Talk:Sex and gender distinction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

West & Zimmerman's "Doing Gender"[edit]

Hi all! I have added a sub-section to the Feminism section of this page that briefly summarizes one of sociology's seminal theories regarding gender. Please let me know if you have suggestions or other material that supports this contribution! Ghalmars (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Skepticism about Transgenderism[edit]

Gender identity disorders as a symptom of psychosis, schizophrenia in particular. | Transgender Library and Information

Psychiatry expert: ‘scientifically there is no such thing as transgender’

etc... Sex describes your chromosomal make up, either male, female or hermaphrodite. Obviously this is genetic. Sexuality describes your reproductive instincts, straight or gay. Typically you are born with your sexuality, but in rare cases, sexuality can be influenced through traumatic events during formative years. Straight or Gay is typically genetic. Demeanor is originally determined genetically, but adaptable through social interaction. Whether a person has a stereotypical "masculine" or "feminine" demeanor is completely subjective, determined by societal norms. All people have both "masculine" and "feminine" traits in their demeanor. Unhappiness with ones own demeanor compared to the societal norms leads to depression. To cope with that depression, these unhappy people wear clothes, hairstyles and develop mannerisms that match societies stereotypes, thus reinforcing those stereotypes, giving up who they are and complying with societal norms. In extreme case, surgical or self mutilation are employed to match the outward appearance of their bodies to the stereotypes of their society. Let there be no mistake, this is a reaction to depression. There is no scientifically designated "gender" for a male or female. Males can be very "feminine" and Females can very "masculine" in demeanor and this is normal. Wearing clothing and hairstyles of the opposite sex is not normal but because of the benign nature of it, society at large accepted it as a coping mechanism. But when people start physically mutilating themselves surgically to cope with depression, they need to be institutionalized, not encouraged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontier teg (talkcontribs) 17:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of gender/sex differences[edit]

Dr. Mills Articles [1] and [2] can be summarized with three statements: (1) "...the term "sex difference" refers to sexually dimorphic adaptations, regardless of whether cultural socialization is basically the same, or different, for males and females with respect to the trait." (2)"The term "gender difference" would refer to those average group differences between men and women that are likely due to sexually monomorphic psychological adaptations combined with culturally dimorphic socialization.". (3) "Even with these new definitions, there is a fairly large gray area between sex differences and gender differences. Future research may untangle some of these distinctions". Wiktionary says criticism is the act of criticising; a critical judgment passed or expressed; a critical observation or detailed examination and review; a critique; animadversion; censure. Google says criticism is primarily (first definition) the expression of disapproval of someone or something on the basis of perceived faults or mistakes. Dr. Mills believes in sex differences and gender differences. Therefore his criticism is of the type Wiktionary defines. In his previous article, he provides context for his views [3]: "Cultural determinists, after observing a difference between the sexes on some trait, may just assume that it is due to culture. They ask: "What is it about our culture that causes this difference?" This assumes that it is different in other cultures. This perspective has been termed "The Standard Social Science Model" (SSSM), because, well, historically it has been a pretty standard way of looking at behavior, and at sex differences. And, unfortunately, most feminist theories on the origins of sex differences made the mistake of relying on this faulty model." He is taking a reactionary stance against the idea that gender differences are entirely culturally determined. Not against the idea of sex and gender differences. This makes it material that elaborates the topic of the article, not material that takes exception to the topic of the article. Mrdthree (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

