Talk:Gender

Citation Suggested

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

References

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhum.group2 (talk • contribs) 17 May 2019 (UTC)

References

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have made the change to the article with my reasoning in the edit summary. I don't think (as I mentioned last month) that "man" more clearly communicates "embodying the male gender" as that clearly excludes boys. Furthermore, "male", while it may redirect to the male sex, this article specifically refers to the social, psychological etc. nature of being male, therefore unambiguously ruling out male (as in gender) as being biological. (Gender is described as the socialised obverse of sex). Thirdly, "male" and "female" are very commonly used to describe the gender binary, more often than man/woman: e.g., Fourth, as I stated in February, defining - let alone describing - gender in relation to "man or woman" is even more ambiguous, as that will perhaps imply that "man" and "woman" are genders, but that is not clear, not elaborated upon. Zilch-nada (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Beccaynr Please explain - as you reverted my edit - why you think "man"/"woman" is more suitable than "male"/"female" in defining gender. Zilch-nada (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead reflects the contents of the article, and there does not appear to be support in sources nor the article to alter the first sentence to male and female, which are articles predominantly about organisms generally. The first sentence was developed after extensive discussion and is also written broadly, i.e. uses the word "including", so it is not an exclusive statement. The first sentence is also not expected to include every detail (see e.g. MOS:FIRST), and more than one source is considered when developing the lead (see e.g. MOS:LEADREL). This is a contentious topic, so particular care needs to be taken to reflect the weight of reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I have two things to comment upon there:

• "which are articles predominantly about organisms generally"; but they are also generally used regarding gender; similar to what you said, not exclusive.
• As the article specifies the social, psychological (etc.) aspects of male/female, I therefore think it can't be ambiguous for male/female to be used; however, the use of the word "including" which you support creates significant ambiguity, as I have said above, as it does not a) actually define gender, and b) say whether or not "man" and "woman" are genders.

Zilch-nada (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, what I think we should do is to summarise as many sources as possible describing gender as relating to a) men / women, b) male / female, and c) masculine / feminine (although more so under "gender expression"). There are admittedly sources like the WHO that employ men / women (alongside "boys and girls"), as well as a significant amount of sources that employ "male and female" in defining gender. So I don't think this is set in stone yet, either my proposal for the usage of male/female, nor the current men/women wording. I.e., I think this must be gauged by summary. Zilch-nada (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The man and woman articles both include human children, so the concern expressed about not including children in the first sentence seems addressed by the lead formed by consensus after extensive discussion. This is an article about gender; your proposal in the context of the male and female wikilinks seems to suggest making a fundamental and unsupported change the article, but the content and sources in this article do not seem to support using articles about organisms generally to broadly introduce the concept of gender.

Also, the words 'male' and 'female' may be used by some sources, but that is not the same as reliable sources indicating organism-based definitions are intended by the use of those terms. There have been past discussions about the use of terminology, and how this is not simply a matter of counting usage of terms that may be used differently over time and across academic disciplines; how the terms are used and discussed matters more than the mere use of the word. Beccaynr (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The man and woman articles both include human children So what? Those are different articles, aren't they? What matter's is what is in the sentence itself, and that ambiguously excludes children, whereas the most cited source in favour of the man/woman variation is the WHO, which includes "boys and girls". I don't intend on merely counting sources, only summarising the most reliable sources, considering which sources are reliable - and which are not -, in relation to what gender actually is.

Please explain what you mean by organism-based definitions; I think you missed (emphasis mine) that I said "sources that employ "male and female" in defining gender."; therefore I clearly wasn't looking for organism/sex-based definitions. Zilch-nada (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Another editor in this discussion also commented about the male and female articles being focused on organisms generally. If you are not trying to replace the meaning of gender with organism-based definitions, then perhaps you can review the past discussions about the lead, the differences in the wikilinked articles, this article and its sources, and further reflect on your proposal. Beccaynr (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not defining male and female in relation to organisms, only to gender, as that is what this article is. By analogy, the articles on man and woman also employ the defining term male and female (which would perhaps initially imply sex, if one is unaware), only with notes that say that "male"/"female" can refer to either sex or gender. That is what I have suggested below. Zilch-nada (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The use of the organism-focused wikilinks male and female to replace the human-focused wikilinks man and woman seems to achieve the result, even if that is not the intent, and that seems to be the problematic alteration according to WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD. A note does not seem needed when we can have a lead that reflects the article and its reliable sources, and when the human-focused wikilinks man and woman seem to fit as part of a broad introduction. Beccaynr (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that the wikilinks are organism-focused does not matter whatsoever, so long as we are unambiguous that this article is employing "male" and "female" in the sense of gender, which an abundantly sourced concept, including in this very article. "Man" and "woman", as I have said previously, is both a) vague (are they genders?) and b) not broad enough (as the gender binary is most commonly described as male-female, not man-woman.) Zilch-nada (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Idea:

