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

Lead image[edit]

Botticelli's The Birth of Venus is a very poor lead image for this page.

I see that there used to be a gallery that was removed in Feb 2016 following this RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images about galleries of large groups of people (which arose from an RfC here, now in the archives here), which arose from a prior RfC about ethnic groups" that led to MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. There was an effort to repeal MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES here in June 2016 that failed.

So OK, no gallery. There has been no discussion here since then.

In the article, we've had:

So the Venus is just a "classier" version of the "bust", "fitness model", and actress pictures, emphasizing sexuality/beauty ideals, and this is not a good thing. I'm removing the image, leaving the infobox symbol image at the top. I very much doubt that an RfC would provide consensus for Venus or the similar images as the lead image on this page. Jytdog (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Venus of Willendorf frontview retouched 2.jpg
I'd agree overall. I'm also concerned that it uses Western ideals to represent a global topic. I'd recommend scouring for something not Euro-centric and not objectifying if possible (perhaps like the Willendorf Venus shown on the right?). Otherwise, I'd recommend just leaving it blank. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
something "not Euro-centric" so you propose a European artifact found in Europe instead. More of a comment on wikipedians than anything (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
It's from Europe, but not really "Western"? But point taken. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
On Botticelli's The Birth of Venus image, I just love visuals and would prefer the art to represent the subject, that's all. There is no ill intention on my behalf for the installment of the image. What I did not expect was all this sensitivity; and the fact that people do read into things; like diversity and objectification issues, also the question of Eurocentric beauty ideals, I'm not a European myself. So.., if the main picture is posing a problem, go ahead remove it, I do not mind if the article has none. Cheers..! Gunkarta  talk  05:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't/didn't mind the Venus image as the lead image because it's an artistic expression that shows the female form. It's not WP:GRATUITOUS. There is currently a similar image (of a man) at the Man article. But, sure, if it's preferred that the lead images at both of these articles be of people with clothes on, so be it. Here at the aforementioned RfC, I stated in part, "if this RfC closes with consensus for the broad interpretation of the gallery aspect, we should work out the wording for the content since a number editors, including ones who do support the broad interpretation of the guideline, clearly do not agree that the matter is WP:OR, and also have significant disagreement about the 'similarly large human populations' wording. And there is also the matter of having the gallery lower in the article. How is it any more of a problem for the lead than if it's placed lower in the article?" The "OR" piece was removed from the wording, but the "similarly large human populations" piece is still there, and we see that it hasn't stopped the gallery that is currently at the bottom of in Child article. Furthermore, the Girl article still currently has various images as the lead presentation. It also had it at the time of the aforementioned RfC. It's working for that article, but that's likely because the images are not of celebrities or other notables. As the aforementioned RfC shows, a main problem with such a presentation at articles was including celebrities or other notables. For this article, the debate was mostly over including trans woman Laverne Cox. If we were to do a "variety" presentation again, the trans debate would start up again, but if we included a trans woman or trans women who weren't known as trans, I doubt we'd get fuss over the inclusion(s). People objected because they knew Cox was transgender. Maybe having a gallery at the bottom of the article would work. In that case, not noting who is trans could be seen as trans invisibility; so noting who is trans might be the better option despite the occasional anti-trans comments we'd get. Anyway, a single image for an article like this doesn't come anywhere close to being representative. At least a collage/gallery of different types of women has a significantly longer reach representative-wise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
As for the image EvergreenFir suggested, I don't see that as an improvement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that the new image (woman mechanic) is the same problem as was identified with the original image, just in a different way. If the original image emphasized outdated and west-centric ideals of female beauty, then this new image emphasizes (also west-centric) ideals of modern feminism, which is not necessarily a point of view that I disagree with, but it is still a specific conceptualization of "woman" and not a universally applicable representation, and Wikipedia should aim for neutrality. Since the article for "man" uses the image from the Sistine Chapel of "The Birth of Adam", then why not use for this article the image from the Sistine Chapel of "The Creation of Eve"? (The image could potentially be cropped to show only Eve.) That seems the most logical option, to me. Or, alternatively, perhaps keeping the "woman mechanic" image, but along with a couple other images showing other conceptualizations of "women", such as one more traditional western conceptualization, a non-western woman, maybe even a trans-woman? (unless that would be perceived as violating "no ethnic galleries") Or, as a third alternative, one single photograph of a woman who is portrayed in a way that is neither, in traditional conceptualizations of the terms, feminine nor masculine? Vontheri (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Vontheri: I agree with you that the current lead image is non-neutral in that it emphasizes ideals of western modern feminism. I do not support using a collage or an image from the Sistine Chapel. I have been (slowly) working on a gallery for lead image options for the Man and Woman articles. This is what I have so far, with my preferences being the sitting Brazilian woman and the small photo of the sitting Brazilian man, but cropped: Man and Woman gallery Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut: I think the Brazilian image you found would be a good choice. Out of curiosity, is there any certain reason you don't think the Sistine Chapel image would be a good fit? Vontheri (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Vontheri: I thought this was discussed here but I can't seem to find it. Basically I think the image should be representative of an actual man, not a piece of art. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut: Okay. Well, I think the Brazilian images that you found would be good. I think it's best that the images should be just of a woman/man in a neutral way, and not in a way that suggests a certain role or occupation or activity etc., since the article is just called "woman", and not "women who are mechanics" or "women who are artists", etc. Thus the Brazilian image is a fitting choice. Vontheri (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Vontheri: Thank you; my thoughts exactly. See the section below, "A woman is more than a job".Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A woman is more than a vagina?[edit]