"...all behaviors are phenotypes—a complex interweaving of both nature and nurture." That is hardly a reactionary stance -- it is the consensus among scientists for all behaviors. The source does criticize the common definitions of sex differences and gender differences as making a false distinction (biology vs. culture). It then it proposes a re-definition of these terms that is more consistent with the relevant science (see sexual dimorphism and sex differences in human psychology). Memills (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
It sounds like what you are saying is that generalizing from groups to individuals carries the risk of making an ecological fallacy. This is alway true. I suppose the article touches on this topic by mentioning that gender and sex differences reflect group differences, but the topic of the article is not ecological fallacy and I doubt any serious researchers of sexual and gender differences are advocating for ecological fallacy? That said the article supports the use of the terminology of sexual and gender differences and the article provides a scientific definition, not a refutation. I see the article as a primary source informing the topic not a critique. Mrdthree (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
To refresh memories on what a primary source on Wikipedia is, read WP:Primary source. We should not be giving WP:Undue weight to a source, especially a primary source; you did that with the Mills source, and that's why I reverted. Flyer22 (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I reread it and my reading is wrong. I didnt appreciate a jargon word adaptive. The article is criticizing the usual definition of sex and gender differences by positing that we should be talking about gender differences and adaptive sex differences. So I withdraw my edits. I think it could be clearer though that this is the point of difference. A problem with the paragraph is that the example provided doesnt really illustrate this point; it actually reinforces the definition it is supposed to be criticizing. i.e. For example, greater male propensity toward physical aggression and risk taking would be termed a "sex difference;" the generally longer head hair length of females would be termed a "gender difference." No where in this example is it posited that the sex difference is adaptative (nor is it obviously adaptive). Mrdthree (talk) 06:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The relevant word is not "adaptive" is it adaptation. For example, the sex difference in height may not now be adaptive, but it is a consequent of sexually dimorphic adaptations. The proposed re-definitions of these terms would thus make height a sex difference, not a gender difference. Memills (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, whatever you and Memills debate on regarding that, that section can also be argued as WP:Undue weight since it currently is only covering Mills's criticism view. If it is expanded beyond that to show more than one person (Mills) criticizing those uses of the terms, it will be fine (well, truly fine if it includes more than just two or three people criticizing the uses). Flyer22 (talk) 06:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
It is pretty common to use the term "sex differences" to refer to sexually dimorphic adaptations. See, for example, Standards of evidence for designed sex differences and Stress-induced sex differences: adaptations mediated by the glucocorticoid receptor. Memills (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I didn't state that it wasn't. I stated that the section is WP:Undue weight "since it currently is only covering Mills's criticism [of using the terms sex differences and gender differences in the distinguishing manner they are usually used in]." Not to mention the proposal the section makes. And it is indeed WP:Undue weight, much like this section you recently deleted at the Sexual selection article. Devoting a section to one person's view in either way is WP:Undue weight. At WP:Undue weight, you can see the different ways that undue weight can be given; placement of material is one way. Flyer22 (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The criticism directly relates to the topic of this article: the definition of the terms sex and gender. (The deletion I made at the other article was that the content was not obviously relevant to the article -- and I moved it to a Talk page for discussion). I don't think that WP:DUE requires more than one reference source making the identical criticism. However, I would be happy to add additional references that make the similar point: "sex differences" are sexual dimorphic adaptations that require the interaction of both nature and nurture to develop. The fundamental point is that the partitioning of sex/gender differences into nature (sex) or nurture (gender) is incorrect and misleading (see Beyond Nature vs. Nurture. Memills (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
No matter how you look at it, that section is WP:Undue weight. It's not because "WP:DUE requires more than one reference source making the identical criticism." It's because it's titled "Criticism of the 'sex difference' vs. 'gender difference' distinction," and it includes only one person doing the criticizing when it comes to that distinction. It gives especial weight to one person's view, including how that person feels that the terms sex differences and gender differences should be used. And adding this bit that you added does not change that. If you don't believe that section is WP:Undue weight, and have read all of WP:Undue weight (subsections included), I don't know what else to tell you on the matter. Several years of Wikipedia experience tells me that the section is WP:Undue weight, and I'm certain that every editor at the WP:Undue weight (meaning the WP:Neutrality) talk page would agree with me about that section being WP:Undue weight. The text could fit in the Sex section, which already touches on the matter with similar wording. You should also always keep WP:Conflict of interest in mind when adding such material to this and any other Wikipedia article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
There are many scientists doing the criticizing of the terminology, not just one. I'll add some relevant quotes from Diane Halpern ("Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities") and Richard Lippa ("Gender, Nature and Nurture"). Memills (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Criticizing use of the wording "sex and gender" is not quite the same thing as criticizing use of the wording "sex differences and gender differences." If it was, the Mills source and the title of the section would not be focused on using that latter wording. Like the text you added to the lead currently states: "Among scientists, the term sex differences (as compared to gender differences) is typically applied to sexually dimorphic traits that are hypothesized to be evolved consequences of sexual selection." So this addition you added does nothing to help, in my opinion. They are not arguing the same thing as the Mills source, and having added them to the article is just an addition of more people criticizing the "sex and gender" wording, which is already well covered by the Sex and gender distinction article. So now the section acts as though it's the only section in the article doing that. Its title really does need to be changed. If it was titled "Criticism of the 'sex' vs. 