Talk:Woman

Before complaining about article content, please read: Wikipedia is not censored.

I propose we add a picture of a transsexual woman

Transsexual women are woman even though they are not genetically or biologically a female. They are legally known as women and consider themselves as women. Gender is very fluid and we need some representation that does not automatically fit a stereotypical mold or definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.15.212 (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Transsexual women are female. Gelatinous cubism (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to add an image of a trans woman, then perhaps you should go and add one. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Go to Christine Jorgensen. Images of such a person can be found in their own article. Georgia guy (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

They are not female because they are biological male.--93.128.1.34 (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree If you were born a man, you are a man. Changing your external features doesn't change that you're a man. 71.60.35.185 (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Somebody please watch the edits to this section of the talk page. Georgia guy (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a great suggestion, I also noticed that the head picture is sorely lacking women in STEM/Business. Considering this I would suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Conway Her contributions to the field of computer science were key, as discussed here: http://www.engin.umich.edu/college/about/news/stories/2014/april/thank-lynn-conway-for-your-cell-phone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.89.74 (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's great to have a transgender woman included but we could really do with a more well known example than Laverne Cox. In the UK hardly anyone knows her and in less Americanised cultures I'm sure it's even worse. Chelsea Manning makes a lot more sense to me to include. Wikiditm (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

New section for discussing the composite

Here are all the women currently in the composite as of the timestamp on this signature:

• Laverne Cox
• Venus
• Joan of Arc
• Eva Perón
• Marie Curie
• Indira Gandhi
• Venus of Willendorf
• Wangari Maathai
• Mother Teresa
• Grace Hopper
• Mamechiho, a Geisha
• a Tibetan farmer
• Marilyn Monroe
• Oprah Winfrey
• Aung San Suu Kyi
• Josephine Baker
• Isis
• the Queen of Sheba
• Elizabeth I
• a Quechua mother

We have already discussed restoring Sappho to the image at the expense of Venus, with the argument being that she is a notable woman writer and a lesbian, while Venus is fictional. Are there any other changes that should be made at the same time in order to avoid putting the person making the change to the unnecessary trouble of repeated edits?

• I personally favor organizing the images chronologically.
• Are there any other image swaps that people would like to propose? Replacing Mother Teresa has been suggested due to her controversial status; is there someone else (eg. another religious figure or figure known for a relationship to religion) that it might be good to include instead?
• I'm also unfamiliar with the community consensus regarding how we decide which ordinary folks to include; do we consider these ones representative? Is there a case to be made for using a famous Japanese person instead of an ordinary one, for instance, or do we like having some ordinary people?
• Are there any demographics or careers we consider important and currently unrepresented?

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm fine with restoring Sappho at the expense of an artist's conception of Venus. And if we are looking for replacements for Mother Teresa, I would suggest a religious icon of some aspect of the Virgin Mary. She was the face of women to the Church for centuries, taken to be an exemplar of Divine Wisdom/Sophia, and to philosophers the Eternal Feminine. Fictional, yes, and also any depiction would necessarily be an artist's conception rather than a depiction of an actual person, but she certainly has far more historical importance than Mother Teresa, who dressed to resemble her. - Nunh-huh 05:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd be behind that. @Little Miss Desu:? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest replacing Laverne Cox with Lynn Conway to bring in more STEM representation, although Cox is obviously a more recognizable figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.89.74 (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Works for me! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Heyo, Iiiiiii kind of forgot about this. Can we talk about the issue of representing "famous" vs. "ordinary" people? Is representing "ordinary" people actually a goal of the composite, or is it a byproduct of trying to cover bases of ethnicities and professions? And do we want to include another scientist and/or author. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hatshepsut: sub for Isis, an ahistorical abstraction