Apologies for bringing up the issue of lead image again, as I see it was discussed above a few months ago. But the lead image is kind of important because it's the image that pops up in previews and some aggregators and such. I was reading something that wikilinked "Man and Woman" and I moused over the links to see the WP:Tools/Navigation popups, and the lead image for Man is a picture of a man, specifically Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam. The lead image for Woman is a diagram of the female reproductive system. These two pictures communicated to me that "man" is a male (complete) human being, and "woman" is a vagina. I didn't want to change it unilaterally (specifically, I didn't want to revert this edit without asking first). Is it just me? Levivich 23:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Even though the image in question is not in an infobox or at the top of the article, but instead several screens down and below two other images (which are in the infoboxes), it is indeed very awkward that it's the "top" image that various on- and off-site scripts grab. A very slight tweak would be to swap the order of that image and File:Human anatomy.jpg, which are very close to each other in the same section. This would not involve introducing any new images or changing what section or "screen" any of the images were on, so it would hopefully not be controversial; does anyone object? -sche (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
No objection to that change, as I think it would be an improvement over the current situation. However, I think that change creates a new problem: the lead image for Woman would be a picture of a man and a woman. I think articles like Man, Woman, Horse, Pig, Fish, Tree, etc., should have a lead image that depicts a typical example of the subject. What about swapping it with File:Weaving profile.jpg or File:WomanFactory1940s.jpg (both currently in the article), or adding a new picture altogether? Levivich 03:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Definitely an issue that File:Scheme female reproductive system-en.svg currently presents as the main image. And it wouldn't be much better to have the main image be of both male and female anatomy. Given what I stated about the Girl article in the #Lead image discussion above, I think it's time we revisit the "similarly large human populations" matter with a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. A lead image (collage or otherwise) that shows a variety of different types of women would work best -- meaning it would be better than an image of a single woman for this article. But if the Man article can get away with using a single artistic image for its lead image, so can the Woman article. This is regardless of the transgender topic repeatedly being more of an issue for this article than it has been for the Man article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
If we can't find a suitable lead image for this article, maybe we should change the lead image on Man instead? In general, I agree that the Man and Woman articles should focus less on anatomy than the Male and Female articles. feminist (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Changing the lead image on the Man article won't fix the aforementioned issue with this one. And what would we change the lead image of that article to? We should be more focused on this article unless we want to have a discussion about both articles and leave a note there that, per WP:TALKCENT, the discussion is centralized here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I was going to suggest a painting by Frida Kahlo - if the lead image on Man is a well known painting of and by a man, why not make the lead image on Woman a well known painting of and by a woman? But, unfortunately, it seems her work is still under copyright, and I can't think of another female portrait painter who is iconic in the same way. Someone who is more versed in art than me should make suggestions, but here are a few ideas:
Alternately, I think either the factory picture or the weaving picture would be good. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Hmm I see there's already been some good discussion above about the Birth of Venus, beauty standards, etc up higher that I missed. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Per what I noted in the Lead image discussion, I don't mind File:Sandro Botticelli 046.jpg (the Birth of Venus image) being the lead image. I think that File:Serebryakova Bath house study 1912.jpg would be a poor choice because it's focused on women bathing. I think that File:Self-portrait in a Straw Hat by Elisabeth-Louise Vigée-Lebrun.jpg would be a poor choice because of her dated clothing and the fact that she is a notable woman from the past. I think that File:Shoen Uemura - Firefly.jpg would be a poor choice because it's too tied to a specific culture. I think that File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg would be a poor choice because of just how famous the image is and that it is sometimes mocked. I'm not sure about File:Meisje met de parel.jpg, but I know I don't prefer it. I think File:Venus von Willendorf 01.jpg would be a poor choice (the poorest choice) because it's a statue without clear facial features and doesn't represent what is typically thought of as the female form. Yes, female forms differ, but WP:LEADIMAGE is about trying to find a representative image. Sometimes a traditional or stereotypical image is more representative to the masses. For example, a red apple as opposed to a green apple, as the lead image for the Apple article. I'm not stating that we need to go with a white woman as the lead image, though, of course. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh brother, must we go through this again? I'd think we had best left well enough alone. But if we must, it would be best to use the first woman rather than the last, in other words a black woman should be used. Gandydancer (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Which woman, Gandy? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Flyer, that's the point - which black woman? Seems to me we're between a rock and a hard place when we think we can find a woman to represent "woman". Look above at all the pure, virginal, sparkling white photos. A black woman in Africa with a nursing child in a sling as she works in a field might as well be from Mars compared to the above photos. I don't want to choose a woman but if we must at least a poor Asian woman better represents woman of today since they are at least half of our world population (I think). BTW, at one point we had a composite and that didn't work out either due to squabbles about the choices. Gandydancer (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh come on, there is no need to bring race into this. Just select the most suitable image that represents a female human, and that means a traditional or stereotypical image that resonates with readers. And I'm not even white. feminist (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Gandy, yeah, in the Lead image discussion, I noted the "various display of women" aspect and that the "various display" route has been working for the Girl article for years. The main issue with using a collage or composite at this article? It was the people who kept complaining about having a trans woman -- Laverne Cox -- in the collage or composite. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Yup, you can have countless trans women saying that they knew something was wrong when they were three years old and yet there are those that say they know better than what these people knew for a fact because they lived it. All the more reason to not use a photo of some illusion of what is considered to be a woman. Gandydancer (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, that reminds me (because this was also a criticism of at least one of the figures in the collage) of one of the criticisms of the Birth of Venus: it's not a depiction of a woman, it's a depiction of a deity. -sche (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Who made that argument? Was it it a common argument? Whatever the case, I think that's a weak argument, -sche, since the imagery is clearly of the female human form. Editors could also use an image of Eve to contrast the image of Adam at the Man article, but then we'd have to worry about "Wikipedia is going with a religious viewpoint" arguments. In the case of Venus, it's Greek mythology and so we don't have to worry about "Wikipedia is going with a religious viewpoint" arguments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
"that means a traditional or stereotypical image that resonates with readers". You must be kidding, right? Gandydancer (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, looking at it again I understand why this comment may easily be misinterpreted. But I want an image that resonates with the majority of readers. According to a visualization created by the WMF, almost 50% of English Wikipedia readers come from the US or UK. An absolute majority of readers come from the Global North. We should cater to them. feminist (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't object to switching to some completely different image (and I would be fine with either the birth of Venus or a black woman, as proposed above), but another "least change" idea that might side-step debate over a new image: is there a way to cause the image which is currently the first image in the article, File:Symbol_venus.svg, to be parsed as the top/thumbnail image? -sche (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Agreed that the Venus symbol would be a good choice for a neutral image. feminist (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I assume one way to do this would be: instead of including Template:Women_in_society_sidebar, copy and paste the entire contents of the sidebar into the article. Of course, this wouldn't be ideal because any changes updates to the sidebar would have to be added to the article manually and they'd likely fall out of sync. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Some additional possibilities? Levivich 04:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

How about this? A beautiful work of art that's 1. Stylized enough to feel somewhat universal 2. Not depicting anyone specific. 3. From a culture that's not over-represented on Wikipedia (it's a fresco from a Minoan palace.) 4. Not sexy or male-gazey.

WanderingWanda (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

That image is ambiguous gender-wise. And definitely no to the cartoon image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
If it feels ambiguous gender-wise I'd argue that's a good thing - it means it's presenting a broad and non-stereotypical view of women. Plus the title of the piece - Ladies of the Minoan Court - will clear up any confusion. I'm going to be bold and throw it up there - I think a piece of art is better for such a broad concept as 'woman' than a photograph of one specific person, and after looking at various pieces of art this feels like the best candidate that I've found. In any case it's definitely better than the various photos of conventionally attractive young white women that people keep putting up. But I know this is a controversial subject so 100% feel free to revert or put forward other candidates. (I'd be perfectly happy if we could find a good piece of art where the subjects happened to be black, per discussion above, for example.) WanderingWanda (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Reverted. As a lead image for the topic, it is poor. Clearly, it does not adhere to what WP:LEADIMAGE states about the lead image being something the reader expects to see. You apparently want to use an image that readers won't expect to see...all for the sake of ambiguity or a "non-stereotypical view of women." Our job is to go with an image that readers will expect to see or one that will otherwise resonate with them, or use no image at all. After all, WP:LEADIMAGE also talks about it sometimes not being possible to have a representative image or any lead image. I fail to see how that image you added will resonate with readers in terms of what a woman is. "Conventionally attractive young white women" might be stereotypical, but they resonate with people. This is not an article about gender ambiguity. And the lead having the Woman article use such an image as the lead image is not an improvement. It is also silly for this article to go by such a standard while the Man article does not. Some people might not expect a black woman as the lead image, but a black woman as the lead image would clearly be of a woman to readers and is an image they (many anyway) can easily resonate with. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Considering how debatable this topic (what lead image to use or to use a collage or composite) has been, it would be best to form consensus on an image or images before another lead image attempt is made. We can, of course, also take the WP:RfC route. For how an RfC on images can look, see Talk:Scarlett Johansson/Archive 6#Request for comment on lead image and this one that was had at Talk:Blond. But like I stated in the discussion before that RfC about what blond hair image to use, too many options can overwhelm participants. In other words, the more options there are, the more overwhelmed editors are and less likely they are to vote. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, it's a painting of women. That seems like something a reader might expect to see in an article about women. :) I'll add that my goal was not specifically to pick an androgynous image, even if I question why that would be a bad thing. Instead I picked it for the criteria I outlined above. You could probably make the image I picked feel less androgynous by cropping it differently, though, if that was the goal. In any case I'm not married to the choice.
...Out of Levivich's choices I'm personally drawn to 3, 6, and 8. The construction images - 3 and 8 - in particular feel bold, empowering, dynamic, well composed, and well lit. WanderingWanda (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Thoughts in no particular order: 1. For my part, just about any of the images proposed so far are better than the current lead image, and I always appreciate boldness, so I think the Minoan painting was an improvement, but it's still not my favorite choice for a permanent replacement. 2. I prefer a photograph of a "typical" example(s) of an actual woman (a female human), rather than something abstract (including any symbol or painting) that shows someone's idea of a woman or womanhood or femininity, etc., for the same reasons as Tree, Horse, etc., shows a picture of a typical example of the subject rather than something more philosophical or esoteric (and for this reason I don't like the lead image at Man, either, but that's for another day). 3. I really like the idea of a collage, as is done in Girl, because it demonstrates that "woman" is actually diverse; there is no typical woman; they come in many different appearances. However, it may take some time to create a collage that everyone is happy with; I understand there were some difficulties with the last one, although consensus may change, and perhaps the last collage would gain consensus now even if it didn't before. 4. I do believe/hope we can resolve this on the talk page without having to do something more involved like an RfC. 5. Perhaps we can agree on an interim image to replace the current one, until such time as a collage (or something else) can be created/presented/discussed/consented-to? Levivich 16:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree this thread has too many suggestions and would overwhelm many people attempting to pick, and we should winnow things down to the few options with the most support. In whatever informal !vote or formal RfC we hold, we should also employ ranking of choices. I like File:Rosie_the_Riveter_(Vultee)_DS.jpg best among the single-person non-painting photographs. What about, as a tentative suggestion for options: the aforementioned riveter photo (or another woman of colour), the birth of Venus, a collage like was used previously, or "none of the above"? In the last case, we would still be left to decide what non-lead image to put first in the article body and hence set as the "thumbnail" image, or to have another !vote with other options. -sche (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
WanderingWanda, of course, readers would expect to see an image of a woman or women. But that image you added does not cut it, and I'm certain most or all others would state the same. It's also better to have a lead image that doesn't only show a woman's face or just about only her face. Out of Levivich's latest choices, I really like image 8. Will readers expect to see a lead image of a woman working the way she is working in that image? Probably not. But before they click on the article, they will be expecting an image of a woman standing still doing nothing or doing something. So in that sense, that the woman is doing something will be expected. Readers can only guess what the woman might be doing before they click on the image. I considered image 3 as well, and wouldn't mind it as the lead image. We can also try for two or three lead images in a vertical way as long as it doesn't result in mobile (phone) issues or editors stacking more and more in a row. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Out of these choices, I prefer image 8 the most. It's more contemporary and shows the woman more clearly than image 3. A crop may be beneficial. feminist (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

