Talk:Man

Man as Obsolete Reference for "Mankind" and what we know use as Humankind

Shouldn't there be some early referral in the article to the use of "Man" as indicating a generic label for "Mankind" since all academic references until about 25 to 40 years ago consistently referred to Man etymologically for Mankind or Humankind. It is, of course, no longer PC and isn't applicable or recognizable for a consideration of Humankind in our evolved usage of the term, but shouldn't there be a very brief mention of its prior obsolete use to facilitate those who encounter it in older texts and articles, so they can use that information as a quick means of dispelling the inherent confusion that could occur to someone who is younger and maybe offended by its use and applicability in the current world? Stevenmitchell (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, especially as an awful lot of people still use the word in this "obsolete" way.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

You mean, this article should be at Man (gender) with Man re-directing to human?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Male

This article says that a man is a male human, but not all men are male. Trans men are female. It should say a man is generally a male human. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminikuta (talk • contribs) 06:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The statement that trans men are female uses the point of view of people who think the easy way, which is that transgenderism is just playing make-believe. Please do research on how transgenderism works. Georgia guy (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying they're playing make believe, or not real men, but a male is defined as the one that produces sperm. Benjamin (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The article should say that a man is generally a male human. I made this change, but it was reverted. I will make it again if there is no comment. Benjamin (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Please do research on exactly what transgenderism is. Christine Jorgensen is a trans woman. She had male anatomy until it was fixed with surgery. But she has always had her female brain structure. This is how experts think of transgender people. Such people need to be thought of in a respectful way. Georgia guy (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

While I don't fully agree with Georgia guy, since the sex and gender distinction does exist, and since a number of transgender people use that distinction to state that their sex is different than their gender identity (even after surgery), and since the causes of transsexuality are not clear-cut and not all transgender peoples' brain anatomy will correlate with their gender identity, I reverted you because I don't see that "generally" is needed. It's awkward, and the lead already notes the topics of being transgender or intersex. I also don't know of any sources that use "generally" like that for the definition of a man or woman. I reverted you at the Woman article for those same reasons. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the statement "A man is a male human." is simply not always true. Benjamin (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem with upholding the sex/gender distinction is that there is no way around the fact that it implies that trans people's genders are less valid than those of cis people, because "being male" and "being a man" are generally considered to be one and the same. This makes it extremely awkward at best to call trans men "female" (regardless of the addition of a qualifier such as "biologically"), and vice versa. There is no way this is not in effect being read as "a trans man is really a woman (who pretends to be a man)", and vice versa. Therefore the sex/gender distinction – an instance of biologistic gender essentialism – is inherently cissexist and transphobic, as it forces, through a backdoor, gendered labels on people even though they reject them. (Worse, these labels come with an authority that makes them seem "more real" than whatever the subjects say, with disastrous consequences especially for poor trans women of colour. The idea that trans women are "male" merely empowers bigots, who treat them as deceivers.)

Whatever it is that makes trans people have an identity that is not congruent with the gender they were assigned at birth, it probably has some biological basis (or bases) too. And not only in intersex people, but also in non-intersex trans people, especially those who transitioned very early so that they never underwent the puberty consistent with their gender assigned at birth, and who had extensive surgeries to remove as much of the anatomy inconsistent with their identity, "sex" can be quite difficult to define. Even in non-intersex people, the Y-chromosome isn't as crucial as popularly thought (compare, for example, the ISNA website).

The whole sex/gender business is not nearly as clear-cut as laypeople assume, which has led to some trans activists calling to abandon the concept of sex as distinct from gender altogether: people who identify as women are female and have female bodies, people who identify as men are male and have male bodies, people who identify outside the conventional gender binary are androgynous and have androgynous bodies, full stop. Some people have untypical bodies with untypical properties, both cis and trans. Some people take sexual hormones and have surgeries related to reproductive anatomy, both cis and trans. Some people are infertile, both cis and trans. Trans people aren't inherently different from cis people, their bodies, lives and experiences are just unusual. Deal with it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Florian Blaschke, the sex and gender distinction wasn't created to be cissexist and transphobic; it was created to distinguish genetic sex from all the social aspects of gender. Although some people use it in cissexist and transphobic ways, I don't consider it cissexist and transphobic. And like I noted above, a number of transgender people use the distinction. So do a number of intersex people. In these cases, the point that transgender and intersex people are making is that it can be problematic for people to automatically assume that one's genetic sex, or rather assigned sex, automatically determines their gender identity/gender expression. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I never said that the distinction was created to be cissexist and transphobic, but (intent isn't magic, remember?) it still works that way now because most people assume that gender is only a social(ly constructed) "mask" while sex is biological and "scientific" and "objectively real" and all that. But gender is far more complicated than this simplistic dichotomy. In Whipping Girl, Julia Serano uses "gender" as the overarching term, and distinguishes between "physical sex" (which itself is composed of a large number of variables, not only chromosomal or genetic ones, which are in itself considerably more complicated than assumed by laypeople, but also primary and secondary genitals and hormones among others), "subconscious sex" (which is not identical with what gender identity is usually understood to be now) and "gender expression", which includes numerous intrinsic inclinations, especially presentation, behaviours, interests and affinities.

