Talk:Gender: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Irrelevant image; suggesting deletion or alteration: I've changed it but I'm not sure it is quite right
(6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 88: Line 88:
:I am going to swap that one in, because I think that is clearly a step in the right direction, but that doesn't have to be the last word on this. If anybody has any further ideas then please say. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 18:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
:I am going to swap that one in, because I think that is clearly a step in the right direction, but that doesn't have to be the last word on this. If anybody has any further ideas then please say. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 18:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
::Well, that wasn't as easy as I had hoped. The image wasn't an image at all. It was symbols in an infobox. I have transplanted it as best I can. Maybe it shouldn't be an infobox? If so, does anybody know how to changeit into something more appropriate while keeping the contents as they are? --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 19:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
::Well, that wasn't as easy as I had hoped. The image wasn't an image at all. It was symbols in an infobox. I have transplanted it as best I can. Maybe it shouldn't be an infobox? If so, does anybody know how to changeit into something more appropriate while keeping the contents as they are? --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 19:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

== Opening sentence - are "man" and "woman" genders? ==

The opening sentence isn't quite clear: {{tq|"social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of being a man, woman, or other gender identity."}}; does this therefore imply that being a man or woman is a gender?. It seems very ambiguous to imply that men and women are genders ''outright'', given that this is in the first sentence in an article entitled simply "gender". [[User:Zilch-nada|Zilch-nada]] ([[User talk:Zilch-nada|talk]]) 14:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

:I.e., why does the sentence employ "man" and "woman" instead of "male" and "female", which are the terms generally used regarding the gender binary? [[User:Zilch-nada|Zilch-nada]] ([[User talk:Zilch-nada|talk]]) 14:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
::You may wish to review past discussions of the lead, which are collected and linked here: [[Talk:Gender/Archive 11#Past discussions of lead]]. Thank you, [[User:Beccaynr|Beccaynr]] ([[User talk:Beccaynr|talk]]) 18:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
::Semiotics aside, a good reason to prefer the current phrasing is that "being a [[man]] ..." more clearly communicates "embodying the male gender" and is less ambiguous than "being [[male]]" which could be confused with "being assigned male at birth". Doesn't help that our article [[Male]] is about sperm-producing organisms, something which has given gender-related articles immense strife over the years. –[[User:RoxySaunders|RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️]] ([[User talk:RoxySaunders|💬]] • [[Special:Contributions/RoxySaunders|📝]]) 18:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
:::The article on male closes the lede by saying {{tq|In humans, the word male can also be used to refer to gender, in the social sense of gender role or gender identity}}. I honestly think "man, woman" in this article should simply change to male and female, as it is clear that the gender-binary refers most commonly to male-female, masculine-feminine, and not man-woman. One can {{tq|embody the male gender}} as a ''boy'' as well... [[User:Zilch-nada|Zilch-nada]] ([[User talk:Zilch-nada|talk]]) 11:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
:::Additionally, I'm sure you'd agree that there is ambiguity in the current wording; it is unclear whether or not "man" and "woman" are genders [[User:Zilch-nada|Zilch-nada]] ([[User talk:Zilch-nada|talk]]) 11:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:12, 10 February 2024

    Former good articleGender was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
    Article milestones
    DateProcessResult
    March 12, 2006Good article nomineeListed
    July 7, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
    Current status: Delisted good article

    Citation Suggested

    The rise of criticism against the WID approach led to the emergence of a new theory, that of Women and Development (WAD).[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhum.group2 (talkcontribs) 17 May 2019 (UTC)

    References

    1. ^ Muyoyeta, Lucy (2004). Women, Gender and Development (PDF). Zambia: Women for Change. ISBN 095351367X.

    Citation suggested

    In contemporary times, most literature and institutions that are concerned with women's role in development incorporate a GAD perspective, with the United Nations taking the lead of mainstreaming the GAD approach through its system and development policies. [1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhum.group2 (talkcontribs) 17 May 2019 (UTC)

    References

    1. ^ United Nations. Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues, & Advancement of Women (2002). Gender Mainstreaming an Overview (PDF). New York: United Nations Publications.

    Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Culture

    This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 18 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jenjmo (article contribs).

    — Assignment last updated by Jenjmo (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Irrelevant image; suggesting deletion or alteration

    File:SF gender symbols.png#globalusage

    This image, used under the Social Categories heading, is irrelevant. The Male / Female / Transgender symbols in the first column are widely used, however the remaining symbols in the second and third column are "Made up symbols for gender / sex in SF articles", in the words of the image's creator.

    These made-up symbols are not adding anything of value to the page, and are only confusing/misleading.

    Proposed solutions:

    a) delete the image entirely

    b) crop the image so only the Male / Female / Transgender symbols are present

    c) replace the image with a different chart (perhaps something like this https://img.freepik.com/free-vector/gender-symbols-set-outline-black-signs-isolated-white-background-simple-illustration_171739-336.jpg?size=626&ext=jpg )

    d) replace the image with a collection of pride flags that represent various genders (i.e. transgender, demiboy, demigirl, non-binary, agender, etc)

    I think (a) or (b) or (d) are most suitable.

    (c) has the issue where gender symbols (in my lived experience as a trans person) do not have common community agreement and are not frequently used.

    (d) is a better solution, since the flags have community support and are well-understood icons.

    (a) is simple and easy solution. Creature-of-cozy (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you are right that there is something off here. Not that there is anything intrinsically wrong with the image itself, but that it is confusing in this context. It is slightly different versions of the same four symbols in three variants but a reader might not realise that. Your option C has a mix of gender and sexuality symbols and so that would be confusing as well. Option D, pride flags, is not so good as not all genders have pride flags (and we don't want to encourage trolls to add their dimwitted monochrome cis or straight flags). So that leaves A and B. Just removing it would definitely be a valid option but something like B would be better. Even better still, I think we already have the image we need on the Gender symbol article which we can reuse.
    I am going to swap that one in, because I think that is clearly a step in the right direction, but that doesn't have to be the last word on this. If anybody has any further ideas then please say. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that wasn't as easy as I had hoped. The image wasn't an image at all. It was symbols in an infobox. I have transplanted it as best I can. Maybe it shouldn't be an infobox? If so, does anybody know how to changeit into something more appropriate while keeping the contents as they are? --DanielRigal (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Opening sentence - are "man" and "woman" genders?

    The opening sentence isn't quite clear: "social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of being a man, woman, or other gender identity."; does this therefore imply that being a man or woman is a gender?. It seems very ambiguous to imply that men and women are genders outright, given that this is in the first sentence in an article entitled simply "gender". Zilch-nada (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I.e., why does the sentence employ "man" and "woman" instead of "male" and "female", which are the terms generally used regarding the gender binary? Zilch-nada (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You may wish to review past discussions of the lead, which are collected and linked here: Talk:Gender/Archive 11#Past discussions of lead. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Semiotics aside, a good reason to prefer the current phrasing is that "being a man ..." more clearly communicates "embodying the male gender" and is less ambiguous than "being male" which could be confused with "being assigned male at birth". Doesn't help that our article Male is about sperm-producing organisms, something which has given gender-related articles immense strife over the years. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article on male closes the lede by saying In humans, the word male can also be used to refer to gender, in the social sense of gender role or gender identity. I honestly think "man, woman" in this article should simply change to male and female, as it is clear that the gender-binary refers most commonly to male-female, masculine-feminine, and not man-woman. One can embody the male gender as a boy as well... Zilch-nada (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, I'm sure you'd agree that there is ambiguity in the current wording; it is unclear whether or not "man" and "woman" are genders Zilch-nada (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]