──────────── Regarding which woman, what about the panracial line drawing of a woman that is etched onto a gold plaque being carried by the Pioneer 10 spacecraft, and which is the first object constructed by humans to leave the solar system? This image, along with the companion image of a man and some technical information about its origin, was the first explicit, concrete interstellar communication attempt by humans, and is intended to convey information about all humankind to other beings, in case it is ever intercepted by extraterrestrial life. Mathglot (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not for the line drawing image, which is focused on anatomy (because it's showing what a female human's body is likely to look like). Compare File:Human.png (a line drawing image with the one you suggested included) to File:Human anatomy.jpg. Pretty much the same thing, except the latter is more detailed. Even in the Human article, the lead image currently isn't focused on showing what the human body looks like. And diversity-wise, we can see that the image isn't of white people. The Venus image does show a nude woman, obviously, and it's informative to show a typical anatomy of a woman in the Woman article, but that image doesn't have the same "this is all about anatomy" feel to it. And as others have mentioned, this isn't the Female article. When it comes to anatomy, we already have anatomy images in the "Biology and sex" section. And this discussion started because of a concern that an anatomy image presents as the lead image (although that image is only of the reproductive system and doesn't show the overall body of a woman). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Levivich (Leviv), regarding this, the image isn't really in the lead. It currently shows as (mainly) being in the Biology and sex section, at least on my computer screen. And it's misplaced there. Moving the image to the top, ahead of the templates, will make it so that it's the lead image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn, fixed, thanks for the heads up! Levivich 19:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who participated in this discussion! Levivich 06:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Love the new image! ❤♀ Qzekrom (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah! Good job! Gandydancer (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

A woman is more than a job?[edit]

@Levivich: Sorry to say this but I hate that picture. I feel like it is defining a woman by her form of wage labor, and suggesting that a woman has more value when she performs traditionally male roles. I understand we didn't have much to work with, and I appreciate all your effort. I would like something like this as an example(it says all rights reserved): [1] I discussed criteria I felt was important for this lead image in the Man article here: [2] Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: I found this creative commons image that I cropped:

Woman dancing in Grand-Popo.jpg

Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

We've come to a consensus on this. Per all of the points made by me and others above, I see no need to discuss this so soon after achieving consensus. We cannot please everyone. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I understand there was just a consensus; my intention was to just add this information for consideration. The concerns I have don't seem to have been addressed. When more users who had not participated in the recent discussion get involved maybe that would be the time to open it up again? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut: For my part, I don't draw the same conclusions as you from the current lead image. I think people spend most of their time working, so a picture of a person working makes sense. A picture of a human interacting with technology (in this case, a woman working on an engine) makes sense: it depicts a typical "modern" human as opposed to one from a thousand years ago. That's just my opinion, though, and it's not up to me. I only added the current lead image because it was chosen by consensus here on the talk page. It's up to the consensus of editors what the lead image should be. Levivich 01:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Leviv, less than half of the population in the United states perform wage labor, and those that do spend most of their time doing other activities. I feel like humans are over-identified with wage labor, especially in the US. I feel like the image to the right is modern and timeless, depicting the universal (abled) human activity of dancing. So, if more folks would like to open this up for discussion again in the future hopefully my concerns here can be addressed too. Thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Netoholic: This thread shows consensus for that lead image. What your edit has done is to make the reproductive system diagram the lead image again, which is how we started this, months ago. Self-revert and join the talk page discussion. Levivich 12:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure I read the opposite above, and I concur with them. It is not illustrative of the concept of "woman" to show one performing a traditionally-male job covered in protective clothing and a helmet that shows almost no part of their form which would make them discernibly a woman from a man. Its otherwise a brave, empowering picture. -- Netoholic @ 13:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
"Love the new image!" "Yeah! Good job!" "We've come to a consensus on this." means the opposite of consensus? WTF are you reading, Net? Levivich 13:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
A "quiet consensus" based on a few kudos... but a consensus that cannot last once people notice that you've made it. If you look further down on this page its clear there is no consensus presently. Also, you've failed to address my point about how this lead image for "woman" is doing a job typically done by, and dressed looking like, a man. Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image content says the purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter - something yours does not do since I can barely tell its a woman except for the caption. I thought about moving the "Pregnant woman" image up to the lead, as it at least is a clear representation of the vast majority of women in the world, showing their form and indicating an important role to society, but until people on this talk page hash out their opinions (and ultimately reject the activists who want to redefine this topic rather than document it fairly), then its pointless to even have a lead image at all. -- Netoholic @ 13:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


"Women are twice as likely as men to use emoticons in text messages"[3] Benjamin (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Any suggestions for wording or placement? Benjamin (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The emoticon article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Why not both? Benjamin (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Various minor gendered differences shouldn't be included in this article. It would be far too long. Save those for specific topic articles. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it's too trivial as information about women. -sche (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Is there, or should there be, some sub article? Perhaps something like "Differences between men and women" or "Women and technology"? Benjamin (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Sex differences in psychology may be what you're after, still, not an obvious fit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hm, yes, perhaps, but that seems more strictly academic. But I'll give it a try. But at any rate, I do think there should be some mention here, perhaps not of this particular point, but that there are differences, in general. Benjamin (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Or perhaps that belongs in Human, ape or mammal. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps human. Have the non humans used emoticons? Benjamin (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't put it past them, since they can master selfies. But I was thinking of "but that there are differences, in general." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Specifically differences between human men and women. Benjamin (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Maybe in Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus? In all seriousness, though, "Sex differences in psychology are differences in the mental functions and behaviors of the sexes..." and so that article seems the right place for well-sourced information about how men and women communicate differently. Levivich 08:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I do still think there should be one article summarizing all the differences between men and women. Here's another example: In women, the index and ring finger tend to be the same length, whereas men's ring finger tends to be longer.[4] Benjamin (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Have you found Differences between men and women? That's physical differences, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for that! So, I guess that about covers it, the physical, and the psychological. But perhaps there could be social, cultural, political, economic, etc... Benjamin (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Template:Sex_differences This navbox might help. Levivich 16:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks! (^.^) Benjamin (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, what about gender differences? Benjamin (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: I've edited your above comment to not insert the template onto the talk page as it causes undesirable identation issues for sections below your comment. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Clarity on the tail of the intro[edit]

I know people are probably sick of talking about this element of the blurb, but I feel like the following quoted segment should be made more clear:

There are also trans women (those who have a male sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity),[1] and intersex women (those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female).

