Talk:Woman

Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2023 and 15 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shantalr00 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Shantalr00 (talk) 05:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

"Woman" refers to gender or sex?

This article as it's currently written appears to be equating woman to female human, which means that it is only addressing the use of the word in relation to sex. However, according to other sources, in the last 10 years, "woman" has increasing come to refer to gender, not sex, whereas "female" still refers to sex. Bespeak (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You may wish to review the discussion at Talk:Woman/Archive_24. From my view, the introduction of the article could be revised to better reflect the contents of the article. I considered developing a proposal to edit the lead, but creating a lead per MOS:LEAD and WP:NPOV policy may be a more appropriate issue for the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard to consider, so more editors can participate. Beccaynr (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bespeak, @Beccaynr You may be interested in an ongoing discussion of the corresponding question on the Man article: Talk:Man#RfC_on_footnote_in_lede. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Please revisit this article to fit the current definition. "A woman is an adult female human." This description is exclusionary to transwomen. PalmScrost (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

This is the article that references Trans woman Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The female article makes clear that at times it does refer to gender. Crossroads ^-talk- 13:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the lead should clearly set out a brief sex–gender distinction and be as inclusive, balanced, and neutral as possible. Currently I think its heavy weighting towards discussing largely physical characteristics could be considered trans exclusionary (and exclusionary to those born as a woman but without these physical parts, like some intersex people for example). In this manner I think to avoid disputes and hostility it would be better to remove the short description. Using oversimplified definitions and not being clear, distinct, specific and precise in regards to sex and gender I think can often lead to trans exclusionary people using definitions in the form of a weapon to be hateful and exclusionary. Trying to define a woman (like trying to identify a man or a human in general) it’s not something that everyone can agree to boil down to a short and simple agreed upon definition. We as humans are more complex than this; as are the matters of sex and gender. Thus, I think the lead should reflect this in a more balanced form. Helper201 (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the introduction should be more clear that the word is used to refer to gender more than "adult female human". One of the citations is 14 years old and so not the best. Wikipedia should not be seen to be taking sides and just be balanced. AussieWikiDan (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2023

Mikrus Kot (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit request, remove the word "Typically" 
Female human cells contains two X chromosomes. 

"Typically, the cells of female humans contain two X chromosomes, while the cells of male humans have an X and a Y chromosome."

 Not done: As it stands is more accurate. --Equivamp - talk 12:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

This might throw some more light on the subject.

More Women Than Expected Are Genetically Men

Typically is quite appropriate when you have read this. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Delete a word

Womanhood is defined as the period in a human female's life after she has passed through childhood, puberty, and adolescence.

The definition you gave about"womanhood" is actually called a baby girls/girls/woman's life and not this umbrella malleable term that everyone one uses to their liking. YOLO WOLF (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, you're going to have to be more specific and clear about what you're trying to say. Theheezy (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

This article really needs a massive overhaul.

There are several severe issues with this article.

1. The main focus of the article, the social and gender roles associated with being a women, is severely under-talked about.
2. Biology takes up far too much of the article, considering the fact that sex and gender are separate things, it should not be present in this article, and should split off and made it's own article of Human female.
3. The article previously had poorly sourced definitions for the lead, which I have replaced with definitions that are well sourced and reputable.
4. The sociological aspect should be further included in the article.

I think it's very much unacceptable that a level 3 vital article is in as bad of a shape as it is, with a large portion being off topic, and the lead paragraph using outdated poorly sourced definitions, when the academic consensus has been otherwise for decades. This article needs a serious overhaul and improvement. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

There's already a trans woman as the picture and that isn't enough inclusivity for you. (Personal attack removed) that might be interfering with your perspective of the bigger picture. 70.125.40.4 (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Where is the citation for the person as the image being trans? I’d like to see it.

As for your point, I’m not sure what you are talking about with the inclusivity. A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I find this attitude towards the gender/sex distinction very frustrating. While certain segments of academia define gender different than sex, this is an oblique definition that is not generally accepted by society. There's a tendency for people to go "gender and sex are different, get over it", as if it is an already settled debate which gets us nowhere.