Golly. Looks like an inordinate amount of discussion has gone into this already. I'm just going to very gingerly submit that while Ms. Cox is an excellent subject for the montage, it's politically WP:activist to make her, literally, the prime example of womanhood. Ms. Cox's claim to fame is primarily her position as a television star and the highest-profile transgender activist in the world; I'm glad WP "takes her side" against those who would misgender her, but there are other women who have a more meaningful claim to the top spot. I think Ms. Cox's image should kept, but swapped with a) an "everywoman" like the Tibetan (rationale: resembles the "median human female") or b) a personage of less-WP:Recentist significance, such as Ms. Curie or Hatshepsut. FourViolas (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's just a result of a chronologically early image being swapped out for Cox's without the whole thing being rearranged. I'd also prefer having her closer to the bottom, but not so we can have a different photo of a contemporary person up top. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It's great to have a transgender woman included but we could really do with a more well known example than Laverne Cox. In the UK hardly anyone knows her and in less Americanised cultures I'm sure it's even worse. Chelsea Manning makes a lot more sense to me to include. Wikiditm (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a random Wikipedia lurker's opinion, but to me it seems like both sides of the Laverne Cox argument are going against Wikipedia's stance on bias and activism. On one hand, leaving a transgender woman in the composite is blatantly LGBT activism. On the other hand, removing all mention of trans women from the article is blatantly anti-LGBT activism. I propose removing Cox (and replacing with a biological female), but adding a section devoted to trans women on the page. It seems like this solution would give the best coverage while being the least biased. --67.247.78.200 (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Transgender women contrast with cisgender women, not with biological females. Georgia guy (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Aren't they the same thing? By biologically I mean essentially "no Y chromosome" or "born in a female body". I wouldn't call trans women biologically women, as the biological structure of a woman includes a uterus, ovaries, no Y chromosome, etc. Regardless, it's not important to my point. My point is that including a trans woman in the collage is blatantly LGBT activism, and removing all mention of trans women is blatantly anti-LGBT activism. We shouldn't cater to either side, especially not on such a controversial issue like transgenderism. --67.247.78.200 (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

A trans woman has always had her female brain structure, and you brain structure is biologically a very important part of who you are because it's what actually makes you who you are. And as for the "no Y-chromosome" thing, trans women are not the only kind of woman who has a Y-chromosome; there's also androgen insensitivity syndrome women. Georgia guy (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That still doesn't refute the actual point of my argument, only (what is in your eyes) a misuse of a word. --67.247.78.200 (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Somebody besides 67.247.78.200, please study this discussion and check to see how logical I'm being. For clarification, the subject here is whether transgender women contrast with cisgender women or with biological females. Georgia guy (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

GG you are fine. IP editor is conflating gender and sex and somehow feels including any woman outside of the traditional (and antiquated) Western understanding of the term is "activism". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Including a person that isn't considered a woman in many circles in a collage of women is blatantly activism, it makes a statement. Many people do not consider transgender individuals to actually be the gender they identify with. This isn't to say all mention of trans women should be omitted from the page, but it certainly shouldn't be in the collage of womanhood. It's the equivalent of making a collage of people who practice Islam and putting an ISIS member in there. It turns into Wikipedia taking a stance on a very controversial issue. To deny this being activism you must deny that the issue is controversial, or that putting a trans woman in the collage does not show bias towards either side of the controversial issue. Think about it from the other side of the fence, if you didn't accept transgender individuals as the gender they identify with, how would you feel seeing a trans woman being on a collage showing "womanhood" on a supposedly unbiased wiki? And in line with your beliefs, it's the equivalent of the collage saying "By the way, trans women are not real women and this is an undisputed fact!" Essentially that is the exact opposite of having a trans woman in a collage, which is saying "By the way, trans women are real women and this is an undisputed fact!" The fact that it is heavily disputed urges Wikipedia to not take a stance on the issue, which it is currently doing. --67.247.78.200 (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do research on transgenderism and realize that the statement that trans women are not real women is just a myth accepted without proof by ignorant people. Georgia guy (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

How exactly can a cultural belief be a myth? --67.247.78.200 (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It's just a belief that ignorant people accept without proof. People who understand transgenderism well consider trans women real women. Georgia guy (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

That's an opinion though, and Wikipedia is supposed to be objective. Can you at least acknowledge that your viewpoint is an opinion? --67.247.78.200 (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