'gender' distinction," however, I would simply change it to "Criticism"; this is per the MOS:HEAD guideline, which advises us to not redundantly refer to the title of the Wikipedia article (or to a significant portion of it) in section headings (unless the redundancy is needed). And as for many scientists criticizing the sex and gender distinction, it's also the case that many (perhaps the vast majority of) scientists embrace it...from what I see of scientific literature in general (including with regard to sources at WP:Med and WP:Anatomy). On average, for example, you'll see a biology book or specifically an anatomy book state "sex of the baby," not "gender of the baby," or you'll see "sex differences" far more than you'll see "gender differences," and this is because many scientists continue to see sex as only a biological matter and gender as only a social matter; no doubt this is why the World Health Organization (WHO) continues to make the distinction (a source pointed out in the Sex and gender distinction article). Flyer22 (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The term "differences" is important to keep because its common usage implies something about the causality of the differences between males and females as due to either biology ("sex differences") or culture ("gender differences"). No scientist, when pressed, actually takes that either/or position (despite what WHO says).
Taken alone, the term "sex" can refer to copulation or to the sexual type (male or female). The term "gender" alone means "kind," as in "genre" or "genus" as Steven Pinker points out. Both terms, by themselves, can be used without implication or reference to causality. If I say "the person's gender (or sex) is female" I'm not really saying anything about the causality of how that came about. But add the word "differences" and the terms "sex differences" and "gender differences," as commonly used, do generally imply something about causality. "The female preference for the color pink is a gender difference" implies something quite different about how that preference came about than "The female preference for the color pink is a sex difference." The criticism of using these "difference" terms is that they imply a false nature vs. nurture dichotomy with respect to causality, as noted by Halpern, Pinker, Lippa and others. Memills (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The section is currently problematic, for the reasons I stated above. And to also reiterate what I stated above, many (perhaps the vast majority of) scientists embrace the sex and gender distinction. That is not based on what the WHO states, and you know it; that is based on what the abundance of WP:Reliable sources, including the WHO, show and/or explicitly state. It's also clear by the recent content you added to the section in question; "researchers" are very often scientists. The Scientist article shows the different definitions of the term. In this case, I am not referring to the nature versus nurture topic with regard to use of the words "sex and gender." If the nature versus nurture and sex and gender distinction topics were the same thing, there would not be different Wikipedia articles for them. Of course scientists are generally in agreement that nature and nurture come hand in hand. I'm referring to, as the lead of the article makes clear, "differentiat[ing] sex, the biological makeup of an individual's reproductive anatomy or secondary sex characteristics, from gender, an individual's lifestyle (often culturally learned) or personal identification of one's own gender (gender identity)." Many scientists and doctors, including Wikipedia's Jmh649 (Doc James), use the terms sex and gender to make those distinctions, which is primarily why the Sex and Gender articles exist separately and is primarily why the Sex and gender distinction article exists. After all, it's not like the general public usually distinguishes the terms sex and gender, except for when using sex to mean sexual activity. As for other definitions of sex (which clearly, by my work on Wikipedia sexual topics, I don't have to be reminded of), this article is already explicitly clear what we mean by the terms sex and gender in this case; so I don't see the fact that sex can refer to sexual activity as a valid justification for keeping "sex differences" and "gender differences" in the heading. Not to mention that there can be no doubt that the vast majority of people use the term gender to refer to biological sex (male, female, intersex) and/or to masculine and feminine aspects instead of to grammatical gender, which is why that former meaning is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the Gender article is therefore at that meaning (not at grammatical gender). It remains that the source using the "sex differences and gender differences" wording in that section is the Mills source, and it is using it differently than the other sources in that section are using sex and gender. Also take note that I am not trying to yank your section out of the article. Nor did I state that I am going to change anything there. I am noting the problems with it. And if I started a WP:RfC on the matter (though I won't), I wouldn't be the only one noting the problems with it (and not because of misunderstandings of biology). Flyer22 (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other, or, we simply disagree. My main point in my previous comment was that the current usage of the terms "sex differences" and "gender differences" (but not necessarily the terms "sex" or "gender" alone) inappropriately imply either biological or cultural causality, respectively. But, since all behavior is a combination of both, if we are to use these "difference" terms in a meaningful and accurate way, they need to be re-defined in a way that acknowledges that all behavior is a phenotype. Memills (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll leave our discussion on this at that. Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I like the expansion of the section but I still dont like the example (for relevance)... Mrdthree (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Glad you like the expansion. The examples (at the end of the section) are in the source, for better or worse... Memills (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Well I think the example isnt illustrating the point but in general it sounds like a tough claim to test or have examples for-- Maybe body hair? Maybe you just show hairy males have more grandkids than hairy females? But then thats influenced by culture.... But then hairy is pretty strongly heritable and influenced by sex hormones but can be influenced by diet or shaving.. I dunno. I think its sufficient to show that there are strongly heritable traits that are distributed differently in males and females. How they got that way and whether the traits are adaptive are more questions about whether the traits were always there and will persist.Mrdthree (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Traits that are adaptations generally have low heritiability -- there is little heritable variation between people on the trait (e.g., everyone has a nose). This entire area, heriability and nature-nurture interactionism, is quite complex and is easily and often misunderstood. The relevant issue per the proposed re-definitions, is first whether a trait is an adaptation, by-product, or random variation (e.g., umbilical cord, belly button, "innie" or "outie", respectively). If a difference between males and females is an adaptation, is it sexually dimorphic (a "sex difference") or sexually monomorphic (a "gender difference"). Memills (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Distinction in linguistics section[edit]

