Talk:Woman

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Katxzhang (article contribs).

Call for a taskforce to improve the quality of the article!

I just edited and structured the jumbled up section about biology. The biology section was even missing menopause! It would seem that this whole article has been very neglected especially regarding the spectrum of womens biology and its implication for the definition of women. I have never applied for some sort of Wikipedia taskforce. So I ask kindly if anyone has the proficency to address the terrible state that this article is in, particularly because its not an article about a trivial subject.

Such a taskforce would need to have a special sensitivity towards the (rightly) much raised issue of transphobia in this article.

A good start would be to expand on how genetics produce the spectrum of biology of women. This can be a good start to get beyond dictionary definitions of "woman" and elobrate on variety and expand beyond the inpreciseness of dictionary definitons. I started by moving the genetics first in the biology section, it is telling about the state and authorship of this article that previously the biology section didnt start with the genetics but with the organs, if you ask me.

Together towards a better Wikipedia for everyone! Yours, Nsae Comp (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

What is the reasoning behind calling this article transphobic? Maneesh (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

That you can read in previous discussions. I am asking for a thurough improvement of the article's quality, initiated by the simple shocking fact that after 20 years a basic article as this didnt have a single mention of menopause. And thats just an example. As I said I started by improving the structure, but e.g. I have only a very basic biology knowledge, so I am asking for a thurough improvement by people who know biology and even more importantly know how to attract competent editors. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Those previous complaints were based on false premises. 'Spectrum' is a scientifically meaningless buzzword if used in reference to biology. Still, there can be room for improvement based on WP:MEDRS sources about women's biology. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I see there is no one willing to improve and hear critique. This article goes on my private list of jammed articles. Nsae Comp (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

? You are not the only that has corrected long standing incorrect information in this article. There have even been edits since yours (which has no cite for menopause). No one is stopping anyone from improving the article and the fact that we are discussing here makes is clear that some people are interested in hearing critiques. Maneesh (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for prooving me incorrect and participating, nothing else was I hoping is possible. (Citation added; easy fix) So can we get some steps done to raise the attention for a critical and competent review for this article instead of just opposing each other. Nsae Comp (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

4 sources is too much for a single sentence

@Crossroads:

Look at this sentence. Puberty in females triggers changes in the body that enable sexual reproduction via fertilization. In response to chemical signals from the pituitary gland of the brain, ovaries produce estrogen that stimulates maturation of the body, including increased height and weight, body hair growth, breast development and menarche (the onset of menstruation) which generally occurs between ages 12–13.[18][19][20][21]

That’s literally four sources for a single sentence. This is is pure wp:CITEKILL.CycoMa (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

That's a subjective opinion. 4 cites isn't uncommon. If it was 5 or more, I get it, but I don't see the need to add the clutter of a tag. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

"Women's clothing varies highly in different cultures."

I have never been to Afghanistan, but I can say with certainty that most Japanese women do not walk around in kimonos on a day-to-day basis, and most normally dress more like the German women in the photo on the right. Perhaps replace the photo on the right with a different photo and change "Women's clothing" to "Traditional women's clothing"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd support that. We'd be better off removing the collage entirely than keeping the current version. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

"Arehle" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Arehle. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Arehle until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Women's Health reverts

