Jump to content

Talk:Clitoris

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.142.82.29 (talk) at 17:24, 2 January 2008 (→‎Reasons for changes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:ACIDnom

Archive
Archives


Purpose

It is odd that this page does not tell the purpose of the clitoris. Is there any purpose other than sexual pleasure? We should point out that the clitoris seems to be the only part in any animal's body that is existent ONLY for sexual pleasure! silic0nsilence 00:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to say that a body part has a purpose. In order for something to have a purpose it must be designed for a reason. The human body wasn't designed, it merely evolved into an evolutionary niche. Since it wasn't designed none of the body parts have a purpose. We can comment about why body parts are useful; such as the fingers are useful for picking things up, and the clitoris is useful for sexual pleasure. However I find it incredibly strange that we suggest that this is the same thing as a purpose for their existence. Calling it a purpose suggests we can easily modify the human design should we no longer have a purpose for the body part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.20.244 (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that "in order for something to have a purpose it must be designed for a reason"...mainly because although the human body evolved over time, I don't believe that anyone can argue that the purpose of the sexual reproductive system is to reproduce, no matter its pleasure aspect when engaging in sexual intercourse or other sexual acts, and therefore I would even state that "it was designed" for that reason. And given the advancement of science, the possibility of modifying the human design is becoming more and more of a reality, such as with genetic engineering. That said, I don't believe that everything necessarily has a purpose, of course... Such as what is the greater purpose of human beings anyway? Are we here to invent things and such...or are we here just because (as is everything else)? Then again, we don't necessarily need tonsils, but even that has a purpose while in the body. Flyer22 19:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Embryos contain rudiments of both genders for later differentiation

In response to the above question of the reason for existence of the clitoris:
One might also ask why males have nipples. The following answer to both questions is not OR, it's a recollection of what one of my college professors said, tangential to a different topic. Perhaps someone interested in this article (I'm not) would care to research and find valid sources for this. It went like this: Developing embryos are essentially female. They have nipples, clitoris, vaginal opening, labia, the forerunners of ovaries. If the male chromosome is present, then at some appropriate stage of development, the androgens kick in. The clitoris enlarges, subsuming the urethra, to become the penis. The labia grow in size and grow together, closing the former vaginal opening, and forming the scrotum. The ovaries descend to the scrotum and become the testes. The nipples are already there; they can't disappear, but in the male, they just don't develop so much in size, and of course, in lactation glands. So, the clitoris is there in case it needs to become a penis. I've always liked this explanation, because it explains not only why the clitoris is there (That's easy - in most mammals, it's the estrus of the female that is the prelude to sex, not the desire of the male, so there's a location for physical drive comparable to the demands of the penis on the human male), but the even more puzzling question of why males have these useless nipples, whose only function seems to be getting chafed from one's surfboard or jogging singlet. Can anyone source this idea? Unimaginative Username 07:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Check out Anti-müllerian hormone. --slakr\ talk / 07:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the clitoris serves more of a purpose than male nipples, if comparing the two, of course. Most women need the clitoris to sexually orgasm. Men? Can do that just fine without nipples. Anyway, this topic about the clitoris is always interesting wherever it is discussed. Flyer22 07:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, from the above comment by Unimaginative Username and having heard this theory before it was mentioned here, I wondered about this edit, which removed a passage basically pointing to the very same thing, as seen with this link...[1]. The editor who removed it, well, found it a ridiculous theory. The passage was uncited, though, so that probably prompted the removal of it more so. Flyer22 07:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: The edit that Flyer22 points to: The removed passage was poorly worded. It was a non-sequitur; "vestigial" doesn't apply; "normal" intercourse -- what is that?; and "left over from the penis" doesn't say it well - it's more a forerunner or precursor of the penis that doesn't develop. slakr\ talk /'s link supports the idea: If the AMH is present, as in males, the organs cease their female-directed development and take the male direction. Certainly, the idea that all men were originally females (even as a 6-week fetus) might make some men uncomfortable, but science is here to discover reality, not to please people's egos. Strongly encourage an interested editor to pursue this, source this statement, and place it in the article, as it explains a *lot*. This editor, however, has sufficient knowledge of this topic from OR, so doesn't wish to get involved in the article. Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that removed passage was poorly worded. I'd like to see a better-worded and sourced passage about this topic added to this article as well. Flyer22 (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This site doesn't seem fully functional any more, but perhaps it's a start:

7th week: " Genital ridges are ambisexual gonads."