Boson, the Distinction in linguistics section that you added is somewhat redundant to the Sex and Gender sections, which address terminology. Flyer22 (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Those sections deal predominantly with the difference between sex and social gender and do not deal adequately with the disinction made in linguistics between sex (which is an extralinguistic phenomenon) and gender (which is a grammatical phenomenon). In linguistics there was, until recently, a strict distinction between the two. In other words there are three concepts:
  1. Grammatical gender (in linguistics traditionally often just called gender)
  2. Social gender (in linguistics traditionally subsumed under sex)
  3. Sex (which also includes a number of different biological attributes)
Linguistics traditionally makes a 2-way distinction between the first of these and the other two, while sociology makes a distinction between the second and third of these and tends to ignore the first (or conflate it with the second).
Note that Quirk et al. refer to the "covert" gender of nouns, not of referents (i.e. real life entities). In other words (traditionally): words have gender, people have sex.
There is some overlap because the substantially different (new) definition of gender in the social sciences has spilled over into linguistics.
As I see it, none of the added information is redundant, but there is a problem because the article largely ignored the different distinction made in linguistics; so it might be appropriate to structure the article differently, either by more clearly separating the two different types of distinction, or by describing it as a 3-way distinction. I am open to either alternative.--Boson (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, soon after I commented, I saw what you were going for by adding the "Distinction in linguistics" section. Flyer22 (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
After I added the section, I did wonder if it was clear that I meant the distinction in linguistics as a discipline rather than the distinction viewed from a linguistic perspective. --Boson (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the "Distinction in linguistics" section should come first, though. It should perhaps be the third section, since this article is mostly about distinguishing biological sex from social gender. Flyer22 (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Please feel free to move it. I had, at first, intended it as a third section, but it looked a bit odd, tacked on the end. I considered putting the existing two sections under a heading "Distinction in sociology", but I was not too happy with that either, and didn't want to do that without some sort of consensus. --Boson (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I moved it. Per what MOS:HEAD states about avoiding the repetition of the article's title in headings, do you think that you or I should shorten the heading to "In linguistics" or "Linguistics"? Or do you think that this case is the exception to the rule? Flyer22 (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I did think it was worth adding the "distinction in" to clarify that it was about the distinction in (the discipline of) linguistics rather than the "linguistics" of the distinction, but the word "in" may suffice. I have no objections to your changing it as you think fit. --Boson (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Odd opening sentence[edit]

