what is considered sex segregation in the workplace, and why it is considered that. It's not obvious to the reader that a simple predominance of one gender in a job (such as nursing) constitutes sex segregation, when men and women both work in the job and have equal status. We need to explain with references why that is so.
• Are secretary and nursing the best examples we can come up with? Both have had some male presence for quite a while (though I may be wrong there). maybe we should consider firefighting or police work, where there was no female presence until recently.
• I don't see any relevance of the section on the etymology of the word nurse. The etymology doesn't explain the gender bias today, since virtually no-one knows it. It may have a historic effect, but if so we need references to support that.

If we can do that, then we can move on to other sections. Comments? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Some comments:

Oakley and sacredness: I was looking at the previous version before your edits and the reference is actually Dailey, my mistake. The title of the article is "Sex, Segregation, and the Sacred after Brown" so the author is writing about all three. The text of the article didn't say that sacredness is subjective as you say so I didn't add that to the text. The third sentence from the top in the current version is "In some circumstances, gender segregation is a controversial policy, with critics contending that in most or all circumstances it is a violation of human rights, and supporters arguing that it is necessary to maintain decency, sacredness, modesty, female safety[1] or the family unit." The definition from Wiktionary includes the term "sacred"; hence, its inclusion and connection to the article by Dailey. Wikipedia encourages us to add text so that's why I added Dailey. The three sentences add clarity to what is sacred. I disagree that it's long. While I understand the meaning of the phrase "how sacredness is sued to further sex segregation", I am puzzled why you want to add more text on how sacredness is used. Are you asking for a citation from a supporter arguing that sex segregation is necessary to maintain sacredness? If so, the definition answers that question "sacred means set apart by solemn religious ceremony", not "set apart by sex or gender". Curiously, while every religion on Earth deals in sex segregation, none of their holy books actually endorses it, but they are free to create any solemn ceremony they wish. So, are you asking for a citation arguing that sex segregation is necessary to maintain being set apart (as in two different sexes in humans) or to maintain a solemn religious ceremony?

Family: The third sentence from the top in the current version is "In some circumstances, gender segregation is a controversial policy, with critics contending that in most or all circumstances it is a violation of human rights, and supporters arguing that it is necessary to maintain decency, sacredness, modesty, female safety[1] or the family unit." In short, supporters argue that sex segregation is necessary to maintain the family unit. I included each of the three sentences to show that the aspect of family or family unit in which sex segregation is necessary to maintain the family unit is in societies with a sexual division of labor. Further, in such societies, for the family unit to be an economically productive household, marriage is necessary, not a free choice. Thank you for agreeing that the aspects of family may be relevant. Usually, sex segregation won't produce persons biologically so that leaves producing persons socially. In the Origins section this aspect was dealt with by indicating sex differences lead to sex segregation due to needs for sex identification and from sex labeling. They are relevant because sex segregation from sex identification and from labeling doesn't correlate with activities (the Origins section) such as a division of labor. A sexual division (sex segregation) of labor correlates with something else. With respect to "doesn't explain why they are", does any of what I've written here help?

Wage differentials: as I wrote earlier sex segregation ≠ sexual discrimination. Sex segregation + inequality may be sexual discrimination, but it doesn't have to be. The pay inequality has two parts: sex and apparently contractual state. The largest part of it according to Anker is between males and females who are married persons. So, the pay inequality is based first and foremost on sex and it's even worse between a married male and a married female of equal qualifications. It may not be sexual discrimination, and it is definitely sex segregation and additional aspects associated with marriage (the contractual state) which make the pay differentials even worse.

Personal attack again: "I think what may be going on is that you have some ideas about sex segregation in your head, and you wrote in the article things that are relevant to those ideas." Stop the personal attacks! Don't waste my time again! Stick to the actions. I have written using citations to aspects that are relevant to sex segregation from experts in the field who have indicated they are relevant. There are no relevance issues. There are only your deletions of relevant text. If you would like to add text, that's okay.