Specfically, the second half (regarding "intersex women") seems to be using "women" to refer to self-identified gender, not sex, although the parenthetical does not indicate this in any direct way (you could argue it indicates it indirectly since it mentions a deviation in sexual characteristics). Looking through the intersex article, I can't find any instance of the word "woman" that isn't referring to sex, so I don't think there's some 3rd usage I'm overlooking. Simply put, the parenthetical is simply defining what an intersex person is, not an intersex woman, which does not match the first half of the sentence (corresponding to trans women).

If the mention of "intersex women" is simply an additional nod to the usage of the term "woman" to refer to self-identified gender instead of sex, then I feel like there is a clearer way to present that, possibly simply by adding some kind of preface, like so:

The term "woman" is also sometimes used to refer to one's self-identified gender, such as with trans women (those who [...] do not fit typical notions of male or female but identify as women).

This makes the purpose of the sentence (inclusion of the use of the word as a gender identity) more immediately clear, keeps the two topics of the sentence in agreement in terms of format, and makes the last parenthetical directly relevant to the article (current version is not). That said, what I proposed here still needs some obvious work. Notably, the version of the preface I've provided is somewhat weasel-wordy in its use of "sometimes".

Honestly, I think the answer is that the exact wording I'm providing for the preface is wholly undesirable, but the general structure is something that should probably be used. However, I don't know what specific wording would actually be good for this first portion. Whatever wording is used, it should be specific and supported by reliable sources. Even the current wording ("There are also[...]") is honestly awful.

Perhaps the most concrete claim possible looks something like this (very rough):

Within some social sciences, the term "woman" is [...]. This usage has also been adopted by ___a group you can reliably make this claim about___ (new source goes here).

Thoughts? First, on whether or not we can agree that the current sentence is poorly done in the ways I've mentioned, and second, on what I've proposed to replace it. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Sexual Orientation and Gender Expression in Social Work Practice, edited by Deana F. Morrow and Lori Messinger (2006, ISBN 0-231-50186-2), p. 8: "Gender identity refers to an individual's personal sense of identity as [man] or [woman], or some combination thereof."

Lead images: future RfC[edit]