The initial sentence currently says "The distinction between sex and gender differentiates sex (the biological makeup of an individual's reproductive anatomy or secondary sex characteristics) from gender (social roles based on the sex of the person, usually culturally learned), or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity)."

I find this a very odd structure grammatically. The form runs like this: "The distinction between X and Y differentiates X from Y, or Z." The first part is tautologous and I have no idea what the phrase after the disjunction refers to.

Anyone like to try for something clearer?

Matthew C. Clarke 10:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Mcclarke (Matthew C. Clarke), yeah, that lead sentence has bothered me...structurally. The parentheses that you see there is my attempt to make the sentence flow better than it previously did. Grammar is not my strongest suit. Or a strong suit of mine at all. And I note that on my user page. What structure do you propose in this case? Flyer22 (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
How about something like "The terms sex and gender both refer to ... but the rise of feminism has lead to a significant distinction between the two terms since the 1970's. Sex refers to ... . Gender refers to ... ." The "since 1970's" can be backed up by this Google ngram. Matthew C. Clarke 13:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Per the WP:Refers essay, I'd rather not start off the WP:Lead sentence with "refers to" wording, since this article is not just about the words sex and gender. It also seems that you are suggesting that we first note the terms as synonyms; I disagree with that. Per WP:Lead sentence, the lead should begin by noting what the sex and gender distinction is. We get into noting the interchangeability of the terminology, and the debate concerning it, after that. Flyer22 (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I tried to change the structure to "The distinction between X and Y differentiates X () from Y, which can mean Y1 () or Y2 ()." Honestly, the sentence is somewhat ridiculous and would probably work much better as multiple sentences. This would require the opening sentence to change in scope, though. Right now, I think the structure is sensible? ~Mable (chat) 20:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with your change. I'm not sure how multiple sentences would work in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The opening sentence still doesn't make any sense, really. As it is, the issue, it seems to me, is that the two descriptions of gender (as distinct from biological sex) are social roles or gender identity; however, if gender is used in the second sense, distinct from both biological sex and social role, then what does it mean to personally identify "one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity)"? Doesn't this bring it back to personally identifying oneself in regards to either biological sex or a social role; if not, then what is one identifying as when they identify as one gender or another? The second use of the term gender, again as distinct from biological sex and social roles, would then be subsumed under either biological sex or social roles. B Dubb B (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not understanding your issue with the current lead sentence. "Gender" may refer to gender roles or to gender identity; that's what the lead states. And gender identity is personal identification of one's own gender. It's not the same as gender roles even though it's tied to gender roles in one way or another. We can remove the "an internal awareness" part if that's confusing you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
"And gender identity is personal identification of one's own gender." That's just it, personal identification of one's own gender as what? Is it the personal identification of one's own gender either as a man or a woman? If so, then it is not distinct from biological sex. Is it the personal identification of one's own gender as a male or female (in terms of societal standards)? If so, then it is not distinct from gender roles. What makes choosing one's gender distinct from those two things, biological sex and societal role, and what is being chosen? In other words, what does gender refer to in the third sense (that of personal identification) when we say that gender can refer to biological sex, societal roles, or personal identification? I don't think that I'm confused, I just think that the third distinction is sloppy because it either has to ultimately fall into one of the other two distinctions. By the way, please don't take this as an insult. I just think that the article can be made more clear by doing away with the ambiguous distinction.

B Dubb B (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:Class assignment[edit]

Tamuriley, I moved the class assignment tag you added to the top of Talk:Sex and gender and added it to the top of this one instead; I did that because Talk:Sex and gender is the page of a redirect; Sex and gender redirects to Sex and gender distinction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