Workplace section: there is no workplace section in the current version! "It's not obvious to the reader that a simple predominance of one gender in a job (such as nursing) constitutes sex segregation, when men and women both work in the job and have equal status." At the top of the current version is written, "Sex segregation is the separation of people according to their gender." Predominance means greater in number or amount, like 51 vs. 49 out of 100 to 99 vs. 1 out of 100, for example. A simple predominance of one sex doesn't constitute sex segregation, in addition zero and 100 have been left out by the term predominance. Sex segregation in the workplace is separation of people according to their gender or sex in the workplace. Sex segregation in nursing, for example, is not usually the separation of people according to their gender or sex in nursing, although this can occur. The previous version used the section title, "Occupational segregation by sex". I'll add more later. Marshallsumter (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time for a detailed reply here, but I will pick up a few points. Firstly, it has been pointed out to you by others that what I wrote above is not a personal attack. I am, as was said by others, trying to be helpful. Please do not criticise me for something I didn't do.

As for your last paragraph: "Sex segregation is the separation of people according to their gender." If in a job men and women work together (note together!), are not paid differently, and are granted equal status, in what way is that separation?

One of the problems seems to be that you are writing commentary on things that are not in the article. So, for instance, you say "supporters argue that sex segregation is necessary to maintain the family unit". That may be true, but nothing like that is written in the article , so anything you write contradicting it is irrelevant in the context of the article. Remember that we are writing for people who do not know anything about sex segregation. We need to first say what it is that the 'supporters' say, and then report the alternative view.

It is also very important to remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. We are not trying to convince anyone of any viewpoint, and do not need to contradict what 'supporters' say. We must represent supporters' views as fairly as everyone else.

I will attempt to rewrite some of these sections so that they are relevant. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Further comments:

"men and women work together": the first sentence in the current version is "Sex segregation is the separation of people according to their gender." The title of the article is "Sex segregation", not "Sex integration" or "Sex togetherness". The authors I've cited and you deleted have indicated separation by the term "sex segregation" in its various forms. "If in a job men and women work together (note together!), are not paid differently, and are granted equal status, in what way is that separation?" Let's say at occupation A there is "men and women work together (note together!), are not paid differently, and are granted equal status," and at occupation B there is "men and women work together (note together!), are not paid differently, and are granted equal status," but in occupation A there are 85% women (like nursing) and at occupation B there are 85% men (like CEO's), that's an example of sex segregation.

"writing commentary on things that are not in the article": in the current version of the article, third sentence is written, "supporters arguing that it is necessary to maintain decency, sacredness, modesty, female safety[1] or the family unit." Compare that to "supporters argue that sex segregation is necessary to maintain the family unit". "it" in the first refers to "gender segregation". I used the term "sex segregation". If you go to the project work page they are currently discussing whether to change the article title from "Sex segregation" to "Gender segregation". Last time I checked the issue was still being discussed. As I wrote there the word gender can also refer to language, gender being (masculine, feminine, common, neuter). So, I used sex segregation. With respect to the other part, one of the points being made by the phrase is that "supporters argue that it is necessary to maintain the family unit." You were discussing family. So yes it is in the current article and it is relevant.

"We need to first say what it is that the 'supporters' say, and then report the alternative view." "We are not trying to convince anyone of any viewpoint, and do not need to contradict what 'supporters' say."

How about something like this:

Family

Main article: Family

Look up family in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

In some circumstances, sex segregation is a controversial policy, with critics contending that in most or all circumstances it is a violation of human rights, and supporters arguing that it is necessary to maintain the family unit, among other things.

One of the primary functions of the family is to produce and reproduce persons - biologically and socially.[63][64]

From the perspective of children, the family is a family of orientation: the family serves to locate children socially and plays a major role in their enculturation and socialization.[65]

From the point of view of the parent(s), the family is a family of procreation, the goal of which is to produce, enculturate and socialize children.[66]

However, producing children is not the only function of the family; in societies with a sexual division of labor, marriage, and the resulting relationship between two people, is necessary for the formation of an economically productive household.[67][68][69]

"I will attempt to rewrite some of these sections so that they are relevant." DJ Clayworth (talk) from your point of view. That will help!