I have put a gallery together of image options for an RfC for the lead images of both this article and WP:Man. We can use the associated talk page to narrow down our choices prior to an RfC. I have included more images of men because IMO the existing lead image of WP:Man is worse than the existing image of WP:Woman. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
For reference: Manual of Style: Lead Image Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Out of the images you are proposing, my votes are for "blue shirt" (second choice: "plaid") for the "man" article, and "hijab" (second choice: "smiling", would be first choice if not for the fact that she is wearing lipstick/makeup, which is sort of a prop rather than just showing simply a person) for the "woman" article. I think the images should be just of a person to the extent possible, and not showing any sort of specific traits or actions or props, other than clothing if necessary. (For example, not the "dancing" image as it shows a specific action rather than just a person, and not "hardhat", "grinder", "cart", "drill", or "wiring" as they show specific actions/occupations, and not "steps", "steps crop", "iphone", or "sunglasses" as they contain props in addition to just the person.) Vontheri (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I feel similarly. I didn't want an image that overly identified someone with a job, activity, or culture. At the same time I feel like social role, culture, and activity are inextricable from our humanity and would naturally be visible. So my preference ends up being a picture of someone where we may have a sense of these things, but we are not distracted by them. My ideal that I looked for were pictures with men and women sitting in front of their dwellings and where I had a sense of their bodies. I actually like that "steps crop" man is holding an iphone; it gives him a somewhat universal modern context, but it's also not visually distracting, unlike "iphone" man where he is actually looking at the iphone. I don't mind that "smiling" woman has makeup. It appears to be a small amount to me, and makeup is a common social signifier for women. Did you notice "ponytail"? It was meant to be a pair with "hijab" (which I don't particularly like because she's so covered, and she is a famous woman). --Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Are we thinking montage or one single image? WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 22:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I was originally thinking one single image. There is a guideline against a photo collage, but we could have a gallery. Personally I like the idea of three images stacked on top of each other so that the top image is actually the lead image, and it seems consistent with most articles to have images on the right side of the article as you scroll down. The only difference here would be directly stacking them. User:Levivich (who has much more experience) may have been interested in three side-by-side photos. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I see stacking images must be done with caution. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
According to the manual of style I linked to above, it's best not to use any sort of gallery or montage. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Nope. I'm fine with the current image. So are others. As seen in the #A woman is more than a vagina? section above, we already reached WP:Consensus on this. Editors need to learn to compromise, like editors did in that discussion, and accept that things will not always go their way. They should not keep pushing and pushing until they get their way. I don't see why we should change the current lead image or add two more just because one or two editors can't accept consensus. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
That's not a fair characterization of what's happening here. This is a new discussion which considers new criteria and new images. I did not participate in the previous discussion where the current image was selected, but perhaps most importantly, this is a proposal that we change the image of WP:Man to a photograph rather than a painting, which is consistent with the consensus that was reached here for WP:Woman. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
It is a fair characterization, because, apparently, to you, the consensus among others is not enough. We somehow have to use an image that satisfies you and/or WanderingWanda...even though there will never be an image that satisfies everyone. Even when there were multiple images presented as a collage or whatever, there were issues. As made clear by WP:Consensus, "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable)." If this discussion is only about the Man article, okay then. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Kolya, you state, "I did not participate in the previous discussion where the current image was selected." Why is that? Gandydancer (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
#Consensus can change when previously unconsidered arguments are raised, which in this case is the argument that the image should not depict a woman engaged in labor, or even doing anything.
@Gandydancer: The previous discussion occurred just before I was following this page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
We all know that consensus can change. That doesn't mean we should look to change it because one or two editors are not satisfied with the result. To repeat, "there will never be an image that satisfies everyone." We just recently had a lead image discussion and we considered everyone's arguments, even yours after the discussion had ended. There is no need for a new one because you aren't satisfied with the current image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
We should always be looking to improve wikipedia articles, regardless of how long it has or hasn't been since a previous change. There could be people who participated in the previous discussion who may change their mind after considering the additional arguments that have been presented since then, and there also could be other people (such as myself and Kolya Butternut) who were not aware of the previous discussion who could give input, along with any from the previous discussion who wish to participate, in a new consensus. The current image is clearly flawed in so many ways. It seems to me like a subtle violation of neutral point of view. The image shows a certain ideal of a "woman", and it seems it was most likely chosen for exactly that reason. It's just as non-neutral as it would be to have an image of a "woman housewife"; both would be presenting a specific ideal of a "woman", rather than a generalized and neutral example of a "woman". Just because it may present an ideal that we might agree with and like, it is still a specific ideal, and is not appropriate for this article.
The manual of style states "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic". This image appears to be staged like a stock photo, and not a "natural" representation. An image of a "woman mechanic" would be perfectly appropriate for the article for mechanic, (although this specific image wouldn't be, for the reason I just gave: it is not a "natural representation") but this article isn't about mechanics or women who are mechanics, it is just about "women". The image for this article should be simply that of a woman, nothing more and nothing less.
Kolya Butternut, to respond to your response to me earlier, I didn't realize that the woman in the "hijab" photo was someone famous. Who is she? The fact that she is someone famous is a good reason to not use her as the image, so after learning that I now prefer "smiling", although one issue with it is that her eyes are closed. Also I didn't notice before that she was wearing an earring, which is also a sort of prop. However, pretty much any of the images you presented would be fine (except for the first six for "man" and the "woman mechanic" one. The "woman dancing" would be a little better than the current one but is still showing a specific action rather than just simply a woman) and certainly better than the current one. I'm not sure how the "ponytail" image goes with the "hijab" image, but regardless, I don't think the images for the two articles should have to "match" or "go together". As for the images with the smart phone giving a sense of modernity: the articles are simply "man" and "woman", not "modern men" or "modern women", so I don't think that really makes a difference. That said, I am willing to change my votes to the same images you picked ("steps crop" and "smiling") if that would help with achieving consensus. Vontheri (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Vontheri, the woman in the hijab is Fartuun Adan. The website I got it from spelled her name "Fartun", which is apparently incorrect, so that may be why I didn't realize she was particularly well known when I searched for her. I felt her picture was a pair with "ponytail" just because the portraits are visually similar. I agree it would be better not to use someone famous; it is just so hard to find good pictures! I think we have somewhat of a consensus for at least a temporary (and vast) improvement. WanderingWanda did not state a clear preference yet. Genericusername57 wanted the woman to appear to be aware that she is being photographed, which is met by "smiling". We can add and subtract photos from the sandbox found above in the header as we find better photos. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Vontheri, I don't consider "the image is not good enough because I disagree with it" rationale as "looking to improve wikipedia." As for the current lead image, there is no WP:NPOV violation. Nothing on that page (WP:NPOV) supports that image being a WP:NPOV violation. As for "a certain ideal" of a woman? How? Because she is not of some ethnicity you would prefer her to be of? Because she is not as dark as you would like her to be? Because she might be considered physically attractive? Many would argue that the image is not ideal or stereotypical because of what the woman is doing. The "a certain ideal of a woman" argument can be argued for any image we use, because, again, no image is going to satisfy all editors and editors' views of "ideal woman" differ. As for "and it seems it was most likely chosen for exactly that reason"? Like I stated in the #A woman is more than a vagina? discussion, "Our job is to go with an image that readers will expect to see or one that will otherwise resonate with them, or use no image at all. After all, WP:LEADIMAGE also talks about it sometimes not being possible to have a representative image or any lead image. [...] 'Conventionally attractive young white women' might be stereotypical, but they resonate with people. [...] Some people might not expect a black woman as the lead image, but a black woman as the lead image would clearly be of a woman to readers and is an image they (many anyway) can easily resonate with." WP:LEADIMAGE is not about using an image going against "an ideal that we might agree with and like." As for "lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic," I do not see how you think any image of a woman is going to be truly representative, given that so many types of women exist. We do not have to go with an image of a woman doing nothing but standing still. That is not a better image because she's not doing something that other women might not do. Just looking at Kolya Butternut's selections or Genericusername57's selections (especially the latter), they include women wearing or doing things that not all or most women wear or do. So I fail to see why "female mechanic" should be singled out as not representative. I disagree with your "not natural" and "stock photo" argument.
Kolya Butternut, what consensus are you speaking of? I don't see it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
For my part, I would have absolutely no issue with a more natural-seeming picture of a woman mechanic. What I want to avoid is a picture that tries to be either globally representative or aspirational and empowering, whatever that would mean. I'd like the picture to be just one individual woman going about her life—who cares whether she's a mechanic or a housewife? Obviously there are plenty of women in both situations. Back in the day, I was involved in promotional/stock photos at my workplace: we were directed to stand around touching pieces of equipment and looking intently focussed, which of course had nothing to do with our actual work. I'm reminded of that by the current photo, which is one of the reasons I'd like to change it. Cheers, gnu57 23:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
The consensus seems to be that the smiling woman is a good photo.  I know you like the mechanic photo.  I don't know what you think of the smiling photo or any of the others. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know about consensus that it's a good image. But I don't see consensus to add that picture as the lead image. So reverted. Do I like it? It's meh for me. And other than my comment on that, I'm not weighing in on alternative lead images for this article because I see no need for a change and I'd rather not comment on "what is the best lead image" every time someone comes along and wants to change the lead image. And believe me, it will keep happening no matter what lead image we use. My feeling is obviously that we should retain the current lead image (the one I reverted to). I don't feel that we should have two or three lead images in a row, but I wouldn't strongly object to two or three lead images in a row. The templates would be moved farther down, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Flyer, if my argument is best characterized as "the lead image is not good because I disagree with", then anyone's argument on here could be best characterized as "this image is good because I agree with it" or "this image is not good because I disagree with it." In fact, anyone's argument to anything at all could be best characterized as "I'm in favor of universal healthcare because I agree with it" or "I'm against gun control because I disagree with it." Come on... I'm not against the current image because I "disagree with it". I'm against the current image because of the many reasons that I have already explained. And in fact, I don't disagree with the ideal that women can be just as good as mechanics as men, or such similar things, but I don't feel that this article is the appropriate place for such an image.