What kind of opinion?? The answer is the point of view of people who understand transgenderism well and how it works. Your viewpoint (which is that transgender people are people who arbitrarily fake their gender) is just an idea that ignorant people accept without proof. Georgia guy (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not my opinion though. I believe that we should accept transgender individuals as the gender they identify themselves with. But I certainly don't believe that should be forced upon anyone. So, in other words, you do acknowledge it is an opinion though? --67.247.78.200 (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This is turning into a discussion of each other's opinions and not about the article itself. Please stop. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do what you can to 67.247.78.200 to make sure they can stop. Georgia guy (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Complying with EvergreenFir, starting a new section of discussion. No one has refuted my claim that a trans woman in the collage is Wikipedia taking a stance on a controversial issue. --67.247.78.200 (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The article discusses trans women quite a bit. Adding a trans woman to the image college would be in line with WP:WEIGHT. Whether or not it's "controversial" is not an issue. The collage is in line with WP:LEADIMAGE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Woman Montage (1).jpg

Since the meaning of Woman is "human female" there is no way to make some images in the montage fit. "Isis" is a goddess not a human. We could also say the same about the two Venuses, but that is less clear. Why not change Isis image to Cleopatra VII? tahc ^chat 16:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to make any change, because the female gods do represent the feminine and therefore symbolize the human female form in the myths. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Since this article is Woman and not Femininity, I think your reasoning is misplaced. Are you just saying you don't want to do this yourself, or that there is any actual reason to avoid it at all? tahc ^chat 01:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I agree that there is reasoning misplacement here, but not mine. When one considers that as recently as August of this year, a bust of Sappho was replaced with an image of Laverne Cox, a notable and openly transgender person, then one might feel that "female" gods are appropriate inclusions in this montage. In my humble opinion, they are. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Isis and Venus shouldn't be here. Instead I suggest:

• Queen Victoria
• George Sand
• Simone de Beauvoir
• Virginia Woolf
• Coco Chanel
• Rosa Parks
• Margaret Thatcher
• Katharine Hepburn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1A:BA30 (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The word "woman" is used for female deities when depicting them as humans, so I don't think it's inappropriate to have these. Nature itself is sometimes called a woman too, but that would be too abstract. I don't think the image should be restricted just to human women when the word is used outside that context.Wikiditm (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

But this article is about human women, not deities. I think Eleanor Roosevelt should be added to the montage. She was a wonderful woman for many reasons and represents one the best of us in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.197 (talk • contribs)

Cox first - really?

Don't get me wrong, I'm on board with gender and racial diversity, but is Laverne Cox really the first woman that comes to mind over Cleopatra, Joan of Arc, Venus, or Mother Theresa? I agree that Cox, a trans woman of color, has a place in the composite, but first on the woman article is a little overkill, dare I say - tokenistic?

Just the $0.02 of a random anon.

--75.68.111.172 (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Why

Why put a transgender person among the other women and not, I don't know, a female midget? Or a woman with down syndrome? Is it arbitrary, or is there a reason? --JimmyBroole (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

>muh feelings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.118.64 (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there was a reason. Without a trans woman, the image is too kind to the point of view of ignorant people who think trans women aren't real women. Georgia guy (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Woman refers to the female of the human species. This is determined by XY_sex-determination_system. Trans_woman is an entirely different article and outside the scope of the article Woman. This has nothing to do with trans rights, this has nothing to do with your feelings, this has everything to do with the article being about woman as it relates to XY sex determination of the human species and transwoman is far outside the scope. A redirect + trimming of the article of the topic or consolidation with a link towards Trans_woman would help this article.65.29.77.61 (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You mean, trans women are just pseudo-women?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

They are not FEMALE by the definition of XY_sex-determination_system, which is what the entry Woman refers to. If there was no difference on any level why would you be calling them trans women? You obviously concede that via there is something different about them by your very label for them. Please do not take a snarky attitude when you want to discuss topics either, it's rude and uncalled for. This goes for the person below this entry as well, please do not fall do crappy attacks on a person even when they are wrong. 65.29.77.61 (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

They're not women at all. If you're XY, you're male.