I'm not opposed to an inclusion of a non-naturalist definition of woman in this article, but it must actually be argued for—not accepted as a fait accompli. Istandwiththesilent 03:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Healthcare services, systems, and software generally make a distinction between sex and gender these days. They may also include other information related to gender as well, such as pronouns. They have been adapted to the sex and gender distinction because this isn't the 20th century anymore. The idea that only select corners of "academia" make a distinction between sex and gender is flatly false. Hist9600 (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Reliable academic and IO citations support the sex-gender distinction, which is what is to be cited on Wikipedia; You cannot cite “society thinks this” on Wikipedia.

Additionally, while (to my knowledge) there are no sizeable polls on the sex-gender distinction, polling shows acceptance of trans people being a different gender than the AGAB (which does neccesitate a sex-gender distinction) to be far higher than not; according to this poll, The majority of people agree, 24% are neutral, and only 24% opposing. Only excluding those who didn’t respond neutral, a supermajority (68%, over 2/3rds) support it. Not that public support isn’t redundant, as it’s not academia and public support cannot be cited, but the notion that it’s some fringe idea only held by academia is not the case. A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Most people do not accept the “assigned gender” paradigm you casually used in your comment. Your ideas are far outside the mainstream. Polls on this issue are fatally compromised by social desirability bias; respondents are unwilling to transgress the new social norms severely enforced by far left activists like you. Blocky1OOO (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Realized there is it's own article, Sex differences in humans and Sexual differentiation in humans. The biology section has no place on this article, as sex and gender are separate things, and content should be moved to their own articles. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think your edits reflect the previous agreements about what to include in this article.

Specifically, even if we stipulate that it is indisputably true that sex and gender are separate things (in some models, which are well accepted among modern Western academics, but which are not accepted in every culture, or in any culture less than a century ago), it does not follow that we cannot have both women-as-biological-organisms and also women-as-social-creatures in the same article. Wikipedia has many articles that combine related but distinct concepts in a single article (e.g., Tomato, which covers the tomato plant and the tomato fruit; Bonnie and Clyde, which covers two people). The discussions above on this page suggest that a "both/and" approach is wanted by most editors, rather than the "either/or" approach that you are advocating for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Ignoring biology in Wikipedia’s ‘Woman’ article would be beyond absurd Blocky1OOO (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no "women-as-biological-organisms", I believe you are referring to "Female", which is not woman/not synonymous with women, as per the 8 citations I provided here. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 05:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, the "both/and" approach is typical on Wikipedia, and helpful for an article like this. This article also shows a classic Wiki example of an article type I envision as "Rule and exceptions". We state what the majority of a thing has, and then go through exceptions. For example, most birds fly, but penguins are of course a notable exception. That doesn't mean that the bird article can't talk about flight, it just means the situation is clarified. Just because woman can refer to sex or gender doesn't mean we can't cover both, or that we can't deal with exceptions to the general rule. Women, like birds, are not some monolith. The challenge of the article is how to incorporate that range of diversity. I agree that this article could use considerable improvement on the sociological aspects, and encourage thought about that. But just wholesale removing most of the article is not the solution. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

About "the 8 citations": I'm seeing sources among those eight that say things like It was functional for women—more limited by pregnancy, childbirth, and nursing—to be assigned domestic roles, but I'm not seeing anything in them that says anything even vaguely like "The One True™ Definition of the Word Woman is Gender Identity, and There is No Other". For example, one of the books says "biological sex is separate and distinct from gender", but it doesn't follow that with "and you're a bad person if you use the word woman instead of female when talking about people who can get pregnant". In fact, that particular paragraph goes on to say that some "gendered" traits are biologically influenced: "and thus inseparable from biology, according to many scholars". (That book also mentions "biological gender" on page 155.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

First of all, it's not really "rule and exceptions", as exceptions define the rule. Next, we can state that the majority of women are AFAB, but content that belongs on the page for female should not be present on this article, as it's not relevant to women, but rather the female sex. And it especially shouldn't make up the majority of the article, when it belongs in it's own article.

Next, woman can't and doesn't refer to sex and or gender. It refers to gender. The sex typically associated with the gender of woman is female, and is not synonymous.