8th week: "External genitalia still not distinguishable as male or female. If male hormones are present, the ambisexual gonad will now begin to differentiate into a testis."

10th week: "External genitalia are still not distinguishable as male or female."

Came up from Google search of 'embryo+development', and get past the expectant-mother sites to the medical ones. Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gender

Is it just me, or is it really really strange to not even mention in the article that the clitoris is part of the female genitalia? Powers T 19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Check Labia minora and Labia majora. Joie de Vivre talk 20:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's strange there, too. Though I do note they both have the Template:Female reproductive system navbox at the bottom, I hardly think that's sufficient for explaining the topics. Powers T 21:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned? Some people might consider it common knowledge, but it varies from person to person what one knows. Erm.. yea there is a point in there.. Does anyone have any reason NOT to add that the clitoris is part of the female genitalia? --BiT 23:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ask Joie. Powers T 01:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not appreciate you using a diff of my edits in an effort to make a statement about my actions. That is a form of a personal comment and goes against the spirit of WP:NPA. Please consider your motives in the future. Joie de Vivre talk 06:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was making no statement about your actions; I linked the diff simply in lieu of quoting your edit summary. There was no other motive. Please consider your words in the future. Powers T 15:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate that you do not recognize any rudeness in your action. Joie de Vivre T 15:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it's unfortunate that your words appear so condescending, and that you seem to have failed to assume good faith on my part. Let us revel in our misfortune together! =) Powers T 15:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better if in the future you refrained from linking other people's action and using that as a substitute for allowing them to speak for themselves. Someone posed a question as to the reason behind an action. You posted an edit summary of mine which explained that action, with only the words "Ask Joie". Now you are being sarcastic. I cannot spend any more time explaining it but I urge you to examine your actions and compare them to the concepts set forth in WP:NPA and WP:TPG. Providing my edit summary as an answer to someone else's question is rude. Joie de Vivre T 15:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm apologize that I came off as rude. I assure you my intentions were benign. I didn't know the answer to BiT's question, so I referred BiT to your edit summary, which explained it as well as anything else I'd seen to date. That's all. You seem like a nice person; I hope we can leave this misunderstanding behind us. Powers T 20:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That said, there is a difference between referring to something as biologically female and referring to it in terms of a female gender role. It is appropriate to talk about the clitoris as part of the "female body" but not as belonging to "females" or anything related. People may have female bodies but not identify as "a female" or as one of a group of "females". It is an appropriate descriptor for the body itself, but not as a sweeping statement about the people who inhabit female bodies. See transgender and intersex. Joie de Vivre talk 06:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we're talking about' the body. To say something is a female body part is not saying all females possess it or that no non-females possess it. Powers T 15:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, most importantly, to fail to mention entirely that the clitoris (or vulva or whatever) is part of the female reproductive system is a gigantic disservice to readers of this encyclopedia. Powers T 15:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is appropriate to make mention of the biological sex being female, but it is not appropriate to refer to all people with clitorises as gendered "women". I have made a mention of the fact that the clitoris is present in female organisms. Joie de Vivre T 15:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you'll recall, my original edit added the word "female", not "women". I still don't see what was wrong with it. Powers T 15:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You were able to provide a diff of my edit, why not of the one you speak of now? I don't know which "original edit" you mean. Joie de Vivre T 15:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I originally stumbled into editing this article when I noticed the lead never really explained that the clitoris was part of the female reproductive system. So I put it in. You reverted it, and that's what started this whole thing. Now, it seems your objection is to the word "woman" not "female," so perhaps you can see why I'm confused. Powers T 20:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expert wanted: Clitorises of the animal kingdom

...thank you, Wikipedia, for giving me the chance to type out a subject line like that one :(

Right, in light of the above discussion on gender, the page intro now says that the clitoris "is a sexual organ which is present in biologically female organisms" with features similar "throughout the animal kingdom with the only known exception of the Spotted Hyena". This can't be accurate: I'm pretty sure female fruitflies and octopuses don't have clits, nor fish. I don't know to what parts of the animal kingdom it applies to, though. Is it present in all mammals? What about marsupials?