I had replaced the introduction to Woman#Health and it has been reverted. The initial sentences are unsupported (which groups are advocating? what does 'holistic' mean here?). There is no mention of the ultimate reason for the sex specificity in health, which is women's sex chromosome complement. The WHO link provided for support for "gender" as (merely) a "social determinant" of health doesn't look anything like WP:RS and I don't even see the support when I click the link. The writing I had added was a clear improvement, a very comprehensive overview and is supported by a high quality source. A. C. Santacruz's edit summary complains that my edits "Shift towards describing women in terms of chromosome absolutes..." this is ridiculous particularly given the high priority the existing wp article (naturally) gives to chromosomes. Sex chromosomes are *the only* known factor the results in the zygote developing through the female vs. male pathway. It is an obscene omission to not mention chromosomes in the context of women's health. Maneesh (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I said absolutes as not all women have only XX chromosomes (some might have more, etc.). Women's health is affected by social and cultural factors as well as biological ones, and so removing that context from the section over-simplifies women's health (this balance is better held in the article Women's health). I agree that the WHO link is inadequate for the section and a better one is needed, but I don't think that merits completely replacing the section towards an exclusively biological description. I therefore disagree on your edit being a "very comprehensive overview". The section definitely needs a rewrite, but it will take more than a single source to do so. Note as well that this section should be a summary of the more expansive article focused on the topic, so it should work as a general introduction to the topic. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Was the chromosome language in the same passages of the sources as the health information you were citing? If not, your text was WP:SYNTH as well as UNDUE. Newimpartial (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I made this adjustment. We do not give WP:UNDUE weight to rare conditions in which a woman might have chromosomes other than XX. When researchers study sex differences, they generally concentrate on the 99+% without those conditions. Yes, even sex differences in cellular processes are studied. Environmental factors - which includes social environment - is also mentioned. It could be mentioned more specifically, but the previous text was not very good, and the new source may even comment on that as well. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I do think your edit is an improvement to Maneesh's and brings us closer to a good section. However, I maintain that more information should be added on social and cultural effects of womanhood on women's health. Another issue with equating womanhood with XX is that it ignores the existence of trans women as women, so while trans women are not necessarily subject to many of the issues in women's health, perhaps wording it as "cis women" rather than an overly formal "females" would be a better section? Not that I hold that opinion too strongly, but I'll wait and see what others say on the matter. With respects to the source, I agree that it is miles better than the WHO one, but we should add other sources as well I think. The article on women's health provides many that could be added here. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Small note, the article on women's health mentions chromosomal makeup only once, and very briefly, which is why I first thought over-emphasizing it in this description seems like a mistake. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

What a shamefully poor article then, good thing WP is not RS. Maneesh (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

No need to be so patronizing, Maneesh. The article on Women's health is a GA, which is why I mentioned it as a good reference on how to word this section. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

What article are you referring to? Maneesh (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Women's health Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed it, since we don't need to specify that any more than certain other aspects of female biology. To be clear, it did speak of "females", and we do need to be able to speak in clear terms about female biology without getting bogged down in every exception, of which there are all sorts. But anyway. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Maneesh, adding that back in as-is was not optimal. The text already mentions molecular differences. You can see above that the text is already causing people to try to bring gender identity into it. Perhaps we can just change it to say something about the cellular level? We don't need to specify chromosomes there any more than we do other specific aspects like naming parts of the female reproductive system. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I added the word "genes", which should be enough. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