What if, like the articles on man and woman, we employ the wording "social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of being male, female, or other gender identity", with a note that states: "male and female may refer to either sex or gender."

I.e., so it would read:

"Gender includes the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of being male, female, or other gender identity"

Zilch-nada (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

There has also been extensive discussion about when and how to use dictionary definitions; according to MOS:LEAD, we are looking to summarize the article, according to reliable sources. Discussion about the lead ideally reflects the article contents and its sources. The proposed idea seems to continue to suggest a fundamental change to the first sentence of the lead that does not seem to reflect the article and its sources. Beccaynr (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

How does it not reflect? "Woman" is mentioned a mere 19 times; "female" is mentioned 58 times. Examples within the very article include:

• socially constructed" aspects of male–female differences (gender) from "biologically determined" aspects (sex)."
• Later, in 2011, the FDA reversed its position and began using sex as the biological classification and gender as "a person's self-representation as male or female, or how that person is responded to by social institutions based on the individual's gender presentation."
• gender role that exists more in the middle of the continuum between the feminine and masculine polarity. For example, the Hawaiian māhū, who occupy "a place in the middle" between male and female,
• Gender difference is merely a construct of society used to enforce the distinctions made between what is assumed to be female and male, and allow for the domination of masculinity over femininity through the attribution of specific gender-related characteristics. "
• Contemporary sociological reference to male and female gender roles typically uses masculinities and femininities in the plural rather than singular, suggesting diversity both within cultures as well as across them.

Zilch-nada (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, there are perhaps only 2 references of gender specifically to men/women in the article:

• gender role as a man or a woman in society varies cross-culturally according to what things are considered to be masculine or feminine.
• agreed that the term gender could be properly applied only to humans, because it involves one's self-concept as man or woman

And the first one refers to "gender role" which is quite different. Zilch-nada (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be an attempt to tally usage without an in-depth look at meaning and sources, and does not seem to help support removal of human-focused wikilinks and replacement with organism-focused wikilinks. Just because 'male' and 'female' terminology is used, it does not mean (nor does it appear to mean based on these unsourced quotes) that we should be using wikilinks that are written broadly about organisms. Beccaynr (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Then why would man and woman employ the terms male and female in their definitions, if man and woman are socially constructed, not biological, whereas the wikilinks for male and female ((initially)) refer to that of organisms? I don't think it's particularly important that the wikilink must adhere strictly to male and female genders, only that "male" and "female" are elaborated upon; they can be referred to as either genders or sexes in different contexts: the note added would clarify that here, just as it would at the "man" and "woman" articles.

Furthermore, the male and female articles go beyond organisms in the lede; in fact in the second paragraph: "In humans, the word male can also be used to refer to gender, in the social sense of gender role or gender identity..."

And I am not merely tallying, but analysing specifically were gender is equated with a) male and female etc., and where it is with b) "man and woman, etc.". You claimed that the former "does not seem to reflect the article and its sources", when, just for example, its usage quite clearly outnumbers the latter. Zilch-nada (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

We're now having a split discussion in two sections, which probably is not helping readability, including for anyone else trying to follow along or participate. From my view, this is ultimately about the sources, and how the sources use the terminology, not which terminology is 'outnumbered' in the article.

And I think the wikilink content matters a lot, particularly in this contentious topic area; for example, your proposed change seems to make a major change to the article, because of the content of the organism-focused wikilinks. I do not think suggesting this does not matter is an adequate justification for inclusion - for example, we typically do not wikilink to concepts a speaker does not clearly intend, and this guidance seems reasonable to broadly apply here. Beccaynr (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Would you therefore argue that the articles on man and woman are flawed in their openings for that reason? Zilch-nada (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

References