If the article is going to cover non-human clitorises at all, this needs to be cleared up and expanded on by somone with more knowledge, and it might be good to give it a section of it's own similar to the way done on the Penis page. Since it's not related to human sexology or anatomy, where can we find somone with knowledge of animal biology? Is it ok to tie it to a project like WP:TOL when the page as a whole wouldn't fit in that projet? // Amphis 22:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dont female lemurs have unusual clitorises?

Photo not needed

I removed the photo needed tag, because there seems to be sufficient photographs and diagrams. Zakolantern 05:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need more photos as there are somany people who will not understand what is it and how does it looks like. We need to have close ups of Clitoris of different age group. We should also need photos of all the animal clitorises. I feel this is an encyclopedia and it should cover maximum with full detail. User: antern

There is some serious vandalism in this page. 67.177.31.30 15:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


in reply: i think there will still always be many people who don't know what it is, even with a thousand more photos. :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.141.182 (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the photo was educational. Diagrams look like diagrams and not like real life. The only reason I could see for not having a photos is if people are so uncomfortable with certain parts of the human anatomy that they just can't handle it. Even then, the article's primary purpose should be to inform. A photo should be placed back in the article. --64.142.82.29 (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... in fact, this is the first I noticed the photo had been removed!! Is there a discussion somewhere about its removal? Anchoress (talk) 06:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

Why does this article not mention the role of the organ in sexual pleasure in the introduction? With most of the science and literature supporting the idea of the clitoris as the physical epicenter of pleasure for most women (around 70% if my memory serves me), this is a big part of an encyclopedic discussion of the subject and it should be in the summary. VanTucky (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Biologically Female Mammal"

Seems awfully redundant. Unless you are specifying that something is referring to a "gender role", the word female is always taken to mean the biological gender. Clicking the wikilink to female that is already there provides you with a great definition. Common use and the actual biological term both apply to the body only. If that wasn't enough, then the fact that it is describing mammals, which as far as I know are not ascribed "gender roles". If it said "humans" instead of mammals or "women" instead of female, then I'd understand the reasoning. The word "biological" should really be removed.

This usage of the word cannot possibly be mistaken for a non-biological use and makes the sentence not only redundant. An animal that _is_ a female and an animal that _identifies itself as_ a female are very different things. 71.120.201.39 20:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biological Reason

This seems an odd way to put it. Surely it's a little bit creationist to suppose that it 'has a reason' - can't we say that it may be a vestigial organ, but it also happens to serve the purpose of increasing reproductive rates? I don't want to step on any toes here, I'm just not sure about the word 'reason'. 144.32.59.212 22:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with the heading Biological reason. I don't feel that it's that creationist to suppose that the clitoris has a reason, when taken into account the fact that most body parts of humans, as well as other mammals, insects, etc. have a biological reason. And, after all, most women cannot orgasm without use of the clitoris. But that section also addresses the notion that the clitoris may not necessarily have a biological reason. Flyer22 23:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just a few moments ago, it did note on the topic of not necessarily having a biological reason, but an editor removed that due to the main theory it centered around, which the editor cited as ridiculous. I'll add more to that section later, valid and non-ridiculous additions, of course. Flyer22 00:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's interesting to discuss or not doesn't really matter, though, since a Wiki article should follow the WP:NOR policy. If you have verifiable external sources that you can reference for this debate, put the section back. Currently, the entire section is unreferenced and have asked for cites for a while, so I'm removing it for now. //Amphis 10:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, I know that Wikipedia articles should not be about original research. I'll probably add that section back one day, with valid sources. I do wish that the person who originally typed up that section had added references to it, of course. I'm certain that there are some valid ones out there about what is thought of as the clitoris' biological reason. Flyer22 11:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What organisms have it?