Secretary and nursing: These occupations were put in by other editors, initially nurses was mentioned in the Revision as of 17:09, 2 September 2006. Secretarial was added in the Revision as of 23:00, 9 May 2008, although they weren't sectioned. Both have been in the article for almost two years! The military may have used male nurses in the US Civil War. Women have been doing police work for many decades. Firefighters might be a good addition, although during World War II many women had to become firefighters, especially in England during the Battle of Britain, and in the US because of sex segregation in the military. I disagree on replacement because the nursing and secretary sections have history that features both sexes and is enjoyable reading. India for example has few if any female secretaries. While we would need a reference, often sex segregation continues into the present because of the past. By the way "relevant" means closely connected or appropriate to the matter at hand. Everything you deleted by experts in the field of sex segregation that used the words "sex segregation" was relevant, both closely connected and appropriate per NPOV. Please use a dictionary occasionally. Just a suggestion. Your personal meaning does not appear to be relevant, but I remain optimistic. By the way, Wiktionary http://www.wiktionary.org/ does not have a definition of sex segregation or gender segregation. If you have a copy of the full Oxford English Dictionary, would you look to see if it may be in there? Cheers! Marshallsumter (talk) 05:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, I don't have time for a full reply. In your paragraph starting "men and women work together" you repeat a lot of things that I said, in more detail and then end with "that's an example of sex segregation", but you don' give a reference to back this up, and you don't explain why it's an example of sex segregation. Are you claiming that any occupation where the number of men and women is not exactly 50% is sex segregation?

Your proposed section on Family does not address my concerns. Why is it necessary to talk about family of orientation and family of procreation? What relevance is it to sex segregation? Your first sentence is over-general, and is unreferenced. Who claims that sex segregation is necessary to maintain the family unit, and what kind of sex segregation do they say is necessary? Are we talking about people who think all women should wear veils? Or are we talking about people who think that having mostly female nurses is not a problem? If the section is about using 'the family' to justify sex segregation then we need to start by explaining who does that, and what they say. Then we can write about counter-arguments. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

So far we've reached consensus on quite a few areas and topics. Progress is good but slow! As an example of where references are needed in the current text, let me add these:

1. "Sex segregation is the separation of people according to their gender."
2. "The pejorative term gender apartheid (or sexual apartheid) has been applied to segregation of people by gender, implying that it is sexual discrimination."
3. "In some circumstances, gender segregation is a controversial policy, with critics contending that in most or all circumstances it is a violation of human rights, and supporters arguing that it is necessary to maintain decency, sacredness, modesty, female safety[1] or the family unit." There is reference [1] and that's it. Now, I realize often the introduction, overview, or abstract at the front usually is absent references because they will appear later on.
4. Public facilities
5. Sports
6. Education, except for the middle paragraph
7. Female safety
8. Christianity.

If I censor as you have done to the previous version, the current version will be back to what is was in 2006, an article or stub on sex segregation in a couple of religions, best titled "Sex segregation in religion" or some such. We've put a lot of text here, this isn't a sandbox, but you've written nothing. Each sentence you write that makes a conclusion or identifies a fact needs a reference, the same request you've made of me. There is no more to discuss until you produce something. This discussion page is already at 61 kb. Writing NPOV is a lot harder than persistent censoring. But, I remain optimistic! Cheers! Marshallsumter (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Cooperative effort to improve article

Also, if you have a point like the ones you've made above and are having trouble finding a reference, let me know and I will try to help. Marshallsumter (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added a start on a section that might be expanded on sex segregation in occupation. Feel free to comment on what I have written. You are also free to expand that, being careful to make sure everything is relevant. I have also added a number of specific citation needed notices, where something is not currently backed up by sources. It would be excellent if you could find sources to back these up. Let's see if we can cooperate to make this a good, readable article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read through your contributions to the article. While I view most of them as not NPOV I believe it is important to include as many points of view as possible in an effort toward being NPOV. References for some will be tough, but I'll give it a go. I have some references to add already, but let me know if you disagree with the text regarding them. DO NOT DELETE THEM BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH THE TEXT! Sometimes people see different points of view in the same words and a simple change may be mutually okay. I am glad you decided to contribute. I've had "editors" delete and run and it is very aggravating. Cheers! Marshallsumter (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There are several additional sentences that would be better if a citation could be found. I will put in citation needed notices for these. Please let me know what you think. Some may be too general to find, and they'll have to come back out, or the sentence or portion may have to be left out. Marshallsumter (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There are some additions and changes that I have added. Let me know what you think on these. I have been looking at possible definitions for the terms "sex segregation" and "gender segregation". There seems to be quite a range of concepts attached to these two phrases. What do you think of a section entitled, "What is sex or gender segregation?", that includes and discusses these? Marshallsumter (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think your additions are good. I don't disagree with any of them, and I wouldn't delete them for that reason alone. The extra references are particularly appreciated. I'll be the first to admit that some of the things I added could do with extra references. There is however one exception, which is the snide comment about the Pope, the tone of which is sarcastic and aggressive. I suspect you knew that. The whole question of gender roles in the Christian Church, not just the Catholic, deserves a lot more coverage.