And with removing of most of the article, the content should be moved to it's own article, and we should remove the majority of the article if that majority of the article isn't relevant. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

There's certainly been some discussion about creating a split article, but its never gotten consensus because it presents a number of practical and sourcing challenges. The concern is that a split would just become a WP:POVFORK. As you'll see, I also undid your lead edit, as the current version reflects consensus, and is in line with the definition at Man, which has also been extensively discussed. The point is that the underlying definition is correct: a woman is an adult female human, and female may refer to sex or gender. Thus the article addresses both. While I agree that the article may focus more heavily on biology, the solution is to fill out the rest of the article, not cut down the other parts. This page is quite small as far as pages usually go, only 32 kb of prose. We could easily push that to 60 or 70 and still be fine. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

See WP:CCC and WP:WHATISCONSENSUS § Not permanent. If you or another edit have a disagreement with my specific reasons/sourcing in this instance, then it is under dispute, however previous consensus cannot be differed to. Additionally, you can't merely dismiss it through saying "The point is that the underlying definition is correct", when I provided 8 reliable sources saying otherwise. Additionally, female does not, and can not refer to gender. Female is one side of the bimodal distribution of humans known as sex. Woman is a person who identifies with the social roles and characteristics typically associated with the female sex. They are not the same thing. And disagreeing with that goes against the academic consensus, and for it to be valid to implement in an article, you have to a) explain why the 8 sources I provided are incorrect, and or b) Provide a modern/recent source more reputable on the subject than the World Health Organization and the Office of Research on Women's Health, which says otherwise. Previous consensus cannot be differed to, but rather discussion of the specific points, reasoning, and justifications which I have provided. There is no current consensus, as as per WP:CONSENSUS; "Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Which has not happened yet, as the specific reasons and justifications I have provided have not been addressed. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, the two topics of the female sex and the gender of woman should absolutely not be merged into a single article, doing so makes no sense, as they are separate topics entirely, and not even in the same field (one is biology one is sociology), and merging them into the same article not only makes no sense, but also causes confusion for the reader, and why should two unrelated topic be on the same article? Additionally, with the size of the article, we should remove the irrelevant biology section and put it in another article, but also greatly expand the relevant aspects of this article. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, with the byte size, we shouldn't try to inflate the byte size if doing so makes the article worse.

Additionally, with your analogy of talking about flight on the article for birds, yes, flight can be talked about, however, it is limited to

"Most birds can fly, which distinguishes them from almost all other vertebrate classes. Flight is the primary means of locomotion for most bird species and is used for searching for food and for escaping from predators. Birds have various adaptations for flight, including a lightweight skeleton, two large flight muscles, the pectoralis (which accounts for 15% of the total mass of the bird) and the supracoracoideus, as well as a modified forelimb (wing) that serves as an aerofoil.[75]

Wing shape and size generally determine a bird's flight style and performance; many birds combine powered, flapping flight with less energy-intensive soaring flight. About 60 extant bird species are flightless, as were many extinct birds.[138] Flightlessness often arises in birds on isolated islands, most likely due to limited resources and the absence of mammalian land predators.[139] Flightlessness is almost exclusively correlated with gigantism due to an island's inherent condition of isolation.[140] Although flightless, penguins use similar musculature and movements to "fly" through the water, as do some flight-capable birds such as auks, shearwaters and dippers."

However, what is present in this article, can be equated to the bird article being 4/6ths about flight in Archaeopteryx, not to simply mentioning it, and allowing someone to click the blue link if they want to learn more, and not merging it into the same article. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Without a 'foundation' in the sex of the person the word Woman ceases to have any real meaning unless there are some other criteria. There may (will) be exceptions but, as said elsewhere, it is the core definition of a woman that gives the exceptions context and meaning - which is why there is so much extended discussion about it.

I think helper1 was correct (above) with their reference to Sex–gender distinction

A woman cannot, in gender terms, be defined by sex BUT the other extreme is The European Institute for Gender Equality definition of a woman as a "Female human being; a person assigned a female sex at birth, or a person who defines herself as a woman".