Do monotremes have one? Andjam (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know fruit flies ain't got one. 01:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.109.196 (talk)

Reasons for changes

Gillyweed reverted an edit that I made recently, with the comment, "Much of this is selfevident". Here are the reasons for the changes, in the order they appear:

  • changed a few instances of "woman" to "female". See genderqueer and transgender; not all people who have a clitoris are women.
  • Can it be proven that all persons with a clitoris distinguish between different kinds of orgasms. replace with "may"
  • It's not "self-evident" that cosmetic surgery on intersex infants is unnecessary, or it wouldn't be happening anymore.
  • Not all transwomen undergo SRS.
  • The "can never replicate" comment, what does "replicate" even mean? According to whom? Certainly some people find that it "replicates" a naturally occurring clitoris perfectly well.

-- Photouploaded (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This gives undue weight to a minority position and makes the article look ridiculous. Take a look at WP:Undue. The article adequately deals with transgender issues without making every change from 'woman' to 'people' or 'female'. Changing women to "some people" suggests it includes men. Men DO NOT have clitorises. As for the "never can replicate" comment it had a fact tag against it, waiting for at least some confirmation. I'd have thought that was clearly self-evident from a physiological point of view. From a psychological view it might be different. Gillyweed (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, hi, thanks for coming to talk. Let's see.
About "people": I don't think that the word "people" means "women and men"; I think it just means "people", the gender of the group's members is not determined. If you saw a group of people 100 meters away, and you could not see whether they were men, women, or both, you could reasonably say, "I see some people over there." To say that "people" necessarily includes two genders is not true; it can also mean that the genders of the people in the group are unknown. And, like it or not, some men do, in fact, have clitorises. It's not fair to talk about "women" when all we know about is body parts. Body parts do not determine gender.
As far as "can never replicate", I think this is a pretty POV bit of OR. The section was added in this diff, nearly a week ago. I can understand leaving plausible information with the cite tag (such as the rest of it), but the word "replicate" is so ambiguous in meaning that I don't think it belongs. Photouploaded (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only part of Photouploaded's recent edits that I object to is changing the word "women" to "some people"... I say that because though some transmen may have a clitoris, they do not identify as women, and most don't like to acknowledge that their body or a part of it is biologically female. Also, this article is focusing on biological aspects more so, thus transmen are included in the biological sense, when the word "women" is mentioned. I'm quite familiar with transgender topics, even though I don't actively edit those articles here at Wikipedia, and I get what Photouploaded is going for with those recent edits. But to say "some people" is confusing and seems rather off, whether one is familiar with transgender issues or not. Flyer22 (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "some people" to "some individuals". Is this better? Photouploaded (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, Photouploaded. I mean, think of this topic in how we deal with the Pregnancy article. We don't say "some people" in place of "women" in that article, even though there are transmen who are able to become pregnant because they have not undergone hormones or surgery to change that part of their anatomy that gives them the ability to. But then again, we do have an article on Male pregnancy, which mentions how because a transman identifies as male, if he is able to give birth to a child and does, then it can be looked at as a male pregnancy. My point is, however, is that it would sound confusing and off if we used the wording "some people" instead of "women" in regards to pregnancy in the Pregnancy article or anywhere, really, considering that men don't give birth... Well, biological men don't, unless they try that risky scientific procedure, which is a theory at this time...and may or may not work. I don't largely object to you using the wording "some people" or "some individuals" for this article instead of the word "women"...I just wanted to point out all of what I mentioned on this topic, that I do somewhat object to it and definitely see what Gillyweed is saying about that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The word woman is gendered, it describes people who identify as women. "Woman" does not mean "anyone with a clitoris", because not all people with a clitoris identify as women. Some people with a identify as something other than women, whether as men, as genderqueer, as bi-gendered, as third gender, or with no gender at all. Using the word "woman" to refer to "anyone with a clitoris" is inappropriate. It serves to do any of the following:
  • to describe trans/genderqueer people with the wrong label
  • to infer that their numbers are so small as to be unworthy of mention
  • to deny their existence altogether