I would be in favour of a good referenced definition of "sex segregation" and "gender segregation" - I'm hoping we can consider them one term for our purposes. We should also make sure that if we find anything new it gets added to occupational sex segregation - with a main article avilable we should make sure this one doesn't get too long. DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

One last thing - when I wrote about police I meant to say it was an exclusively male occupation until recently - are there any countries where that is not true? DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the comment about the Pope wasn't meant as snide. I found it in the College of Cardinals article, and have no idea if it's true. No problem leaving it out. I'll check on the police point. Marshallsumter (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I found the following which we could include: "A century of women in policing", authors BR Price, S Gavin, In: Modern police administration, 1979, Gulf Publishing Company, USA. Marshallsumter (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Another source includes, "Women police officers were originally hired, in the early 1900's, to provide specialist protection for" notable women, probably wives of Presidents and the like. Marshallsumter (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wellington, New Zealand, hired its first female police officer in 1895: EK Butler, LT Winfree, Police Quarterly, 2003. Igbinovia (1987: 32) notes that the women's branch of the police was first formed in Ghana in 1952, in Nigeria 1955 and in Kenya in 1965. It was 1919 when the first 25 police women appeared on the streets of London. So I guess it depends on how recent do you mean? Marshallsumter (talk) 04:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't check every country, but so far there is no country on Earth that does not have women police or police officers. Many women were apparently added to the force because of World War I. To give you an idea, check out this pdf http://www.iiav.nl/ezines/email/journalforwomenandpolicing/2005/no17.pdf#page=49. Percentage of women police in 13 Asian countries: Singapore 19.1, New Zealand 14.6, Hong Kong 13.4, China 11.3, Kazakhstan 10.0, Malaysia 9.7, Sri Lanka 5.3, Papua New Guinea 5.3, Thailand 5.0, Kyrgyzstan 4.9, Japan 3.7, South Korea 2.4, and India 2.2. Marshallsumter (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting about female police officers. That means they predated women soldiers.

The reason only men can be Pope is that being a priest is a prerequisite for being Pope, and only men can be priests in the Catholic church. That's why I think the whole question of women's roles in religion needs more thought. We can get to it later.

I moved some of the things you wrote about sport. The reference is a good one, but he's writing about manual labour, not weightlifting the sport. Clearly no amount of training will make an elite female weightlifter lift as much as an elite male one. I moved the reference to the occupational section. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Clothing/appearance as sex segration

I believe that different types of clothing also count as sex segration. This goes both ways, with men not really allowed to wear e.g. skirts even in western countries. Maybe it would even be worth it to extend this topic to "segration by appearance": women are supposed to have long hair and men short, makeup is reserved (and often "required") for women, women need to shave their legs while men are "gay" if they do so, etc.