If we accept that then the word 'Woman' ceases to have any meaning and It would be quite a short article as the EIGE definition above is all we need say - with the possible addition of "you would need to ask each individual"

There must be more criteria than self definition and that is the nub of this. We need to develop what characteristics or criteria a person must meet in order for others to reliably identify them as a 'woman'. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

BTW I think we have had a pretty good go at that with what we already have. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Words can have multiple meanings. Force doesn't cease to have any meaning just because there are many other things that are also called by that name. The word woman can also be understood to refer to a biological situation, or to a gender identity, or to a social role, or to any number of other things without that word ceasing to have meaning. The both/and approach that you describe as "the other extreme" is the approach that this article has taken for years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

That is true - but all revolve around the 'core' meaning of what we understand by force.... "strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power"

That's what we need. A 'core' meaning.

There are lots of types and uses of words like trees, trunks, branches, roots etc. but they all need the fundamental concept of a 'tree' to give them meaning.

That we have been doing something for years is often a good sign.

I can't really conceive of another meaningful way of doing it, which may be my lack of understanding or imagination.

Can you lay out how you would , if it were just for you to do, see the Lead?

Or is the article itself so insufficient no Lead would work with it as it is now. If so what would be some heads of change?

I appreciate the constructive replys so thanks for taking the time. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I sometimes think that what appeals to some editors about the first sentence ("A woman is an adult female human") is that it is ambiguous. Someone who understands female to refer strictly to biology, and who believes that trans women aren't "real" women, can read this and be satisfied because "Wikipedia supports my POV". And someone who understands female as referring to non-biological situations (e.g., the 19th century politician who told Parliament that bonnet making was particularly "suitable for females", and the 19th-century education report trying to determine whether the public schools were managing to teach girls enough skills that they could produce "clothing suitable for females of the humbler classes") can read the same sentence and be satisfied because "Wikipedia includes my POV". The objections come from people who both believe that female is exclusively biological, and also believe that this article should be exclusively non-biological.

I think it would be cleaner to own the approach taken in this article, which would mean that we state that the word woman is used in multiple ways, and all of them are covered here. Some of the government agencies that were named things like "Office of Women's Health" back when the sex–gender distinction was barely known outside of the then-rare Queer studies university program now describe their remit as "all women and all people assigned female at birth". We are basically taking the same approach, but we have been reluctant to admit it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and quietly excluding mainstream usage of woman as applying to both cis women and trans women, is not following WP:DUE. There should be room to accommodate modern usage in a way that includes cis and trans people, rather than weirdly and silently adopting a narrow and largely trans-exclusionary stance. Hist9600 (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources that may help expand this article are discussed at Talk:Woman/Archive_24#WP:NPOV_and_MOS:LEAD, which also includes some discussion of the lead. Beccaynr (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Trans women are in this article, including in the lead. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

It's pretty much whatever 'one' wants it to be then? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Obviously it's the article - not the Lead - we need to worry about (as has been said elsewhere) as that must follow the article.

Our article Transgender covers Transgender#:~:text=Transgender identity is generally found,<0.1% to 0.6%.

So we need to account for the other 99.4%-99.9% of people who might fall into that category of people we call women?

How do we split that other group up AND define how they fall into the larger set of 'Woman"?

This is the heavy lifting of any rewrite. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by this, can you explain? Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean that: The Lead follows the article so if there is a rewrite to do there is no point in looking at the Lead yet. There are editors calling for a much 'wider' article - suggesting it is to narrow, I'm saying that the article needs to say what are the characteristics that would allow the inclusion of an individual in the set of human beings we use the term women to describe. If we don't have that the term becomes meaningless. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 06:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Said characteristic is just "Identifies with the social roles and characteristics typically associated with the female sex". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk • contribs) 06:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Words often have multiple meanings, or a semantic range, and are not rigidly tied to one single characteristic. That is normal. That is how language works. Merriam Webster has one definition of woman as an "adult female person." But one definition of female is, "having a gender identity that is the opposite of male." These are not difficult concepts, and language evolves over time. Hist9600 (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes I'm happy with the multiple meaning thing - which isn't a difficult concept.

I'm not happy with a definition that relies on something being the opposite of something else. For me that a difficult concept. We are more positive and direct elsewhere when we say that Trans women have a female gender identity. That's how we know what a Trans Woman is. Positive is the way to go surely?