You have strange notions of "optimal" and elementary biology then. What you've put in is counter to elementary biological facts and obscenely misrepresentative of the top-tier source here. First sentence and chapter 2: "Every Cell Has a Sex - The biological differences between the sexes have long been recognized at the biochemical and cellular levels. Rapid advances in molecular biology have revealed the genetic and molecular bases of a number of sex-based differences in health and human disease, some of which are attributed to sexual genotype—XX in the female and XY in the male. Genes on the sex chromosomes can be expressed differently between males and females because of the presence of either single or double copies of the gene and because of the phenomena of different meiotic effects, X inactivation, and genetic imprinting. The inheritance of either a male or a female genotype is further influenced by the source (maternal or paternal) of the X chromosome. The relative roles of the sex chromosome genes and their expression explains X-chromosome-linked disease and is likely to illuminate the reasons for heterogeneous expression of some diseases within and between the sexes." EDIT: The bolding of chromosomes is in the original text. If you try and summarize that key message from this source about women's health without using words like "sex chromosome", you are deluding yourself. Contrived language to accodmodate religous gender identity concerns will result in an obscene articles with strange qualifiers throughout. The section on women's health is already specific to women with XX chromosomes, because you can be sure that all those enriched prevalences and specificities of lupus, breast cancer, ovarian cancer are supported by studies on adult human females with XX chromosomes. They probably apply to X0 and XXX women since those women are adult human females for the underlying reason that the human fetus can be viable to sex chromosomes aneuploidies due to effects like X inactivation. They *do not* apply to trans identifying males. "sex specific genes" is not even a little correct, the only sex specific genes are on the Y chromosome and the intro I've quoted in "Every Cell Has a Sex" explains how female and male cells are different as a complex outcome of sex chromosome complement, not just a few genes on the Y chromosome. You best review the source to gain a better understanding of sex differences in health. Look at how, for instance, we discuss sex differences in immunity in reliable sources; you'll always find chromosomes right away since they are so fundamental. Maneesh (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Where does "Every cell has a sex" make relevant, RS statements about women's health that are used in this article? I must have missed that. Also, when you say of the Nature article, we discuss, have you made a WP:COI declaration in this field of scholarship? I must have missed that, too. Newimpartial (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

You must've missed the 2nd sentence in the above quote then, bolded in case you miss it again: "Rapid advances in molecular biology have revealed the genetic and molecular bases of a number of sex-based differences in health and human disease, some of which are attributed to sexual genotype—XX in the female and XY in the male.. That is a a claim about women's, adult human females, health. What in the world are you talking about re: COI? Maneesh (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Maneesh, why do you think the passage you quoted above is a helpful addition to this article? Why do you think the source in question is a WP:MEDRS for women's health? And are you under the impression that there is consensus of other editors to include material based on this source, in the article?

As far as WP:COI goes, if you write or publish in this field, might cite yourself (or write about your professional rivals), etc., you may have COI and if that is possible, policy requires that you declare any potential COI for transparency purposes. Do you now understand? Newimpartial (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Nothing I've said is inaccessible to anyone with google and a mere laymen's understanding of biology. You have no basis to even suggest COI. Maneesh (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Then why did you say we discuss with reference to a piece in Nature? You seemed to be referring to how things are discussed in RS, not on WP. Newimpartial (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

People use "we" informally like that all the time. we = people who discuss science seriously.Maneesh (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Two comments. Firstly, the section in this article is meant to be a very brief, general summary of the topic of women's health. Getting so hyperspecific on the subject of genes is unnecessary to do so here, and perhaps more appropriate to the main article for that. Secondly, we're not arguing about your source. We're arguing about the whole topic of women's health. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

EDIT [correct/calrify]: If you want to deny the claim I've quoted above in bold from the RS is not fundamental claim about women's health, you need to read more carefully. EDIT: Sex chromosomes are not in any way "hyper specific", they are the fundamental reason why women are women and men are men. Maneesh (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Maneesh I'd appreciate if you could rephrase your comment. As it stands I genuinely don't understand what you mean. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

We seem to be straying heavily into WP:FORUM territory here. While an interesting, albeit somewhat incorrect due to its simplicity, diversion, what does this have to do with the content being revised in the article? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The section on women's health open with describing the importance of sex differences beyond factors related to reproduction. "Top tier" sources as I have provided open with attributing some of these differences to sex chromosomes in bold writing, the mention of which has been removed in the article for religious concerns that are related to gender identity. Maneesh (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Clarification is much appreciated. The section is about a general overview on women's health, not why "women are women, and men are men". The genetic differences of most women to most men are but one aspect of women's health, not the end all be all. I think that the wording proposed by Crossroads and myself does a good job of both mentioning the importance of genetic influence on women's health while staying within the purview of the section. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