I am not willing to add this to the article by mself since I have no clue about sources that could be used for this claim. However, please see this comment as a contribution, meant as making people thing about this topic and how omnipotent sex segration is. It's not limited to changing rooms, really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.180.216.31 (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that the article, Origin of sex segregation, be merged here. It is much too limited to stand alone. Binksternet (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support merge per Binksternet. -- 202.124.72.56 (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support Can't imagine why it was created in first place. Carol Moore DC 11:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Binksternet --Cerejota (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

In some circumstances, gender segregation is a controversial policy, with critics contending that in most or all circumstances it is a violation of human rights

It is doubtful that legitimate, notable critics say this. I'm writing about the subject of gender segregation in an article I'm working on that concerns the separation of men and women offenders in an alternative sentencing program. The consensus from the participants and the professors teaching the program is that sex segregation is beneficial; the men won't open up about their problems in front of women and the women won't share in front of the men. This is in the context of a bibliotherapy program, so making the strong claim that helping people deal with their problems is somehow a violation of human rights is beyond absurd. Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Article revamp

Hello everyone, As part of Rice University's Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities Program, my Poverty, Gender, and Development class annually contributes to Wikipedia articles concerning gender difference and disparities. My partner Achresto (talk) and I have chosen to contribute to and help revamp this article.

We believe it is in need of more citations and a global perspective, as well as structural reorganization that broadens the page's focus. Looking over the talk page, it seems prior debates focused on whether and when segregation and discrimination are related, how religion (particularly Islam) relates to segregation, and whether the citations given accurately balanced examples of segregation and accounted for its origins. Disagreements seem to have hinged on these smaller examples rather than discussion of the overall plan for the article, and as a result the current article feels disorganized. Our primary goal, then, is a reorganizing.

We also think a NPOV is lacking or stretched in some statements, for example: "In some circumstances, gender segregation is a controversial policy, with critics contending that in most or all circumstances it is a violation of human rights" (uncited). Further, more careful distinction should be made between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ in the existing article, perhaps including a renaming to 'Gender discrimination'. The segregation of sex may impact construction of gender identities. We plan on reorganizing the article by starting off from a broad, theoretical perspective, discussing scholarly definitions and causes of gender segregation, and subsequently addressing different spheres of gender segregation in public and private realms.

The current article does an adequate job listing some arenas in which gender segregation takes place. We plan to include contemporary examples of areas of gender segregation, specifically where policies are in place to enforce segregation or desegregation, to both facilitate a global perspective and also provide an opportunity for multiple editors to continually update the article, maintaining high-quality work. Lastly, we want to discuss consequences (positive and negative) of gender segregation for all genders as well as critiques of gender segregation. Our proposed outline is thus: Sex segregation 1. Definition 2. Causes and origins 3. Spheres of segregation 3.1 Public 3.2 Private 4. Contemporary examples 4.1 Segregation 4.2 Desegregation 5. Consequences 6. Critiques 7. See also

We would love feedback on the organization proposed, and any content, technical, or miscellaneous feedback is also welcome. Thanks! NSDhaliwal (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Article review

This article looks great, but some minor revisions can be made. Specifically, it can be further proofread, and the section on “Significance” can be broken down into smaller sections. Going section by section, I have made the following notes:

Lead section: Specify what kind of separation (physical, social, cultural). It might be useful to establish this early on, even though it is described in the “definitions and causes” section. Perhaps write “some critics” and “some supporters” to show that all of these opinions cannot be generalized by each group. Short and concise! Nice!

Definitions and causes: How does gender apartheid, as applied to the segregation of people by gender, imply sexual discrimination?

Permissive sex segregation: Include some more links to other articles, such as with Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.

Theoretical explanations: Can you include a link to libertarian political theory?

Libertarianism- really wonderful explanation about how the theory is applicable to sex segregation! Very thorough, great examples

Equal treatment: “treat likes alike” doesn’t make sense…”treat people alike” instead? Change “questions when are men and women alike” to “questions when men and women are alike”…add quotes as well! The wording is confusing.

Critical race feminism: Some minor issues with grammar in this section

Contemporary policy examples: The wording of the first sentence is awkward, and “different” is used twice.

Safety and privacy: Excellent section! Examples are wonderful and the plentiful links are very useful.

Religious and cultural ideas: There are some stray brackets in the first paragraph that need to be removed.

Education and socialization: Overall, really great. Perhaps you can include some statistics about different outcomes between coed and single-sex schooling?

Desegregation: There are some links in red, which need to be removed.

Significance: “For most children” instead of “in most children.” Provide some more context for the statistics on women’s job satisfaction. Some more brackets need to be deleted.