In any event, were we looking for an opposite to define something (I hope we don't go down that rabbit hole), surely Male would be the opposite of Female and Man would be the opposite of Woman.

Have a read of the discussion at Male, Female and Man and you will find this discussion replicated there. The article won't have the essential firm foundation if we fudge the whole thing by piling one fudge upon another.

Talking around the issue isn't going to cut it.

At the moment we have Woman as principally a sex based definition. We also have acknowledged an additional meaning which is Trans Women.There may be arguments (see some editors above) to say this should not be here or be dealt with simply by linking to that article but as I said above, although a tiny minority, the current reliable sources justify inclusion here.

So far so good.?

The next step seems to me to decide if re there any other 'meanings' that we need to acknowledge?

Any offers on that.

After that we could discuss any changes to structure and content - but let's sort out what we are actually talking about first. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The sex based definition is contraricted by the 8 reliable academic and IO sources which I cited, and are at the bottom of this talk page section, and includes the World Health Organization, which is the most reputable medical source, and multiple other sources which are far more reputable/reliable/verifiable than the current sources proven. Additionally, dictionary definitions are not really usable here part in due to the VERIFIABILITY of Wikipedia, as if Dictionary A says X, and Dictionary B says Y, then there’s no real solution if using dictionaries, but if Academic Sources and the Most Reputable IO on the topic say that Dictionary A’s definition is incorrect and outdated, and the definition is really [definition], then applying using Wikipedia’s source/reference/citation polices and guidelines says we should use the definition of reliable Academic sources and the IO that’s the most reputable source on the topic. Additionally, the citations in the article for the definition of “adult human female” are dictionaries, and not academic or IO. In short, the World Health Organization and Acadamia is more reliable than “(2009) Mosby's Pocket Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing & Health Professions”.A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, as per WP:CONFLICTING, we should prefer newer sources, i.e not one from 14 years ago. A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 04:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that.

You have described the method we use - which is reliable sources - but not the results you think they produce. That, in the broadest terms, is what we need now before moving on.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not simply seeking a dictionary definition here. I am trying to assess the parameters or scope of the subject of this article so we can do with it what our own article on encyclopaedia says an encyclopaedia should.

"In addition to defining and listing synonymous terms for the topic, the article is able to treat the topic's more extensive meaning in more depth and convey the most relevant accumulated knowledge on that subject". Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

A good example of trying to achieve this in another (totally different) area can be found on Talk:COVID-19 lockdowns Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, I just believe that we should a) fix the definition, b) move the part of the article about sex to it's own article and c) massively expand the sociology and social part of the article, as that's what the article is about. A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems we completely agree that we need to deal with the definition first.

That will inform us when we look at the article itself.

What's your view on what the definition should be (please note my comments above re definition). Lukewarmbeer (talk) 06:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd go with the definition that "A woman is an adult human who identifies with the social roles and characteristics typically associated with the female sex.". Though, it absolutely should not be a sex based definitions, for the previously specified reason(s), as well as the many reliable sources saying so. A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Please feel free to start an RFC if you are so inclined. Just note that POVPushers on both sides have been TBanned regarding this topic, e.g., User:CycoMa, and User:Newimpartial. The next RFC *will* get bloody if opened in bad faith. Theheezy (talk) 08:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we have got close to being ready for an RfC yet have we? If we get down to two or three definitions then yes.

To address your point User:A Socialist Trans Girl I think womanly and feminine work together and so I see where you are coming from with that.... but you still have the word sex in there and if it 'should absolutely not be sex baed' then that word should go.

My problem with this is that these terms will be self referring. A woman is a female and a female is a woman. We have to say what at least one (but surely both) are.

Many (very many) women wouldn't be at all happy with "who identifies with the social roles and characteristics typically associated with the female sex".

The 'definition' we have still works for me.