Is there some other way of looking at this, that I'm missing? How is it acceptable to use the word "woman", when all we know is that the person in question has a clitoris? Photouploaded (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photouploaded, you are not telling me anything that I don't know about the topic of gender and sex. And yet I still don't see the word woman as necessarily gendered. After all, if the words "man" and "woman" are more so about gender and the words "male" and "female" are more so about biological sex, then types of documents wouldn't list a person's gender as male or female, but rather as man or woman. And driver's licenses would only let a person list their biological sex, instead of it being more about whichever gender they identify as (although a transgender person has to undergo reassignment surgery to have the biological sex listing on their driver's license changed to reflect the opposite sex of what they were born as). But on the topic of gender identification, no, I generally don't use the words biological sex and gender to mean the same thing. On internet message boards, during the Zarf/Zoe storyline on All My Children (whoo, I really need to fix up her article), I had to constantly explain to some people that while Zoe's biological sex is male, her gender is female, and that biological sex and gender are not the same thing. But all of that was not my original point on this topic. My point is what I said above: "We don't say 'some people' in place of 'women' in the Pregnancy article." And yet not all people who can get pregnant identify as women. So why do that with this article? And to change it up, we don't say "some people" in place of "females" when talking about Pregnancy. We shouldn't say "some people" here either. The very fact that transmen don't identify as women is reason enough not to say "some people". It's not just that transmen don't identify as women, they don't identify as female. This article is addressing a biological aspect of females, as well as an aspect of transwomen who have undergone reassignment surgery. I highly doubt that if a transman reads this article, he is going to be offended by this article using the word "woman" or even "female" to refer to someone with a clitoris, given the biology aspect. To me, this is like saying that a transwoman who has not undergone surgery will be angry if she goes to the Penis article and it uses the word "men" instead of "some people". I'm sure she'll know that the article is not saying that her gender is male just because it's discussing the biology of the human penis -- biological sex. I still don't see how this article is more improved by using the wording "some people" in place of "women". But I'm not here to go back and forth on this topic. If we get more editors here that object to those changes you've made concerning this matter, then we'll have more of a debate here. For now, it seems your changes are staying. Flyer22 (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're repeating the phrase "these people". Since this edit, which I made over a week ago, the article has read "these individuals". The comment I made above clearly stated that I had made the change to the word "individuals", and you responded to it. As it appears that you were aware of the change to "individuals", I find it odd that you would continue talking about whether or not the use of "people" is an improvement.
Moving on: I made the change to "individuals", because, apparently, some people interpret the word "people" as referring to a group which may include males and females. "Individuals" holds no gender-related connotations at all. Hopefully, use of "individuals" will alleviate any remaining concern about accuracy.
Your response was very long but it didn't address my main concern. Clearly, the presence of a clitoris does not indicate that the person is a woman WP:ID makes it clear that it is inappropriate to use gendered words that do not apply to the person. I certainly hope you don't mean to argue that "woman" is not a gendered word. If that were the case, saying of a transwoman; "from then on, she lived as a woman" would hold no meaning. How can you justify using the word "women" to refer to "anyone with a clitoris"? Photouploaded (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I kept using the word "some people" because I don't see it as that different from "some individuals". And, yes, I argue that the word "woman" is not necessarily a gendered word, as I did above. How is it any more gendered than the word female? You say that not everyone with a clitoris identifies as a woman. I've stated that as well. I must also state that a person who does not identify as a woman does not identify as female either. If you're saying that Woman is a gendered word and "female" is not, then why do listings for a person's gender usually have the options Male or Female, and not Man or Woman? To me, it would seem that the options Male or Female are seen more fitting. And you are totally missing my point, as I'm not trying to justify using the word "women" to refer to anyone with a clitoris. This topic is basically at a stop anyway, until more editors chime in on your edits concerning this matter. I stated that I'm not about going back and forth on this matter...and I mean it. Your edits are there and are staying for now, obviously. Flyer22 (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You asked how the word "woman" is more gendered than the word "female". I will explain. The word "female" is not "not gendered", but it does have a scientific meaning that "woman" does not:
Female is a biological descriptor. Female organisms have female sex chromosomes; the chromosomes themselves are female. The adjective female can also be used in the context of gender, as in: "putting on a dress helped Helen, a transwoman, feel more female". This usage is misleading; it conflates a biological term with the idea of a female gender role. In this usage, the word "feminine" would be more appropriate than "female".
The word "woman" refers solely to a human living in a female gender role. It refers solely to humans; never to other animals. "Woman" is a societal concept about the behaviors and attitudes that comprise what a female human looks like, does, and thinks. It is a highly gendered term, far more so than the simple biological descriptor, female. Thus, while the adjective "female" is not perfect, in the case of discussing biologically female humans, its usage is somewhat an improvement over referring to all such people as "women".