Wonderful work, and I cannot wait to read the article once it has been further fine-tuned and polished. Heidimkahle (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review! We plan on implementing all of these technical changes. NSDhaliwal (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Article review #2

I agree with Heidi's points that she brought up in her review of her article. Overall, I was very impressed at the scope of the article and variety and range of sources used and topics discussed. My one large worry is that the article is written on a higher than 5th grade level, and while is very well-written, might not be as accessible to some Wikipedia readers. Maybe find ways to simplify the language and concepts used in some areas to ensure that this is not a worry. Here is a list of comments I quickly wrote down as I read through.

1. maybe add a little bit more to the intro for readers who only read that section
2. give a more clear example of mandatory sex segregation in employment, maybe specifically say female nurses are used for such and such
3. some sentences a bit long for average reader to follow, written well, but also at a slightly higher level, might want to re-word to improve readability for average wiki reader
4. within the different feminism viewpoints it would be very interesting if you could name major scholars in each group/major organizations
5. perhaps find a way to put subheadings in some of the large sections such as desegregation and significance for more organization
6. photos added look great, maybe see if more could be added towards the beginning

As you can see, there aren't too many because I really think you two did an excellent job. I am glad you discussed the ways that sex segregation can be a good thing as well as a bad thing. I also appreciate that you explained that sex and gender segregation are not equivalent, a very important concept. Good luck with continuing to improve the article! Robinkvest (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Robin! We will try add more photos throughout the article for balance. Furthermore, one of our concerns was readability, especially in the longer sections, including "Desegregation" and "Significance". Some of the other reviewers also commented that we should add more to our introduction, which we plan on doing; it was originally written before we knew the scope of our entire article. NSDhaliwal (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Current Article and Revisions

I agree with many of the points that have already been brought up. I think this article does a great job at maintaining neutrality, providing a variety of sources, linking the article to other articles, and following Wikipedia's style guidelines. While I did see some grammatical and wording issues, these have already been mentioned in the previous two reviews so I don't think there is a need to discuss them again in the post. My other points of feedback include breaking up the significance section. It is really long and I think that providing subsections might make it more readable and easily digested by the readers. This could be done by breaking the section up according to the different types of sex segregation that is mentioned in the artcile. I also would expand on the desegregation section. Are there more policies and viewpoints that argue for desegregation. I think that the article could be improved by offering a more in-depth notation of the opposite viewpoint of sex segregation. Additionally the illustrations are kind of small and difficult to read, even when they are zoomed in on. Making them bigger might help. Other than that, I think this article is great and on the right track! B.chachere (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Article Review

Overall I don't think the lead section is doing justice to the thoroughness of the rest of the article. For example: I think the original opening sentence: "Sex segregation is the separation of people according to their biological sex while gender segregation is the separation of people according to social and cultural constructions of what it means to be male vs female [1]." would be stronger if it read: "Sex segregation is the separation of people according to their biological sex. This is distinct from gender segregation, which is the separation of people according to social and cultural constructions of what it means to be male versus female [1]." I also think you could expand on the ending phrase: "...supporters argue that it is central to certain religious laws and social and cultural histories and traditions [3][4]." Your article cites more facets of this side of the debate - like economic efficiency...

One element that I think is missing is a discussion of the impact this sex segregation has on intersexed and transgender members of the community. There are lots of resources out there, especially considering recent legal battles and sufficient media coverage surrounding issues of public restrooms and trans-people's designation...I think Rice was even considering having gender neutral restrooms...

Other than that I think the other reviewers have already covered it; this article is great!

Lenasilva (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Review Responses

Hi B.chachere and Lenasilva,

Thanks so much for the helpful comments! I think the general consensus from your input is that the segregation section needs to be divided into subsections and our introduction can be strengthened according to the thoroughness of our entire article. I think doing the conclusion according to how we broke up the contemporary examples would be an excellent way to tie up the article, while expanding upon the significance of desegregation at the very end, and potentially even including more policies for desegregation in the contemporary examples section. B.chachere, when you say offer a more in-depth notation of the opposite viewpoint of sex segregation, do you mean that we should include more of the viewpoint that sex segregation is good vs bad for people or women? Thanks for the tip on the illustrations as well, we will work with the formatting to make sure they are legible to viewers.