A cis man with a "feminine" gender expression (for example a cis crossdresser, or a mild-mannered man with interests that are culturally coded as feminine) has no problem with his assigned gender and his body and is therefore completely different from a trans woman, some of whom are butch lesbians who are not traditionally feminine in the slightest (and vice versa for cis tomboys/butches vs. trans men and transmasculine people). She does use the term "sex", but differentiates between "assigned sex (at birth)" and "preferred/identified/lived sex", so a trans woman's sex is not male and a trans man's not female in her view, and that of most trans activists.

The lazy sex/gender distinction completely blurs these complications and is therefore unhelpful and even harmful. The womanhood of a trans woman and the manhood of a trans man are not merely "a social aspect". A female, male or nonbinary identity is not part of the clothes you wear, and is strictly separate from a feminine, masculine or mixed/androgynous gender expression. Much harm is being done when the manhood of a man or the womanhood of a woman (regardless of whether they are cis or trans) are called into question based on the way they express their gender, and when gender identity is assumed to be obvious by the way one looks and behaves in the first place. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Florian Blaschke, I know that you didn't state that. I was stating why I do not fully agree with you. You stated, "most people assume that gender is only a social(ly constructed) 'mask' while sex is biological and 'scientific' and 'objectively real' and all that.", but that's not true. Like you stated earlier, "'being male' and 'being a man' are generally considered to be one and the same." In my experience, most people do not subscribe to the sex and gender distinction. They generally view a penis as belonging to a boy or a man. They think that if the body is anatomically male (by that, I obviously mean that the anatomical literature defines some body parts and internal makeup as male and others as female), then the gender is a boy or a man. In my experience, informing and/or educating people on the sex and gender distinction in cases like these helps people understand why gender/gender identity and sex are not necessarily the same thing. It helps them understand transgender and intersex matters. I think Trankuility, who mainly focuses on intersex matters while editing Wikipedia, adheres to this distinction for reasons I've noted. Some are still stubborn in their beliefs even after the matter is explained to them, but others are not. I know your views on sex and gender, but this is not the place to debate them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, you're probably right that most laypeople don't make any distinction between assigned gender (usually based on external anatomy at birth, not chromosomes) and gender identity at all and think a trans person is simply playing pretend. But when they learn about the distinction, it's obvious to think "aha, so sex refers to what they really are and gender to what they pretend to be". And that's how transphobic feminists use the distinction too: to invalidate trans people's gender identities. Because they argue that "gender" is only a social role that can be arbitrary selected, while sex is what really matters (because it determines initial socialisation).

But "physical sex" or "biological sex" or "anatomical sex" is just as much a social construct as gender is, and no more "objective" or "scientific" (because in reality it is a continuum, not a binary). Very much like race vs. ethnicity or nationality, by the way. Sex assignment can be fairly arbitrary and is prone to error. That's why trans people prefer to talk about "assigned gender" and "gender identity" instead, which is far more neutral and objective. That's far from my unique personal opinion, it's a widespread critique we should acknowledge. Gender is extremely complex and the sex/gender distinction is a highly misleading simplification.

(In fact, I've seen a trans friend bring up the sex/gender distinction a few days ago and argue just this – that it is can be problematic, especially when using the "sex is what's between your legs, gender is what's between your ears" talking point, and opens up pathways to erasure and discrimination especially against transfeminine people. So I take offence at the dismissive suggestion that "yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man", as the catchphrase goes.)

Let me just quote Serano (2016², p. 332): "The unilateral feminist notion that women were coerced into femininity was further facilitated by the growing use of the sex/gender distinction, which differentiated between one's sex (which arose from biology) and gender (which arose from one's environment, socialization, and psychology).⁴", where the footnote says the following: "The sex/gender distinction is generally attributed to Robert Stoller (Sex and Gender). For two varying feminist critiques of the sex/gender distinction, see Judith Butler, Bodies that Matter [...], and Moira Gatens, Imaginary Bodies: Ethics, Power, and Corporeality (London: Routledge, 1996), 3–20." Wikipedia can't simply ignore this discussion and insist that trans men are "female" and vice versa. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank for mentioning me, Flyer22 Reborn. I agree that the sex/gender distinction is sometimes useful, and also that it is generally ignored. I seek to respect sources, and document them. In terms of my personal opinion, the distinction is moot. Sex is also socially determined and means many different things in different contexts. In discussions about (rather than by) intersex people, a biological sex/ gender identity distinction is often presumed, ignoring that legal sex is probably more relevant than whatever is meant by biological or genetic sex. Biological sex is often simply irrelevant or difficult to reduce to a neat and simple classification. Clinically, chromosomes and androgen response are significant in making an assignment, but most cases are likely diagnosed at times other than at birth, when legal sex is likely established and where rates of gender dysphoria are known to be higher than amongst dyadic (non-intersex) populations but are still generally between 8.5 and 20%. There are other ways of being lazy: in citing the ISNA website when that organization closed in 2008. It is also lazy to illustrate a point by mentioning the existence of intersex people, without considering the implications of that distinction for intersex people. It is lazy to reduce intersex to a talking point (a point made eloquently by Graffam here), failing to consider the well established human rights issues involved in imposing sex and gender norms on intersex people, and finally by failing to consider a range of different perspectives held by intersex people. Looking at notable sources, Georgiann Davis maintains a strict sex/gender distinction (here, for example). Mauro Cabral Grinspan doesn't use that distinction because he favors a different distinction between bodies and identities (for example here). The available data suggest that intersex people have, to quote Organisation Intersex International Australia, "very diverse understandings of intersex bodies, sexes and genders". The distinction between bodies and identities seems more pragmatic, particularly taking a less anglocentric perspective on a world where many languages don't maintain a sex/gender distinction. Trankuility (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