We could RfC on the existing and your definition if you feel that you have pretty much nailed it - but I'm not sure you have. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I should be more cool headed in long protracted debates. Theheezy (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Well with the sex based, the definition stated isn't necessarily a sex based one, as it's identified with the social roles and characteristics typically associated with the female sex, and not necessarily synonymous with one's sex, though I have some alternative definitions: "A woman is an adult feminine identifying person." and "A woman is an adult which identifies as a woman.". The circular definition here is not an issue, as definitions can be circular, and for example, there is no way to define what it means for a person to be "cool" without using synonyms for cool, so the circularity of the definition is not an issue. I think the most important thing though is to not use the definition of "Adult human female", as female and woman are not the same concept. And as such, the terms should not be conflated. I'd say that "Adult who identifies as a woman" is correct, though "Adult who identifies with the social roles and characteristics typically associated with the female sex" is quite a bit better than the former, as it narrows down specifically what it refers to; that being; social roles and characteristics; which; are typically associated with the female sex. The latter definition is less ambiguous, and communicates what exactly is being referred to, communicating the typical association with the female sex, and communicates that it is a category of social roles and characteristics, and additionally with you saying that many women wouldn't be happy with the definition that "[my definition]", however, the definition does not communicate nor imply that the social roles and characteristics must be followed or abided by, merely that one identifies with the social roles and characteristics typically associated with the female sex, with the social roles and characteristics typically associated with the female sex being the gender of girl/woman, and while some woman may not be happy with such definition, such is irrelevant, as some people will always be unhappy with any definition of woman, but what is about this definition is that no woman are excluded by the definition.

As for the RfC, I don't think we should do an RfC, not yet at least. I think we're on a good track at the moment, and an RfC is not needed. A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I've added an archive link at the top banner of round in circles as to why I think the the current definition is scientifically accurate. Please take a look. I explained this to MGA73, so I will requote my explanation:

So I think there is a bit of a balancing act between absolute correctness and understandability for a reader. From what I understand, there is actually quite a bit of jargon here that is subtly hidden. This is what I understand from what I've read, however maybe I am not fully correct and more experienced editors can correct me. Sex, female, and male are highly specific technical terms in Evolutionary Biology. You can read a bit more about this under anisogamy. First, we have to read sex as a model of reality, just like for example Physics. Thus, male and female are reproductive functions, not designations of organisms. However, the map is not the territory. Where "male human" or "female human" gets into it is in the process of sexing where it is determined through some criteria whether this organism has the reproductive function of a male or female. So again, male human, or female human means an organism that was sexed to have male reproductive function, or female reproductive function respectively. These criteria may not be always correct, however for most intents and purposes they work. The take away being, that the current verbiage is not incorrect. They're simply very subtle to grasp the full scope of. Now should we intersperse this highly technical information on the page for Woman? Again this feels like we should respect WP:Due and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. From what I understand typically WP:RS do conflate these highly technical terms, but the understanding conferred to the typical reader by conflating them is more beneficial than the alternative. I think that when the WP:RS start moving is when we will see a better alternative to the current wording.

Ultimately, the word woman used on this page means something completely different (I think) than the word woman on the page of Trans woman. I think trying to go against this editorial consensus that has been established and kept for many years is like trying to fool nature. No matter what the business, law, humanities, or sociology majors may tell you, Nature Cannot Be Fooled. Theheezy (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Theheezy Thank you for the ping. I still think this is hard to understand. Perhaps because in Danish there are no seperate words for sex and gender. There is only one word (sex=køn). So the Sex–gender distinction makes no sense for me. --MGA73 (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

FYI, Gender and Sex refers to different things, gender refers to the social roles and characteristics which are typically associated with sex, and is administered by sociology, sex refers to a bimodal classification of organisms based on physical characteristics, and is administered by biology. Hope this helps! A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that is *one* definition of sex, which I would call sex expression. That is to say how sex expresses itself in biological organisms. Typically, without any additional qualifiers, the more common usage of sex is of a Trait from evolutionary biology. Again there is more subtle jargon here which is a topic of research among evolutionary biologists today. See, e.g., Systematics. I'll be stepping away from this discussion as to avoid any behavior tendencies of WP:OWN. Theheezy (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It makes absolutely no sense for woman on this page and woman on Trans woman to be referring to different concepts, and just appears to be a POVFORK attempt. There is no two different concepts both called woman, there is merely a disagreement over what the one concept encompasses. Additionally, sex and "nature" are irrelevant and humanities and sociology are the most important, as woman is a gender, and gender is part of humanities and sociology, and gender studies is one of the major fields of sociology. I'm not sure what the point of discussing sex and "nature" here is, as we're discussing gender, not sex. It just appears that the page of Trans woman just got what woman refers to more correct than this article, to which I'm attempting to fix. A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

> I'm not sure what the point of discussing sex and "nature" here is, as we're discussing gender, not sex.