Lenasilva, I agree completely with your point about our opening of the article. I really like the way you re-worded it as well, thanks for the edit! Do you think we should include more in the opening about economic efficiency or less about religious laws/social traditions?

We also considered including a portion on intersexed and/or transgender members of communities; however, we wondered if the scope would be too broad for the realm of this article. We thought it would be worthwhile to suggest a new article be created on project pages, possibly to be linked off of this article? If you saw a specific part of the article that you thought would be strengthened even by mentioning this specific issue, we would love to hear it.

Thanks again!

Achresto (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys,

Yeah I think just mentioning economic efficiency would be sufficient. I really think you could mention the intersex/trans issues anywhere (well...any of the first three subsections) in the policy section.

Lenasilva (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The separation of sex segregation and gender segregation is entirely arbitrary and the reference of one book is insufficent to make that distinction.2606:6000:C042:3E00:C64:FBEF:D22D:A44E (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sex segregation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090624214051/http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGACT770232007&lang=e to http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGACT770232007&lang=e
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/bmfsfj/generator/ADS/Tipps-fuer-Betroffene/faqs%2Cdid%3D102812.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.proutglobe.org/2011/05/the-status-of-women-in-world-religions/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.arches.uga.edu/~haneydaw/twwh/apartheid.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2212/context/ourdailylives

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sex segregation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/bmfsfj/generator/ADS/Tipps-fuer-Betroffene/faqs%2Cdid%3D102812.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20130308IPR06303/html/Poverty-has-a-female-face-economic-crisis-hits-women-hardest
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070629102046/http://www.helpafghanwomen.com/Global_Petition_Flyer.pdf to http://www.helpafghanwomen.com/Global_Petition_Flyer.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Making it more neutral and differentiate to gender apartheid

I have made some edits to the lead and the definition to point out that sex saparation might be the more appropriate term, or to at least epxlain the difference. Given that there is a whole separate article on gender apartheid I think we should be careful to not create overlap between the two articles. The way I see it is that sex segregation does not necessarily carry discrimination (it might or it might not), whereas the term "gender apartheid" focuses on the negative consequences for women. Is that also how others see it? Both articles would probably benefit from another review and overhaul. Comments by User:Olliemae? EMsmile (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Sex segregation vs. sex separation

The assumption underlying recent edits to the article that sex separation is a more neutral term, or more appropriate than sex segregation because the latter is tainted by association with the term racial segregation or for some other reason have no basis in fact, and are unsupported conjecture. I've removed one SYNTHy statement about this from section Definitions. See also the related discussion at Talk:Unisex public toilet. Mathglot (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not true. The lead is meant to be a summary of the article and in the article itself I explain it, together with references. In the US, the term "segregation" has a negative connotation due to the race segregation in the past. Do you disagree with that? Why are you so against this, Mathglot? Do you want me to dig up references for something that is common sense (in America)? See for example this reference here. EMsmile (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

If you look in the "history" section of unisex public toilets some scholars argued that sex segregation had similar reasons as race segregation, whereas other scholars have disputed that. Those arguing that there is a similarity purposefully chose the term sex segregation for public toilets. Therefore, it is NOT a neutral term (in the context of toilets at least). You seem to have some sort of agenda here but I don't know what it is. You keep deleting content, rather than ever adding new content? - Oh I just saw that you continued the discussion on the talk page of unisex public toilet so I suppose we better continue it there so that we don't have two parallel discussions. EMsmile (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Yes, the lead is mean to be a summary of the article. In the article you attempt to explain it by cherry-picking sources to provide undue weight to a minority opinion. Your lead change is pure WP:OR unsupported by any actual evidence, and cannot remain.

Your statement that In the US, the term "segregation" has a negative connotation due to the race segregation in the past is entirely your own unsupported opinion. It also happens to be false, as I pointed out at length in this discussion, backed with a ton of data; but it's recent and you've probably not had a chance to digest it yet.