You seem to criticise me indirectly for linking to the ISNA website. It was simply a convenient way to demolish the argumentum ad Y-chromosoma. This is about a widely acknowledged fact among experts; whether the organisation is active or not is completely irrelevant in context. I do feel uncomfortable "exploiting" intersex people to make a point about "biological sex", but there's no question that intersex is simply of central relevance to the discussion when alleged "objective realities" are trotted out again and again to erase both intersex and trans people. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as one of my citations (Graffam) points out, intersex people are erased in such discussions, in part because a sex/gender distinction is not itself the primary issue for that population: the primary issue is medicalization, the treatment of bodies. So instrumentalization is real and assuming that the interests of intersex and trans people are the same, and that the locations of erasure are the same, is part of that. But I also agree with Flyer22 Reborn below. What matters on Wikipedia pages is what is verifiable and notable. Trankuility (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia can ignore most of this particular talk page discussion since Wikipedia talk pages are not forums. And I don't see it insisting anywhere "that trans men are 'female' and vice versa." I see one editor at the beginning of this discussion insisting that. As for opinions, since some transgender and intersex people would disagree with some of what you've stated, and not all of what you stated is a fact, some of what you stated can be considered opinion. I'm not stating that I disagree with all of what you stated; I'm stating that I don' fully agree with everything you've stated and that Wikipedia has a certain way it's supposed to work. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Machismo redux

That the given definition is biased and blatantly contradicts the Machismo article has already been noted in 2011, but still nothing has been done to address this issue. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

If it's problematic, tweak it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The Images on this Article

The article's main image is of Adam touching the hand of God. This should be replaced. It is sexist in nature because no such other image (of a female touching god's hand) exists in the same context. Likewise, it is Judeo-Christian in nature and not inclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snuggleton (talk • contribs) 21:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Transgender text

HeliumPearl, this text that you are insisting on is gibberish, offensive and lacks accuracy. That is why I reverted you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Unsourced and incorrect. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

How so? Please explain.HeliumPearl (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll I restore it with sources (because WP:NOTCENSORED). A: It blatantly makes sense, please stop adding your feelings. B: Offensiveness shouldn't mean anything on Wikipedia. One of its core principles is to be uncensored.HeliumPearl (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I genuinely don't see how it was offensive in the first place. Could you enlighten me please?HeliumPearl (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

And considering how you just fail to be objective in your point of view, you should be grateful that I undertook the burden to reword the sentence to make it less "offensive".HeliumPearl (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The only thing that makes the sentence even remotely close to offensive seems to have been only the wording. But it doesn't really hold that much offense value if you just look past the wording. I don't get how this can be labelled as offensive.HeliumPearl (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for all the comments on this talk page, I was just too dumbfounded that I didn't find the right words to express myself with. I promise never to spam comments, but only to speak after I have found the right words.HeliumPearl (talk) 08:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

"Intersex" refers to chromosomal abnormalities. "Transgender" refers to those biologically female (XX), but had their genitals surgically modified so as to fit what they identify as. Nevertheless, they are still XX, so they should be insparate sentences from intersex people. Does this make sense? I beg your thoughts.HeliumPearl (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

And no, please don't even try to interpret "abnormal" as somehow bigoted. It just means "uncommon", and isn't even in the articleHeliumPearl (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Your latest addition of "Some lesbians undergo numerous surgical operations to mimic males (so as to fit their gender identity) as transgender men." is also inaccurate. Taking sources from the Transgender article (ones I added to that article) and then using them to try to support your inaccuracy does not make your correct. For one, your statement is calling trans men lesbians. A number of trans men identified as lesbians before realizing/coming to terms with their true gender identity, but other trans men never identified as lesbians. There are gay trans men (those who state that they are primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to men).

For now, I will contact WP:LGBT about weighing in on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)