ok, thank youTamuriley (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Tamuriley, I fixed the matter again. And the tag is already at the top of this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 11 June 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move the article has been established within a whole month. Each argument has nearly equal weight since they all bring up good points, but ultimately, a consensus has not been formed. (closed by page mover) Music1201 talk 21:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Sex and gender distinctionSex–gender distinction – Per WP:CONSISTENCY with such articles as Use–mention distinction, Type–token distinction, Hua–Yi distinction, and East–West Schism (note these is not called "Use and mention distinction", "Type and token distinction", "Hua and Yi distinction", or "East and West Schism"; see lots more examples of WP articles here); and to avoid that pesky conjunction per WP:AND. Also clears up some serious ambiguity: does the current title mean "[Sex] and [gender distinction]" (in which case, what does that even mean???), or "[Sex and gender] distinction" (which makes sense, and which is in line with the article's content, but is not clearly the intent just by reading it, and is still inconsistent)? Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 07:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC), edited 12:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 11:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose: The phrase "sex-gender" is not analogous to the other distinction articles, and thus consistency would not apply. Sex and gender are sets of characteristics, and not mutually exclusive states. "Use-mention" and "type-token" are terms of art in philosophy/logic that categorized different uses of words as either describing a concept or object. Both sex and gender refer to objects (characteristics) in this article's context. --Zfish118talk 16:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    Comment. User:Jujutsuan, you're using interesting terminology with brackets. I've never seen it before except in mathematics, and I think it's good that you've thought of its use in language. I would like to know how common it is in language. Georgia guy (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Georgia Guy. I made that up on the fly just to illustrate my point. It's not any standard convention as far as I'm aware. Zfish, none of those things are "phrases". It doesn't matter precisely what class of thing each refers to. If it's a distinction being drawn, it's a distinction, and no further questions about it need to be asked. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 23:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong support: per WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. The article is discussing the differences between sex and gender, which is not made clear by the current ambiguous title. Ebonelm (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Ebonelm, how is "sex and gender distinction" an ambiguous title? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
See the original reason for proposing the requested move. Georgia guy (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: because with the current title it could be understood to be an article discussing the distinctions between sexes and the the distinctions between genders. Rather than the actual intention which is to talk about discussions about the differences between sex and gender as concepts. Ebonelm (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Ebonelm, I'm not understanding that rationale. The article does discuss the distinctions between sexes and the distinctions between genders. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't "the distinction between sexes and the distinction between genders" refer to "the difference between men and women biologically and the difference between men and women from a gender-point of view"? ~Mable (chat) 04:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
When it comes to distinguishing between sexes and genders, the predominant binary view is only part of the topic these days. That is seen in the Gender article, this article and the Third gender article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
No, you misunderstood what I meant. The article is about the distinction between the word "sex" and the word "gender", not the distinctions between sexes and genders. I attempted to simply my example as much as possible to point that out, but I guess that was counter-productive. ~Mable (chat) 05:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the article is about terminology; I understand what you mean on that. But it also goes past the terminological aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
It goes beyond the terms to include the difference between the concepts and also discusses the concepts to the extent necessary to understand the differences, but it could not really be understood as (inter alia) about the difference between the sexes. I suppose it could be argued that it is also substantially about the distinction between the sexes (how do you tell a biologically male person or animal from a biologically female person or animal), etc., but I think that is secondary; if the article were really about that, I would expect a lot more, and that would distract from the main point of the article. --Boson (talk) 08:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment "use–mention distinction" (or "use/mention") is the common term as is "type–token" (or "type/token"). Thus, they don't seem to me very compelling examples to argue that the article ought to be consistent with. East–West Schism isn't the most common term, but it does seem to occasionally used as a term for the schism of 1054. I know aboslutely nothing about Chinese historiography, and so can't comment on whether "Hua–Yi distinction" is an established term. (I'm also unconvinced that anyone is likely to parse the article title as "(sex) and (gender distinction)", considering that, as the nom pointed out themselves, that makes no sense whatsoever, while parsing it as "(sex and gender) distinction" is natural and does make sense). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. To me the main ambiguities would be between
distinction (differentiation) based on both sex and gender
distinction (differentiation) based on sex or gender or both
distinction between the concepts of sex and gender
Since we can have any number of redirects and the title is descriptive, what about Distinction between sex and gender?
--Boson (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Boson: we could, and that would be okay, but while settle for okay when the nominator proposed title is more WP:CONCISE while equally WP:PRECISE? Ebonelm (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Because it is sufficiently concise and more immediately understandable and unambiguous. The relative unambiguity of "sex–gender distinction" is given only when the reader has recognized the en-dash as such and is aware of and has understood Wikipedia's conventions regarding the hyphen–en-dash distinction. After some thought the reader will probably decide that what is most likely meant is the "distinction between sex and gender", but if we call it that in the first place the reader knows it immediately and with certainty. --Boson (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment would weakly support: "Distinction between sex and gender" --Zfish118talk 03:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support I'm not sure it matters terribly much either way. The proposed title may be marginally more precise. There may be some ambiguity in the current title, but I doubt it is enough to confuse a native English speaker. Having said that, there are a lot of people on en that speak it as a second or third, so, like I said, it may be marginally better. TimothyJosephWood 12:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Based on the discussion above, I would oppose this move. I don't believe "sex-gender distinction" is particularly clearer than "sex and gender distinction". As for "distinction between sex and gender", that seems overly bulky to me. I'd keep the article as-is. ~Mable (chat) 14:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – this is exactly what the en dash is good for, connecting parallel terms in a symmetric relationship that can be "and", "versus", and such. Dicklyon (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't care - Not to be rude, but they seem equal to me. As long as one redirects to the other, I don't care. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - like others above, I'm not particularly sure this helps understand what the article is about. The current title is clearer.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Blanket removal of images[edit]