As I explained before, by "certain ideal" I meant that the mechanic photo invokes an ideal of modern western feminism. It was nothing to do with race or skin color. Nor does my argument have anything to do with being something "most women" do or don't do. It's simply that the image has political tones to it, and is not neutral in that way. It seems the image was chosen with an agenda, and not with the goal of selecting an encyclopedic image. May I ask, would you object to the image being one of a "woman housewife"? If so, then why?
(Apologies if I didn't place this post in the correct location. It's a bit difficult to know where to put it with there being so many threads and sub-threads.) Vontheri (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the "lead image is not good because I disagree with" aspect, I meant that other editors already worked toward a consensus for a lead image. For another editor to essentially come along and say "that consensus is not good enough" is faulty reasoning in this case because what is the best image or a better image is all opinion, unless there actually is an objective aspect to it based on what WP:LEADIMAGE states. This will keep happening over and over again, which is why I'm actually for not using a lead image in the case of this article if we are not to use a collage or a group of images as the lead image. And doing so (not having a lead image) would be in line with WP:LEADIMAGE. As for your "anyone's argument" comparisons, Wikipedia is obviously different. Our arguments on Wikipedia should usually be based on its rules. Selecting images is a trickier case than the vast majority of our rules even when following WP:LEADIMAGE because of the higher subjective level that comes with it.
We still disagree on using the current lead image. I don't see the housewife matter as at all the same.
Your comment is in the correct location since you are replying to me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Flyer, not using any image at all is fine with me. As for the previous consensus, there were previous consensuses prior to it as well. The lead image has been changed multiple times before. I'm not aware of any policy that says that a new consensus cannot be reached after a previous consensus.
Why would a housewife image be different? If you wouldn't be okay with such an image, then why not? Vontheri (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Vontheri, "the lead image has been changed multiple times before" is the point. I made that very clear above. It's not about "any policy that says that a new consensus cannot be reached after a previous consensus." It's about this going on and on because there will always be someone not satisfied with whatever current image we use. That is where compromising comes in. It's pointless to keep debating the lead image. There are a lot of topics where consensus on Wikipedia settles a matter for years. This is not one of those. All the back and forth over images is why MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES now exists.
It's obvious why we shouldn't use a housewife image. You know that. It is not at all obvious that we shouldn't use the mechanic image. I suggest you drop the housewife matter, because I'm not going to elaborate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Flyer, we shouldn't use a housewife image because it would invoke a specific ideal/ideology instead of being simply a neutral image of a "woman". That is the exact same reason why the woman mechanic image should not be used, just the ideal/ideology is an opposite one. Either way, it's ideological, and about more than just a "woman", and is not anywhere near being the most appropriate image for this article. I'm not going to drop it because it's an obvious comparison and, I think, my strongest argument for why the current image is not appropriate.
You say "That is where compromising comes in." YES! My thoughts exactly! Why not use a neutral image of just a woman, nothing more, nothing less? An image that doesn't invoke any certain ideology or viewpoint. A "boring" image, essentially. Or, alternatively, use no image at all? Vontheri (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Not repeating myself. And nothing ideological about the mechanic image. Nothing obvious about your comparison. As for dropping it, I was referring to you asking me about going with a housewife image. You can keep going on about it if you want to, but you won't see me engaging you on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Vontheri, Flyer22 has not accurately represented our arguments or correctly inferred what we have been thinking so it's not worth continuing to respond to them (and they don't want us to anyway). There's going to be an RfC, so I think we should focus on getting opinions for which images to include. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Do not patronize me. But do speak for yourself. I know exactly what Vontheri has meant. I disagree with Vontheri. I know exactly what you have meant. I disagree with you. If I have not accurately represented your arguments or correctly inferred what you have been thinking, the same can be stated for you with regard to me. In fact, that you felt the need to state that "[you were] not referring to 'meh' when [you] said [you] thought [my] opinion was unique" below and your comment at Talk:Scarlett Johansson shows a lack of understanding. And then we have Vontheri below stating that "[my] argument seems to be that since no image would satisfy everyone and be what everyone would expect to see, let's use an image that is to the extreme of not being what people would expect to see." You are right that I do not want you talking to me. But more so, I do not want you repeating your flawed logic to me. And I am a she, by the way. No need to use singular they on me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
You have not shown understanding. Same as at Talk:Scarlett Johansson, where you repeated yourself without showing understanding. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
And you are talking nonsense, just like you did at Talk:Scarlett Johansson. Disagreeing with your reasoning/nonsense is not showing a lack of understanding. Do stop replying to me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
More of the same.  You're unwilling or unable to show understanding. nothing you can say about me or other people changes that.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
More of the same from you as well. So everyone who disagrees with your the "mechanic image is bad for this article" reasoning lacks understanding? Or just me? And why just me? You do not get it. I have read all of what you have to state about the image, and I do not agree with your logic. And, clearly, I'm not the only one. Do you want the last word or something? Move the hell on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Discussing content with you is not possible if you continue to be unwilling or unable to show that you understand, as you demonstrated again with your last comment. To everyone else, I'll stop contributing to the wall of text and let Flyer22 have the last word if it makes them feel better. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Sighs. Yes, yes, people who disagree with you simply do not understand. My intellect couldn't possibly be on the same level as yours. And how clever you are to spin the "last word" thing in my direction. But I'll take it if it means no longer enduring your responses to me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
But I'll take it if it means no longer enduring your responses to me. If you actually didn't want me to respond you wouldn't have given me something to respond to. You're just attacking. You're still not showing any understanding. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, because repeatedly saying "you're still not showing any understanding" is not attacking. Yes, I forced you to reply again after you said you were done. I soooo provoked you; it's my fault that you have no self-control. Want to see self-control? Reply to me after this, and see that I won't respond. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Are you intentionally making strawman arguments or are you just unable to understand? It seems like in addition to your inability or unwillingness to show understanding you are unwilling or unable to take responsibility for your actions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Flyer, I have seen a lot of incivility on wikipedia. I find it very off-putting. However, I have not before observed anything from you that I would consider "uncivil". Saying "move the hell on", however, I do think crosses the line. Disagreeing with someone is fine. Using language like that with someone on here, however, is definitely not. Please rethink how you express yourself in the future, okay? It doesn't seem to be typical behavior for you, so I'm a bit surprised. If you are done with the argument, then why don't you move on? The thing about "the last word" could just as equally apply to you as to Koyla Butternut, as you keep saying you are done debating this, yet keep responding to everything Koyla keeps saying.
Also, I'm done debating about the mechanic image. You don't seem to be considering my arguments, which is fine. I'm just waiting for the RFC. I don't anticipate posting on this talk page anymore until then. By the way, I know your argument was not "since no image would satisfy everyone and be what everyone would expect to see, let's use an image that is to the extreme of not being what people would expect to see." I never intended to imply that it was your argument. I was only saying that that's how your argument came across to me. Vontheri (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, a lot of people are surprised when I show that I can get very upset and let it show in a Wikipedia discussion. For example, on a rough day and/or on a day where Wikipedia is frustrating me to no end. Others know me better than that. I am not some drone that a person can just keep talking to however they want. And let us not pretend that patronizing another editor is being civil. If you want to defend Kolya Butternut or act like Kolya Butternut was doing nothing wrong, whatever. But just so you know...there is no need for you to come back saying how you were focused on my behavior, not Kolya Butternut's, or that I don't need to engage in tit for tat. As for the last word, if I kept stating that I was done talking to Kolya Butternut, you would have a point about "as [I] keep saying" with regard to Kolya Butternut. But what I stated to Kolya Butternut was "you are right that I do not want you talking to me" and "do stop replying to me." What I stated to you above was "I'm not going to elaborate." I didn't. I also told you that I'm "not repeating myself." What I stated to you below was "I'm done talking with you about this." I was. You decided to come back and talk about my behavior in addition to essentally stating "Flyer just doesn't get it." Not considering your arguments? No. I just don't agree with you. As for what you never implied? You stated, "Flyer, your argument seems to be that since no image would satisfy everyone and be what everyone would expect to see, let's use an image that is to the extreme of not being what people would expect to see." We'll have to disagree on "implied." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
And here again in this comment you don't show understanding. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Going by this and this, I can't take you seriously. You are clearly just trying to aggravate. And I question your age/maturity. I will be looking to ignore you as much as possible from here on out. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to say something different, but you just keep doing the same thing. Whether it's motivations, opinions, or arguments, you don't show that you understand; you just attack. You can't have conversations with people if you don't first show that you understand them. That's the very first step, so all I can do is repeat myself. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn, I believe  there actually is an objective aspect to [the argument] based on what WP:LEADIMAGE states. I do not believe the current image is what our readers will expect to see. I think the current image is what readers would expect to see as the lead image for WP:Mechanic or similar article. I think here a reader would expect to see an image of a woman who is not engaged in such a specific, uncommon, activity. The first thing a reader may think when seeing the current lead image may be "woman mechanic" rather than just "woman".  ::Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Kolya Butternut, I ask that you don't ping me to a talk page that I'm obviously watching. Although I get your point that the "first thing a reader may think when seeing the current lead image may be 'woman mechanic' rather than just 'woman'," I don't see that there is an objective argument for not going with the mechanic image. Plus, the mechanic aspect is heightened by the "mechanic" caption, which can simply be removed. I noted that our readers likely won't be expecting to see a black woman either, or any non-white woman (because society tends to use images of white people as the default), but the image would still be of a woman and it will resonate with many people. We cannot possibly have an image at this article that resonates with everyone. You are stating that our readers will not be expecting to see that image because of the work she is doing. Well, many readers will not be expecting to see a woman sitting on the steps smiling. I noted the following above: "We do not have to go with an image of a woman doing nothing but standing still. That is not a better image because she's not doing something that other women might not do. Just looking at [your] selections or Genericusername57's selections (especially the latter), they include women wearing or doing things that not all or most women wear or do. So I fail to see why 'female mechanic' should be singled out as not representative." I've stated all that I have to state to you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