I understand that you do not intend to change this without more input, but I am curious: since you feel that using the word "people" is problematic, and that "individuals" is not much of an improvement over "people", what would you propose we do? Photouploaded (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way that you presented that is actually how I explained/explain that to people, but I didn't/don't put as much emphasis on the word "Woman" being gendered. I don't see the word "Woman" and "Female" as too different, mainly because someone who identifies as a woman does identify as female as well, of course. And the very (first) definition of Woman, in any dictionary or encyclopedia, is an adult female human being. It mentions nothing of gender roles or any other such things we've discussed here. I don't see using the word "woman" in this article as saying that anyone with a clitoris identifies as a woman any more than I see the Penis article saying that anyone with a penis identifies as a man just because that article uses the word "men". Again, I bring up the point that not everyone with a clitoris identifies as female either, but we use that word in this article. If we were to take out the word female...because we feel that it's insulting people, then it would seem rather silly. I see that as the same way as taking out the word woman. Only females have a clitoris, whether biological or not. That's not to say that a transman with a clitoris is not a man, only that his biological makeup is female. A transman who reads this article and sees the word "woman" is going to know that this is the case here as well. It's not saying that he is a woman or should identify as a woman, only that his biological, or more precise, genetic makeup is what one identifies to being Woman. Which is why we often see terms like Biological woman.
Hmm, now that I thik about that particular phrasing, I ponder using the wording "biological woman" or "biological women" in place of the wording "some individuals"...but I know that some transgender individuals object to that phrasing, because they see it as some people implying that they are not "real women." I don't ever see it as that way when I use the wording "biological woman", more so because I've always been invested in science, and I see it as scientific phrasing alone. Anyway, other than that wording, I cannot think of any other word/words to use in place of "some people" or "some individuals"...or "women" since you'd rather that word not be used often in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I'm fine with your using the wording "some individuals" instead of "some people". It somehow seems a tad bit better, as you did with this: Some individuals who experience orgasm from both direct clitoral stimulation of the glans and vaginal access to the internal bodies may distinguish between them in terms of both the physical and general sensations associated with each.
The wording "biological women" in place of "some individuals" wouldn't flow as well and would stand out as awkward. I'm okay with your wording, though I still don't see a problem in using the word women in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that it is appropriate to determine whether someone is "a woman" solely by biology? Photouploaded (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What?! I didn't say that at all and really don't appreciate my words being twisted. There is nothing wrong with using the wording "biological woman" or "biological women" when stating biological matters, as scientists, researchers and others who study the topic of transgender use the wording "biological woman" as well. Saying "biological woman" simply means what it means -- someone who is Woman by biology, seeing as the word woman does not always only apply to gender. It has no bearing on whether someone identifies as a woman or not. This article starts out using the words "biological female"...and it just so happens that the words "biological woman" are often used interchangeably with the wording "biological female". To ask me if I find it appropriate to determine whether someone is "a woman" solely by biology is very much in contrast to everything I've stated above, and I'm quite insulted. I know the difference between sex and gender. Do I feel that it's off to use the word woman in this article? No. As I've stated more than once now. That won't change, just as I don't see anything wrong with using the word "men" in the Penis article, even though not all people with a penis identify as men. Either way, I've stated that I'm okay with your wording. Thus, it's time to move on. It's settled...at least until or if someone else objects to your wording. Flyer22 (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down. Did you notice the question mark? You're going on these long, long diatribes when I was just asking you to clarify your position on the word usage in this article. I've made my case for not using the word "woman" to refer to someone that we have only identified as having female sex chromosomes.
The only place that I have heard the phrase "biological women" used is when distinguishing people who were born female and identify as female (bio-women), from people who were born male and identify as female (transwomen). However, this word still indicates that they are WOMEN - people who identify as female! Are you serious? You think it's appropriate to refer to a transman as "a biological woman"? Photouploaded (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent> I'm sure noone has commented for similar reasons I've been quiet...but anyway, can't this whole argument EASILY be avoided by simply using 'females'? 'Women' is wrong anyway, as that implies adults, but human female children have them too. So change it to 'females', which as noted above IS a biological context, and be done with it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ID instructs us to avoid essentialism:
"To counter an interpretation that is inappropriately essentialist, terms used to describe people should qualify other nouns (black people, not blacks; gay people, not gays)."
Similarly, the Female article notes that using the word "female" as a noun for a person is considered derogatory; that when referring to a person, the word should only be used as an adjective. So, I don't think this is a good solution. The problem seems to be that people find that it sounds odd to use the word "people" to mean "a group of humans of any gender or sex, even a group one of all one gender or sex". I think that "people" or "individuals" are acceptable, or that the writer can just avoid using word altogether: rather than saying Some people believe that x y and z", we'd write, "Some believe that x y and z". Photouploaded (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down? Again, you're twisting things around. You say that the wording "biological women" still indicates that they are WOMEN?