I already know that Charlotte Observer article, and I understand the opinions given in the article. But there is absolutely nothing in that article that bears on this discussion or that supports your opinion about the use of the term "segregation" in other contexts. Obviously, "segregation" (the concept) has a negative connotation, and the opinion author writes passionately about that from their own experience of actually being there. But segregation, the term, suffers no such negative connotation and continues to be used neutrally in academia, your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

I think you are making a crucial fallacy of analysis here, involving a failure to understand the use-mention distinction. I agree with you, in the sense that I don't think you could find anybody who would deny that the concept of "segregation" has massive negative associations; of course it does, for the reasons amply described by the Charlotte author not to mention thousands of other accounts. But that has no bearing whatever on the term itself, which suffers no such negative connotations as you claim. If your assertion were correct, one wouldn't be able to find academic articles in other fields such as, Sex segregation in friendships and normative contexts across the life span or Separating equals: Educational research and the long-term consequences of sex segregation. Or do you believe that these article authors are racial bigots, or perhaps simply uninformed researchers who don't read the news or history and didn't realize that "segregated" is now a poisoned word that cannot be used in academia any longer? Of course not; that's silly; the word is used in hundreds of articles, many of them on the topic of "sex segregation" of one type or another, in education, sports, bathrooms, religious services, you name it. The term segregation is a completely neutral term in academia, that remains freely used in all sorts of academic domains, without impugning anything negative whatsoever on either the academician who wrote the paper, nor on the topic they wrote about.

You have repeatedly stated your opinion that "the term segregation has a negative connotation due to race segregation in the past" as if it were a matter of such common sense that no one could fail to understand it, nor does it require any support. But I reject your claim; it is mistaken. You've stated it in several venues: here on the Talk page and at Talk:Unisex public toilet, and in the article; and also at the other article and its Talk page. But you've given not an iota of evidence for your assertion. I've laid out the actual numbers for you at the other talk page. You confuse the negative connotations of the awful period of "segregation in the United States" with the completely neutral term segregation in your analysis. As a result of this confusion, you are drawing incorrect conclusions about the term, which you then employ to make changes to at least two articles which are against policy, because they fail WP:DUEWEIGHT or simply because they are false. Mathglot (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

EMSmile said earlier (I missed it during the ec),

You seem to have some sort of agenda here but I don't know what it is.

Whoa; red flag. But I'll pretend I didn't hear that with that tone in your voice; I'll simply answer you as if it were a neutral question. So, actually, you are right; I do have an agenda. But it isn't what you think. I don't care which term, sex segregation or sex separation (or gender __) or anything else ends up in the article. Truly I don't.

What I do care about, is that the term used by the majority of reliable sources, is the one that ends up being used. If there is substantial minority support for a second or third term, they should be mentioned as well. Fringe terms with only a tiny bit of support need not be mentioned at all. That is to say, my bias is towards Wikipedia policy and guidelines. When I disagree with a policy or guideline, I follow the policy in the articles concerned anyway, and if I feel strongly enough about it, I go open a discussion on the Policy talk page to register my thoughts about the policy. (That happens rarely; those policies got there by consensus for good reason, and usually they're very well done.)

I don't doubt your good faith for a second, but I think you've made some well-meaning changes to a couple of articles based on an incorrect understanding of what it means for a term (as opposed to a concept) to have negative connotations, and based on certain assumptions that you think of as "common sense" not requiring citations or support. Go look up the numbers. There simply isn't any support for your claim about the non-neutrality of the term in academia, based on the vast majority of sources. Mathglot (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, I see most of your points. However, I would still like to point out to the Wikipedia article readers that there could be some disagreements about the ideal (most neutral) term to use, even if it just a minority view of some scholars. Let the readers make their own conclusions from that. I agree though that I need to bring up more reliable references that make that point. I will keep my eyes open for that. - What puzzles me is that of all the people watching this page, nobody else has said anything. It would be useful to hear more opinions from others. Maybe others even have relevant references at hand. EMsmile (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Terminology

"People of gender" is a ridiculous term - doesn't everyone have a gender? No matter how many genders you believe there are, you can't say that there are people who are without gender. Even if this is occasionally used, it's confusing and meaningless.98.22.175.207 (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)