"Female mechanic" is singled out because it is the current image. My selections are simply the best images I was able to find; that does not mean that I think there are no problems with them, or that there are no problems with Genericusername57's images. I feel that having different options aids the discussion, and different people will have different opinions that I may not have considered. There is an objective argument for not going with the mechanic image. You may disagree with it, but there is an argument that the image does not adhere well to MOS:LEADIMAGE because it is not what readers would expect to see; this is a reason to consider changing the previous consensus. I believe the smiling woman would be much closer to what a reader would expect to see, and I believe other images could be found which would also be much closer to what a reader would expect to see. There is no perfect image, but I think improvement is needed and can be achieved. We can have an RfC, and if you don't want to add your opinion to narrow down the images that's your choice. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
You stating that "Female mechanic" is singled out because it is the current lead image is exactly what I mean about "what is the best lead image for this article" debate going on and on. The "not what readers will expect to see" argument regarding that image is weak. I don't see why you think readers would expect to see File:Woman dancing in Grand-Popo.jpg. They obviously wouldn't. No, an editor coming along and objecting to whatever lead image is up there is not "a reason to consider changing [whatever current] consensus." We won't be agreeing on "Female mechanic." No need to repeat. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
And considering the "women should smile" notion that some people (especially men) have (Google it if you don't know what I mean), I wouldn't be surprised if readers expect to see a smiling woman as the lead image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Flyer, your argument seems to be that since no image would satisfy everyone and be what everyone would expect to see, let's use an image that is to the extreme of not being what people would expect to see. I don't think that the image being of a woman of any certain race or ethnicity is in any way equivalent to the image being of a mechanic (or any other occupation). By default, the woman has to be of some race. What race she is is irrelevant. The article is about "women", not "white women", or "black women", or "Asian women", etc. As an example, look at the lead images used on the article "dog". They are all simply of dogs, with nothing extraneous. Not dogs doing specific actions, or dogs dressed in costumes or service dogs or dogs swimming or anything else. The same can be said for the article "cat", or "rabbit", or "lion", or "fire hydrant, or "statue", on and on. This article, as with any other, should be the same. Why should this article be different? The image should simply be of a woman. Not of a woman who is presented as being in a specific occupation or performing a specific action. Vontheri (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
You state that this is my argument, and yet I have not stated or implied any such thing. I'm done talking with you about this. The only extreme I see are your comparisons. Well, that and some things that Netoholic has stated below. And "performing a specific action"? All of the image selections are of specific actions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
It is a fair characterization, because, apparently, to you, the consensus among others is not enough. We somehow have to use an image that satisfies you and/or WanderingWanda.
I actually haven't said one dang word against the current image. I like the current image a lot. This is a good example of how in your interactions with me, you prejudge me and make assumptions about me and my motivations instead of earnestly attempting to collaborate with me. (I'm curious how hard you'd be going to bat for the current image, which depicts a woman working in a traditionally and statistically male-dominated profession and wearing an outfit that many people would regard as masculine-coded, if I was the one that proposed it, or if instead, you'd go off about how it's yet another example of WanderingWanda pushing their sinister feminist queer agenda.)
With that said, I don't have any problem with considering some new ideas for the image, especially considering not many participated in the recent discussion and considering it was not a formal RfC or anything like that. Your attempts to shut the conversation down are not serving anyone.
To the matter at hand: I disagree with the notion that the image should should not depict a woman...doing anything. Action can add real life and energy to an image. As humans we spend our time on earth doing and creating and living and working and playing, why is an image of placid inaction more representative than an image of action? WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 21:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
You argued, "This is a good example of how in [my] interactions with [you], [I] prejudge [you] and make assumptions about [you] and [your] motivations instead of earnestly attempting to collaborate with [you]." Our other interactions are not for this discussion, but I'm not wrongly challenging you at articles. And it's easy to prejudge you when you keep making the same type of edits and arguments. If you edited the way you should edit, we wouldn't be butting heads. I have tried collaborating with you. When you do something wrong or something I disagree with, I'm not going to support it. And while some things on Wikipedia should involve compromising, not everything should. If you had proposed that image, I would have supported it just the same. As seen in the aforementioned previous discussion, it's clear what type of image you were looking to add, and that I objected to it.
As for your "[my] attempts to shut the conversation down are not serving anyone" argument, making the common sense argument that no image is going to satisfy everyone and that we've been through image issues at this article in the past is not attempting to shut down discussion. Going by your and Kolya Butternut's logic, we'd need a new discussion every time someone is not pleased with a current image. And that obviously goes on and on, and on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
it's clear what type of image you were looking to add And what type of image is that? WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 04:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Exactly the type you described in the #A woman is more than a vagina? section above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Here is my stated reasoning for picking the image: A beautiful work of art that's 1. Stylized enough to feel somewhat universal 2. Not depicting anyone specific. 3. From a culture that's not over-represented on Wikipedia (it's a fresco from a Minoan palace.) 4. Not sexy or male-gazey. Which part do you have a problem with? WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 05:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not difficult to recall that I argued, "Clearly, [your image] does not adhere to what WP:LEADIMAGE states about the lead image being something the reader expects to see. You apparently want to use an image that readers won't expect to see...all for the sake of ambiguity or a 'non-stereotypical view of women.'" But no need to repeat; the discussion is right there for everyone to see. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
It's clear how you feel about the lead Woman image, maybe add your opinion for the Man image? Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind the current image too too much, but I think it's overly staged and stock-photo-y—like an ad for women's workshirts, or something. Other editors have mentioned the wish to avoid artworks because they present an idealised notion of womanhood—and I think stock photos do that to some extent as well. I've been gathering possible alternatives for the past while, and have some of them up now here, if you'd like to take a look, together with some representative samples of things to be avoided (in particular, she should look like she knows she's being photographed, which rules out the dancing woman above). Cheers, gnu57 23:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Wanda, I agree that action can add a sense of real life to an image, that's why I selected the "dancing" photo. My main objection is to a photo which connects a woman to her employment, but I do want to consider the argument that the image should not depict action. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Genericusername57, I actually prefer that it not look like the woman is aware of being photographed. Pictures of women looking into the camera often look like staged photographs rather than real life. If the looking into the camera looks like natural eye contact with the viewer I wouldn't mind that. Out of your photographs I like "hut" the most. Did you see my gallery and talk page above? I considered a lot of criteria for my top choices, one of which is cosmopolitan and multi-racial. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Those are fantastic. (And I'm not just saying that because gnu is currently peer reviewing an article I created.) Many there meet my preferences. Should the lead images of Man and Woman be selected together? For parity? Levivich 23:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
@Genericusername57: what do you think about consolidating all of our photos into the sandbox page? There's a link in the header here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
You titled this section "Lead images: future RfC." So this change that I reverted you on was obviously premature. Reading the above, I don't see why you felt that consensus was for that image. And just because editors haven't stated that they don't like an doesn't mean that they like it or feel that it's the best lead image. No one can force editors to participate in a discussion, or decide that if they don't vote on a new image...then the previous consensus should be overridden. If you are going to start an RfC, get on with it. No one here should be trying to override the previous consensus when there is no clear consensus for a new lead image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
It is fine to make an edit which is agreed to be an improvement before waiting for an official RfC.  Your opinion seems unique, but I don't understand what you want in an image; I am hearing arguments against what everyone else wants but I can't follow what you want, besides wanting stability. You stated that you felt the "smiling" image was "meh", that that doesn't tell me what you think of it compared to the previous image. If you don't want to participate in this ongoing discussion you don't have to, but others do. I think it's a good idea for this image to evolve. This has been an ongoing discussion since 2004. I see no evidence that we are somehow improperly going against previous consensus.  It seems to me we are building off past consensus.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
No it is not fine. Going against previous agreement and putting up something that you happen to like only leads to edit warring. I agree with Flyer: "If you are going to start an RfC, get on with it." It beats going on and on to "evolve" the image with no end in sight.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I feel like a couple of us are talking past each other.  I feel like my arguments aren't being accurately represented.  I don't feel like it's going against previous agreement, but i guess we'll have to disagree. But what happens after an RfC? I don't think an RfC should limit us to a particular image; I think we should decide on what criteria we would like to meet, while also deciding on a photo to use for the time. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Nothing "quite unique" about what I stated. Meh is meh. Feelings obviously are not always black and white. And when it comes to consensus, I stand by what I stated above. And I was not speaking of others improperly going against previous consensus; I was speaking of your actions. I like the current image. "Meh" vs. liking/preferring the current image clearly speaks to "what [I think of the image you added] compared to the [current] image." We did decide "on a photo to use for the time." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I was not referring to "meh" when I said I thought your opinion was unique. I thought you were the only one whose opinion was that you didn't want a change, while also expressing no preference. I see now that you did state you like number "8" above, and Gandydancer clearly doesn't agree with my change now either. It's difficult to follow what you think when mostly what I've heard from you is talking about other people. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I know you were not referring to "meh" you said "[my] opinion seems unique." I didn't need to state anything about the images you presented when I'd already been clear that I support the current lead image. It was clear, and still is, that I am currently against any change. Per what I stated above, I don't see the point. As for "mostly what [you've] heard from [me] is talking about other people," I don't get that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