All it indicates is that they are genetically female. Nothing more. Nothing to do with their gender. It's like saying that the wording "biologically female" trumps someone's gender identity. The fact is that transmen identify as male. Transwomen identify as female. The biological aspect or mention has no bearing on their gender identity, as the biological aspect is a topic and is mentioned throughout the transgender community often, not mostly in some negative light (I'll elaborate further below in this comment).

You ask me "Are you serious? You think it's appropriate to refer to a transman as 'a biological woman'?"

Look, I am in the LGBT community all the time, which you may be as well, and there are plenty of transgender friends and acquaintances of mine that have no problem with the wording. Some of them use the wording "biological woman" or "biological women" to refer to genetics. The same for transmen in referring to biological men. The wording "biologically male" is also used, of course. Both wordings, "biological man" and "biological woman", are used interchangeably with "biological male" and "biological female"...with no problem and with no getting infuriated. I've also known a few of the transgender community who prefer not to use the wording "biological man" or "biological woman" for feeling that some outsiders use those words to imply that transgender people are not really men and women as they present themselves as, which some ignorant people do, and I pointed out ABOVE that this is probably a reason not to use the wording "biological women". But considering that some scientists, researchers, and some transgender individuals use the words "biological man" or "biological woman", no, I don't see it as highly inappropriate to use. It's not the same in my eyes at all in using the word "gays" instead of "gay people", even though MANY in the gay community have no problem using the word "gays". I don't see using the words "female" or "females" as a noun as derogatory. "Female" or "females are used in plenty of great scientific articles in a way that does not come off as derogatory at all. It's used in this article as well. But I agree that we shouldn't use it in place of "some people" or "some individuals"...because it sounds empty. We are talking about human beings, but we could be talking about females of any species if we only use the word "female". It's off...because in the instances we are addressing, we aren't talking about all females, but rather human females.

If I'm going on these "long, long diatribes", it's because this topic keeps being dragged out when it is not an issue (at least not between you and I) anymore, as I've already stated that I'm fine with your wording, since there doesn't seem to be an alternative enough editors here have agreed upon, as there haven't been many to take part in this debate. As I've stated more than once now, your wording seems to be best (at this time) to go with. Flyer22 (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second using "female" as an adequate descriptor for the subject-matter. As was previously stated, "female" refers to biological (i.e. chromosomal) sex, whereas "woman" refers to gender. These conceptual descriptors apply to both anthropological as well as LGBT considerations and seem to be relatively universal. --64.142.82.29 (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, I should add that using the term "biologically female" is redundant because "female" is used a biologically-based descriptor of sex. --64.142.82.29 (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clitoris&oldid=181638920"