I don't think that's true. I think this article covers gender and sex. You seem to want it to cover gender only, but I don't see much support for that view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why we should have 2 separate topics on which are part of 2 different subjects in the same article, and it makes complete sense to have one article of the social role and characteristics, and another article for the biological category, no? Separating them into separate article also improves readability, as someone wanting to read about the gender of woman wouldn't have to skip off topic sections of the article. Reminder, support in number of people is irrelevant to Wikipedia discussions. A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Support in number of people can be relevant, especially whenever the count is approximately one editor versus everyone else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

An argument is not weakened by how many people agree with it, it’s about the ability to make a justification and provide reasoning for things. Wikipedia consensus involves a legitimate effort to incorporate/address all editors legitimate concerns. Additionally, this discussion is not a binary partisan discussion, it involves many different viewpoints. One of the reasons why sock puppets for the purpose of agreeing with yourself in a wikipedia dispute make no sense, because it’s about the ability to communicate reasoning and provide justifications for why something should be, which having 2 accounts doing so doesn’t do so anymore than with one. A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we have a sock puppet here? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

nope, just using the concept of sock puppets to explain it. A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Right. More generally regarding the above: Not only does this article cover both, but so does the definition. The other definition(s) offered, by contrast, have little or no support in reliable sources as definitions of this topic. It does not follow from sources about the sex and gender distinction that the current definition is bad. The current definition is not only strongly supported by very reliable sources; it is also not solely dependent on the exact ones cited, which were chosen out of alternatives merely as examples and because they were easy to access. Also, minor point regarding CycoMa mentioned above - that topic ban is on 'medical topics', not gender-related ones. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The notion that sex and gender are separate concepts is an almost unanimously accepted fact within reputable academia, and I doubt that whatever supposedly reliable up to date sources are more reliable and take priority over the World Health Organization. Additionally, when choosing from multiple options of citations, citations should be of the most reliable source(s), not the most easy to access. A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 05:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I think I agree but I am getting lost in this now.

Are you saying leave as it is? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I've refactored this for readability. Please remember that once replies stretch on too long, it becomes legit impossible to read on mobile, so make sure to occasionally restart the indentation and use Template:od. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

More heat than light here

Additionally, with the birds and flight analogy you pointed out, yeah, the page for birds should include flight, but to the extent of saying that some birds fly, and some don't, and should not talk about flight in general, and the evolution of dragonfly flight. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC) please take the time to read the top of the page before speaking your mind. If you have any questions, I’d be happy to explain. Theheezy (talk) 06:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC) Done. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict) Your bold edits are welcome here, just as they were at Sex assignment. But there are also numerous other editors who have an interest in this article, many who still watch, and there's a long history behind it with the contributions of eighteen hundred unique editors; and that's not counting the very significant amount of discussion on the Talk page. I'd recommend starting out by reading some of the 24 Talk archive pages, especially the more recent ones, to get a feeling for what's been discussed here before, and how that's gone. Which isn't to say that things must stay the way they are now or that there is no room for improvement, only that there is quite a bit of history among many hundreds of editors at this article, and your comments will be better informed and probably be better received if you become familiar with some of that history. It may also explain why making an edit which cuts 30% of the article on your first day here meets with resistance, but hopefully your concerns can be addressed with collegial discussion. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC) I've read the one of conversation of woman at archive 16. I'll look at some other archive discussions. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 07:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC) Perhaps you should also learn to not flash your cash, noob. Theheezy (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC) Hello Theheezy. The user has been here since early November 2021 so not really a nooby. Maybe striking your comment or at least that part of it (noob) may be civil, thanks. I'm not getting what you mean by "flash your cash", so confusing as well unless it has a particular Wikipedia meaning (there are so many wikiwords it's hard to keep up with the newest). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC) Yep, ofcourse. Let me figure out how :). Theheezy (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC) Please see WP:NPA. Further violations of WP:NPA will result in a report to Administrator Noticeboard. Cheers. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC) Yep. It happens too often and it's never good. Let's keep it all positive and assume good faith. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