You remain confused as to why RS specifically mention sex chromosomes, in bold, wrt to women's health. The only way to talk about those genetic differences is in terms of sex chromosomes, not "sex-specific genes" (both males and females have an X chromosome) which is plain dead wrong. Maneesh (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I tried adding "sex chromosomes" then, in place of "genes" which you reverted. I don't recommend specifying the chromosomes again, not only because that is already done higher in the article, but because you can see firsthand it is a magnet for controversy which can be easily sidestepped without loss of meaning. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The fact that clarifying sex chromosomes (XX vs. XY) in this section is considered controversial here, when it is standard practice in MEDRS, highlights a severe integrity problem here and the surrounding comments make it clear editors seem uncomfortable with the plain fact that understanding women's health is tied to understanding XX chromosomes vs XY chromosomes. Somewhere in the recent edits "hormonal milieu" has been removed. Sex chromosomes and hormonal milieu are always specified as the primary cellular biological sex difference that drives health differences. It must be re-inserted. It is specified in the existing cite and for the sake of making it crystal clear, from NIH's OWHR: "There are 2 variables that are constitutively different between males and females: the sex chromosome complement (XX vs. XY) and gonadal hormones (ovarian vs. testicular secretions)." Maneesh (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to show the science-denial present in editors on this page, another paper that says it crystal clear: "Women’s health, viewed through the lens of sex differences, incorporates research into reproductive health and the physiological processes directed by the XX chromosomal complement, including hormonal changes accompanying puberty, pregnancy, and menopause that have lifelong consequences."Maneesh (talk) 06:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I added a brief mention of hormones too. I doubt that would be controversial. I get being frustrated with the way these discussions sometimes go, but I think it's best to not get too worried about assuming that any version of what you have in mind will be rejected, or to get caught up in rhetoric toward other editors. And yeah, sometimes we have to compromise because of what the other editors who happen to be around are saying. I think the text for the section now is good (except for the additional sentence agreed below which will be added later). Crossroads ^-talk- 06:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I looked at this again and can see that "sex chromosomes" aren't defined anywhere in the article, it isn't clear to the reader that the phrase Normally cells from females contain two X chromosomes, maps to the sex chromosomes mentioned later. The clearest most concise way to address this lack of clarify is to mention the "XX sex chromosomal complement" or something like "XX vs. XY" explicitly the way the RS do as I have quoted above. It is noteworthy that some editors seem ready to engage in edit wars over this rather obvious way of discussing things. Maneesh (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I liked your revised edit, and thought if we added a single sentence along the lines of "The differing economic and social freedoms of women depending on their cultural background also have significant effects on their health, both through limiting their access to appropriate healthcare services and economic limitations preventing them from seeking treatment" would be good enough to round out the section as comprehensive. However, Maneesh reverted that. My proposed edit would be as follows:

Factors that specifically affect the health of women vs. men are most evident in those related to reproduction, but sex differences have been identified from the molecular to the behavioral scale. Some of these differences are subtle and difficult to explain, partly due to the fact that it is difficult to separate the health effects of inherent biological factors from the effects of the surrounding environment they exist in. Sex-specific genes, lifestyles, metabolism, immune system function, and sensitivity to environmental factors is believed to contribute to sex differences in health at the levels of physiology, perception, and cognition. Women can have distinct responses to drugs and thresholds for diagnostic parameters. Additionally, the differing economic and social freedoms of women depending on their cultural background also have significant effects on their health, both through limiting their access to appropriate healthcare services, limitations preventing them from seeking treatment, and cultural practices which may be harmful to their health."

I'm somewhat unsure of what sources to site for my addition, but they are supported within Women's health so it would just be an issue of getting the refs and making sure they support the text. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah adding a sentence like that is good. We just need a source for verification and we should be good. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Is a Black Females also considered a "woman"? ( noticed every other ethnicity is represented in photographs)

I find it disturbing that there is not one photograph of the original woman - the Black Woman. This is beyond racist. 2601:48:C600:8FF0:6951:3019:DA2A:5AF9 (talk) 07:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)