A user has taken it upon themselves to remove every single image from the article, and war to ensure they're removed. Apparently I'm the only person who considers that vandalism. So here are the relevant images if anyone cares. TimothyJosephWood 15:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I see zero reason why these should be removed. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The categorisation of a WP:BRD reversion of recently added material as a "blanket removal" or "vandalism" in uncivil. I see zero reason why they should be added; they do not enhance the article.
General issues are: a) that MOS:IMAGES@WP:PERTINENCE requires that Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative, these images are not significant & directly relevant to the article topic. b) that we are not required to have images in this or in any other article; "no good images available" does not justify using sub-standard images for the article topic.
Specific issues are as follows:
1) Combotrans.svg (interlinked Venus & Mars symbols) while this does relate to the subject "gender", it does not relate to the topic of "sex and gender distinction"; additionally, as the symbols are used for both "sex" and "gender" it serves to blur the distinction that is this article's topic.
2) Sex, gender & sexuality..jpg (pink & blue symbols on black & pink backgrounds) while aspects of the image relate to "sex and gender distinction", the image as a whole is a vast superset of the article topic; the image contents are also an original work by the image creator, a Wikipedian; and the work is an advocacy piece, not presented as such in its use in the article. (cf. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV)
3) Sex and gender identification's poster in UPF Ciutadella campus.jpg (cartoon image of human form with title "La Galeta de Genere") as per 2, with the addition that the image text is in Spanish and will not be meaningful to an English language reader.
4) Transgender and Genderqueer pride flags.jpg not each discussion of Transgender &/or Genderqueer topics requires an inclusion of the flags as "bling"; this is an off-topic image for the article subject and fails MOS:PERTINENCE.
5) Sebastian Berggren 1999 for Wild Side Story.jpg (image of person's face with half of face expressing societal gender standards for men, half of face expressing societal gender standards for women; captioned in article as "Gender as an ambiguous phenomenon is demonstrated by a young Swedish actor in 1999") do not concur that this image demonstrates such; believe that it, in many ways, trivialises & fetishises gender expression.
Discuss? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 16:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure: The above is an arbitrary set of personal preferences and capricious opinion, linked to policy as a garnish. The use of these images before you decided to war them out of the article was perfectly in line with common usage on Wikipedia, and half of them were pulled from the main articles on the subjects. You're argument is entirely WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and should be summarily disregarded as such. TimothyJosephWood 17:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Paraphrasing & Reference[edit]

Hey I was looking over your article and saw that you had a really long direct quote by Linda Zerilli in the Limitations section of your Feminism subgroup. I just finished a training module on citations and a big thing they kept mentioning was plagiarism, and how long direct quotes (even if they're cited) are still considered as plagiarism on Wikipedia. I just wanted to point out that little detail to help fix your page. Also, your Reference #10 from the blog post on Psychology Today doesn't seem like a good source because the writing is heavily opinionated. Although it is written by a psychology professor, the content doesn't follow the whole "neutral" aspect of Wikipedia. So I suggest finding a new source or taking out the information from that source altogether. Chris6734 (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done TimothyJosephWood 13:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Sexual Intercourse and gender distinction[edit]

Intercourse is in the third definition of at least one dictionary for sex, but pornography always comes up immediately under sex. I am confused. When I fill out a form at the doctor's office, I am not quite sure what to answer when confronted with the SEX section. Usually the option are M and F. Since it does not say gender and the word "sex" seems to be synonymous with intercourse, at least on the web and in other aspects where physicians' offices may be concerned, I wonder if F stands for frequently and what m might possibly be an abbreviate. Given the extremely broad change in the word "sex". I am trying to figure out the distinction and why no one else is making changes to the forms or altering the terminology. I was being profiled through purchases for years. I made one minor change. All of the sudden, the system changed my gender and coupons from those recommended for a man to those for a woman. If some people hear the word "toss" they may think of something sexual in nature as opposed to something one might do with a ball or other object. If I am talking about a ream of paper, again, someone might think of something sexual. If I am talking about a ball, they may not be thinking sports. Even "cookie" apparently has a sexual meaning, even though the primary definition does not seem to be consistent with the popular usage. As far as the technical meaning of actual reproduction and gender, I still have a bit to learn. However, I am sick of being attacked with intercourse over the internet, especially when trying to find out the ethnic origin of the lower back hair on my daughter, which I have only seen on one blonde female who was prominently displaying it. I don't even know what the title of this article is supposed to mean. I am confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E944:B500:7C8E:5763:EF4B:57CE (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)