To add to what WhatamIdoing and CaptainEek said, just because sex and gender are distinct concepts doesn't mean they are totally disconnected or unrelated. Per the total sum of reliable sources, female biology is highly relevant to the topic of "woman" overall; or to put it another way, very many sources exist that are on the topic of "woman" and that discuss female biology in some form or other. To divide that off would be POV and out of line with how sources actually treat this topic. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Although woman and female are related and connected, it doesn't make sense for the majority of the article to be about a related concept and not the concept itself. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You are spot on here. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Could you explain a bit as to how this article is about female instead of Woman? Theheezy (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The Biology and Health sections of the article make up a lot of it. A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

With good reason, at least, I hope you think so. We can revisit this with actual proposed changes and references in accordance with Wikipedia policy, if you’d like. Theheezy (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, are we not already discussing proposed changes with references? A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Please start an RFC if you'd like to continue this discussion further. Theheezy (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

If the goal is to end up with two articles:

• a gender-only article called Woman, and
• a sex-only article, perhaps called Assigned female at birth or Female human

then Wikipedia:Proposed article splits is probably the more relevant process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, an article split is needed and should be proposed. A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I can emphasize from experience that such a proposal is very likely to fail, however, because that article would be a WP:POVFORK. Regarding the above more generally, women-as-gender and women-as-sex are not separate groups of people, they are in the vast majority of cases the exact same people, and most importantly, sources do not divide the topic in this way. There are many sources about women which discuss both gender and biology (namely, women's health), and even the ones only about one or the other are both about 'women'. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed Lukewarmbeer (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually we have Trans woman as an article. Best left there then. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how having two articles, one covering biology, and another article covering sociology, would be a POVFORK. Additionally, a very significant number of people fall into the category of woman, but not female, and negligence of that fact is unencyclopedic. Furthermore, within academia, woman and female are mostly discussed separately, due to the fact that sociology and biology are completely different fields. Additionally, misuse of the term woman to be synonymous with woman (a practice which has fallen out of fashion in recent years), does not mean they are the same concept. Furthermore, it appears you are neglecting the MANY sources which discuss woman in sociology, and female in biology; separately. Additionally, it should be noted that Women's Health encompasses mental health, which is affected by societal roles and such. A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

To split them (or to merge them) is to express a POV on whether biology and behavior are intertwined.

BTW, this textbook:

Hornstein, Theresa; Schwerin, Jeri Lynn (2012-01-01). Biology of Women. Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-1-285-40102-7.

might be handy for the sex-related content. It is entirely about biology, barely mentions gender or trans people at all, and calls its subject area women. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Correct me if I’m mistaken, but are you saying that it’s a POV expression to say that social roles and charectaristics of gender are biological? If so, that is not at all the case, as gender roles have been different in different places and different time periods, for example, having long hair, wearing jewlery, the colours light blue and pink, fedoras, the associated gender of all of these have been different in different points in time and in different places, and is absolutely not biological changes/differences that lead to the different associated gender, but rather, social ones; This is an empirical fact, and not a POV/NPOV violation. A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Crossroads Precisely. If we are to change this article in a way that focuses on the non-biological definition of woman, then many other articles, such as the one you mentioned about women's health, would have to be changed as well. "Female human's health" would have to be the new article name. That is simply not a good solution. Though my opinion weighs little, I think it is best to keep this article as it is now. Dopeliciouss (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Minor mods maybe but the more I read here the more I think the fundamental basis of this article is sound. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

That is not the case. Women’s Health includes mental health, (a major part of it which is also massively affected by social things), and includes trans women. There is no reason at all to rename Women’s Health. A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Changing picture

Hello, I was directed here after being reverted at the main article. I would like to propose that the lead image in the article be changed to be more inclusive of all women. I believe that this image would fulfill this purpose:

Mistyjee (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Please. No. 68.82.212.246 (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

No, That is a person with XY Chromosomes. Anglo01 (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)