Is there a reason why your definition of woman should be considered more highly than others, or for that matter trascend basic biology in supporting social causes? I'm not expecting you to be familiar with the concept of immorality, nor with aesthetics (poor Venus), but surely a person with your knowledge - confident enough to call others ignorant - would know what a bias is, and why a public encyclopedia should not be used for visibility, as a means for divulging your beliefs. But of course, it takes integrity and thoughtfulness for that knowledge to actually find expression. --JimmyBroole (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It's the definition used by people who understand transgenderism properly. Georgia guy (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I wasn't explicit enough: are you able to articulate an actual, sensible argumentation in response to what I wrote above? If you want adult talk, act like an adult. --JimmyBroole (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not acting in any particular way. Just read Wikipedia:Gender identity and it will make more sense to you that trans women are real women. Georgia guy (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

This is getting extremely insulting, both as personal attacks and in terms of discussion about trans people. Please stop and focus on the article. The article discusses trans women a fair amount. Having a trans woman in the image collage is reflects that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, please note that (common to both this discussion and a higher one in this talk page) the one I'm arguing with is the one whose fault it is. Please put some kind of banner on the talk page. Georgia guy (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind notice on my page, EvergreenFir. Would you be kind enough to respond to my second edit? And by the way, what is insulting about all this, exactly? --JimmyBroole (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome for the notice. I try to let all folks know about such discretionary sanctions as a courtesy.

This page is for discussing the article, so I will keep the answer to your question brief. You are insulting a fellow user, say that calling a trans woman a woman transcend[s] basic biology, and mention immorality in apparent reference to trans folks. Further discussion about individuals should be done on user talk pages, not here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

So, being discretionary sanctions active in transgenderism-related pages does not allow for actual discussion, is that correct?

Nevertheless, you have absolutely no basis for calling simple statements "insults", not for what is common biological knowledge, nor for what you call an "apparent reference". And, needless to say, this is not a discussion about individuals. --JimmyBroole (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion is allowed. Disparagement is not. Again, your comments on "basic biology" and "immorality" were uncalled for and insulting. If you meant either of them in a manner different than what I said, please specify so so that I may correct myself. That said, this is not the place to "debate" the womanness of trans women. We have plenty of sources that discuss it and are cited in the article. Personal opinions of editors on the topic are not notable.

Please see WP:PA. Calling other users names or implying lack of intelligence is a personal attack.

Your comments are insulting to me. And I'm sure I'm not alone. Please stop. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course, let me just reformulate my original question, hoping to not accidentally insult you this time, and that you will be kind enough to answer: considering the obviously controversial and complex subject that is transgenderism and the sociological and psychological implications and what not that come along with it, and considering the neutral stance that Wikipedia should naturally take on such controversial topics, what was the process for this page to actually decide to go with the nonchalant implication that a transexual woman is a woman, following the addition of Laverne Cox in the picture, right next to Venus? --JimmyBroole (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how the 'neutral' stance on transgenderism is that people are the gender they were assigned at birth and nothing else ever, which is a rather fringe stance to take. Wikipedia reflects what respectable, reliable sources say, and those echo the sentiment that a persons gender is more than the innie and/or outie they were born with. Laverne Cox is a woman, and a very notable one whose inclusion in the montage reflects the content of the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

/* Why */ I think the person in the first image is biologically male, according to wikipedias own pages on male/female of the species.31.49.123.45 (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Arguing with anyone about what a "real" woman is will be ultimately fruitless. Suffice it to say that for any purposes on this page someone will be regarded as a woman if reliable sources say they are a woman. WP:ABOUTSELF sources apply. Rhoark (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Woman refers to the female of the human species on a genetic level. Sources do not refer to Cox as a woman in this regard ever. No one will ever try to proclaim that Cox has a genetic structure matching a human female. Trans_Woman exists because the definition and connotation of the word woman has included transgenders as women in a social and legal way(Which full disclosure: I am fine with and accept). This article is for Woman as in human female, which requires specific genetics and biological structures. I think trans women is just outside the scope of the article but worthy of linking towards. There are a myriad of other entries that trans-woman=woman is very acceptable, but this entry I would disagree with it. 65.29.77.61 (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to that definition ("female at a genetic level") if you like it, but we won't accept it unless you can find enough reliable supporting sources to rebut all those which refer to trans women as a subcategory of women. FourViolas (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Compare this article with female. Also see sex and gender distinction. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I propose we take a vote on the inclusion of Cox in the collage.

Wikipedia decides things by discussion, not majority. For example: what do people think of the idea that Ms. Cox, while a woman according to reliable sources, is not the most important human female in history and ought to trade places with another image? FourViolas (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with discussing a possible replacement image, but if the collage is to give due weight to the article's content, at least one trans woman should be in the collage. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarification: I was suggesting Cox swap positions with another image currently in the montage, so that the prime example of womanhood is not a recently-popular celebrity. I agree that it's of encyclopedic value to illustrate many kinds of women, including a trans woman. FourViolas (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I had indeed misunderstood. I can fairly easily and quickly change the order of the collage around if that will make folks happy. Before Cox was added, it was in quasi-historical order, so a rearrangement would make sense. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that would at least cut down on the number of people dropping in to argue about the validity of transgender identity. FourViolas (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding what FourViolas stated (the "05:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)" post), including the mention of WP:Due weight, I've wondered why no one has simply moved the Cox image. Editors have repeatedly complained about Cox being the first image in the collage. Flyer22 (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

That's because those editors are people who don't understand that trans women are women. They look at transgenderism the easy way; that is, as people who arbitrarily fake/lie about their gender. Can you correct what I'm saying about what they think?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Not all of the editors who stated, or rather suggested, that Cox shouldn't be first have made it a case of not believing that Cox is a woman; that includes the IP in the #Cox first - really? section above. Flyer22 (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh! I thought you were merely talking about people who think Cox shouldn't be in the image at all because they don't think trans women are women. Georgia guy (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I have rearranged the collage. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

And here is the link for documentation on this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, @EvergreenFir:, I didn't realize it was that simple. FourViolas (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Should this really be a one-paragraph lead?

[1] Red Slash 05:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it should not be only one paragraph, but your suggested edit was more than inadequate. It summarized counter to the actual content of the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please semi-protect this talk page

Too many users are showing how much they disagree with the inclusion of a trans woman in the lead image. Please semi-protect this talk page. Georgia guy (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not called for. Even if a serious problem were going on, such as sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, it would be detrimental and un-wiki-ful to forbid new users from commenting. As it is, the discussion is not a sterling example of a reasoned exchange of policy-based arguments, but it's hardly pure WP:Disruption. FourViolas (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

This page needs an admin to watch over the comments here. Just deleted some hate speech. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

We're here, though not quick enough to catch the comment you deleted. The argument itself is a content dispute over whether this article is about concepts or biology. People should feel free to argue either side without feeling the need to denigrate transgender people and/or other editors. Per FourViolas, so far there's insufficient cause to warrant page protection. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I would think it clear that the article is about the social construct given the lead of the article, its content, the sources in the article, and the wording of female. Especially given the existence of articles like sex and gender distinction. Perhaps an FAQ is in order?

On a related note, I hope the change to the collage will assuage some folk re: the transgender issue. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Biblical etymology

Doesn't the term woman appear in the first book of the Holy Bible and wouldn't that predate the etymology described here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.148.172 (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The book of Genesis does predate the English word "woman," even though it references women. This is because it was originally written in Ancient Hebrew. FourViolas (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Transexuals

What citations are there to prove that people born with XX chromosomes but identify as female are female? I see none from reputable sources but I do see a fair few CN tags that have yet to be answered despite a significant amount of time passing. The references to transsexuals should be taken out and put into the the page on transsexuals. Cacra (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

People born with XX chromosomes who identify as female are female. People born with XY chromosomes who identify as male are male. Surely this is tautologically true, as no one claims otherwise. - Nunh-huh 04:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait, what? XX chromosomes and identifies as female is cisgender... not trans. But what's the problem with including trans women here? There are plenty of sources about trans women being women... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, I know that that's the (essentially) unanimous consensus of gender studies, but my quick look for a definitive quote in a respected introductory textbook found nothing on Google Books. Do you happen to know of something that would fit the bill? FourViolas (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)