To have an RfC I think we should narrow down the choices in the Talk:Woman/sandbox gallery first. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't remove the current image[edit]

Regarding Netoholic's recent attempt to remove the lead image:

1. A unique concern has been raised that a lead image should be in place so that the main image for search results, etc, is not a picture of the female reproductive system. Until consensus is reached for a new image the current one should stay in place. (The one and only) WanderingWanda, (the #1 premiere member of the WanderingWanda fanclub) Flyer22 Reborn, and Levivich all agree this is a concern. (Addition: -sche expressed this concern as well. -WW)

2. I, Levivich, Flyer22 Reborn, Qzekrom, Gandydancer have all expressed support for the current image. Gnu has said they "don't mind the current image too too much". Kolya Butternut, Vontheri, and Netoholic have expressed disapproval. This indicates there is a narrow consensus to keep the current image at this time. (Let me know if I missed anyone.) WanderingWanda (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

No such thing as a "narrow consensus" this is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY - simple weak majority does not decide. There is 'no' consensus, and so the lead image should revert to the longest-standing one. -- Netoholic @ 14:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't know why I said "narrow". It's 2-to-1. Not narrow. See also the Wikipedia:Consensus policy. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity. WanderingWanda (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay... I'm going to put aside the dispute about the image for a moment. I have no idea what your issue what WanderingWanda is. I know nothing at all about the backstory. But referring to him/her in the way you did ("the #1 premiere member of the WanderingWanda fanclub") Does not seem at all civil to me. Really...? You couldn't think of any other way of referring to the person? Vontheri (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
(Vontheri *pst* Look again at who signed the post! :) The joke was that I was calling Flyer a big fan of mine, because we've had some tensions that are visible here on this thread. I probably *shouldn't* have joked about it, but I just thought it was kind of funny that we suddenly found ourselves on the 'same team'. I prefer they/them pronouns, BTW.) WanderingWanda (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
WanderingWanda Oh, I feel stupid. I don't know how, but somehow my eyes tricked me and I thought the post was signed by someone else and that the comment was meant to be some sort of insult towards you. I find that there is so much unnecessary rudeness and incivility on Wikipedia, as well as overzealous "letter of the law, not spirit of the law" type mentality akin to if a police officer were to do something like giving someone a speeding ticket for driving one mph over the speed limit, and I'm kind of getting tired of it to the point that I'm even considering stopping my editing of Wikipedia and participation in discussion. I'm not referring to anyone or anything on this talk page, although I think people could be more rational and understanding on this page too, but I'm referring to some incidents on other articles' talk pages. By the way, I usually use "they/them" when referring to people online whose genders are unknown. (See the section "my thoughts on singular 'they'" on my [rather unorganized and ramble-y] user page) Not sure why I said "he/she" this time. Vontheri (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
-sche, feminist, and Mathglot participated in the discussion as well. It's worth noting that this consensus was reached three months ago. While I don't mind if editors want to pick a new image (I've always said that), I am violently opposed to going back to having a diagram of the reproductive system be the lead image, which is what Netoholic's revert did. I'm also rather ticked off that one editor is steamrolling over everybody else here. There is an ongoing discussion to pick a new image, multiple editors have contributed images to the selection pool, it takes a lot of time to work through this, so Netoholic should just join that discussion instead of pressing the undo button. Levivich 14:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Turns out that undo button is installed on your end also. I didn't replace anything with a diagram - I moved the lead image down, leaving no image in that section entirely. But I do have to ask why a reproductive-based image is so wrong? Certainly we're not presenting an image which represents only small population of women and and even smaller number that perform a certain role, right? Why are you fighting to have a picture that is basically a man on the article for woman? I think its not just unrepresentative, but insulting to women. Do you think that's what we want? -- Netoholic @ 15:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
a picture that is basically a man If you want to argue the image isn't representative because of the proportion of women who work as mechanics or whatever, fine, but please be more thoughtful about it. Saying that a woman is "basically a man" because she's working as a mechanic is something I'd expect a time traveller from the 1950s to say. WanderingWanda (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
She is covered in baggy clothing, toolbelt, and helmet, and is doing a job that is vastly more populated by men. It displays many aspects which are rare in women, and has so many elements that are typically male, that I can't even really be sure other than the caption if its a woman. For illustrative purposes it fails considerably. But its empowering and probably makes a couple editors have the "feel-goods' for virtue signalling some kind of empowerment message. You don't need a time-traveling man to say so, any average modern woman will say the same. My current vote is "pregnant women" down on the page. Its not perfect but its representative of at least most of what it means to look like and be a woman. -- Netoholic @ 15:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I completely disagree with the current image. But not because I even close to think that the image "is basically a man". The image is obviously a woman. But it's a woman in a specific role. There's nothing wrong with a woman being a mechanic. It's just not anywhere close to being an appropriate image for this article. The article also isn't about "pregnant women". That would be just as bad as the current image. The article is "woman", not "pregnancy". Vontheri (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with childbirth but the lead image should not play into the stereotype that womanhood is primarily about childrearing. I also feel strongly that the woman article should not have more nudity than the man article. That would play into another stereotype: that Wikipedia editors are a bunch of straight white male techies :) If a fully nude female shot is used a fully nude male shot should be used as well (and no, shirtless doesn't count as nude.) WanderingWanda (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Womanhood, as a distinguishing characteristic from the counterpart article Man, is primarily childbearing. I think full nude showing genital regions is a bit much, but the "pregnant woman" image is tasteful. It shows the commonplace, major body differences (breasts, fat distribution, musculature) which is in contrast to man. I have no problems with an equivalent photo on man (I've proposed this this one over on that page tentatively). The point of these images is to show the stark contrasts between the sexes, otherwise they could just be generically part of human. That contrasts are represented in differences of form and unique societal roles of each. -- Netoholic @ 16:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Strongly disagree that Womanhood ... is primarily childbearing. Levivich 17:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Don't be jerk and misquote me. People can see above what I actually wrote. The point of these lead images are to show contrast between the sexes - and there is no bigger one than childbearing. Its the single most unique (and should be the most respected) aspect of being a woman -- Netoholic @ 17:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Strongly disagree that the primary distinguishing characteristic between a man and a woman is childbearing, or that childbearing is the most unique aspect of being a woman, or that it should be the most respected. Also strongly disagree that the point of these lead images is to show contrast between the sexes. (The point is to depict a typical example of the subject of the article; i.e., a typical man, and a typical woman. A pregnant woman is not a typical woman. Most women spend most of their lives not pregnant, some never get pregnant, yet they are still women.) In my view, the problem with Net's entire approach is that he is defining "woman" vis-a-vis "man", i.e., the "Adam and Eve" approach, where a woman is seen in terms of how she is different from a man. "Womanhood" isn't the same as motherhood, and motherhood isn't the same as childbearing. What makes a woman a woman isn't just biological, it's more than that. Levivich 17:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
"where a woman is seen in terms of how she is different from a man" ... and a man is seen in how he is different from a woman. That's what "contrasting" means. This is an objective standard, really, because we need images that represent two halves of humanity. They should be ones which clearly show contrasting form and societal role of the typical example. Its silly to say "women aren't always pregnant, therefore...". Hell, if we based it on what single activity is engaged in most often, we'd have pictures of two sleeping people. If we don't set some objective criteria for the, we're stuck debating subjective values... like this stupid mechanic picture which could be replaced with any other picture. We'll never settle on one if its just based on whim. "What makes a woman a woman isn't just biological" - c'mon we have no way of showing an image of women's state of mind or any ethereal qualities you think are important. -- Netoholic @ 17:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
See caption
Sorry, I do not think this would be a good choice for the lead image. Levivich 19:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
If the article were Women and men, or Gender role, I might agree that the lead image should show the contrast, but that's not what this article is. Man and woman are only two halves from a biological standpoint, i.e. "male" and "female". Some would say there are human beings who are both a man and a woman, and human beings who are neither a man nor a woman, and women who were born male, and men who were born female. Also, "... if we based it on what single activity is engaged in most often, we'd have pictures of two sleeping people" is incorrect. Most people spend the overwhelming majority of their time (2/3) awake. My original logic behind suggesting the "woman working" picture is that most people spend most of their time working, but Kolya has persuaded me otherwise since the consensus on the current image was reached. If we don't set some objective criteria for them, we're stuck debating subjective values... yes, that's why there are currently-ongoing discussions about criteria at Talk:Woman/sandbox and Talk:Man/sandbox. I'll note that the suggestion of using the pregnant woman image, or of using any image currently in the article, was discussed in the last round a few months ago and consensus was against it, which is how the whole endeavor to gather new options began. I really think the most productive thing you can do is to join the already-ongoing conversations about the images in the galleries, and of course you're welcome to post new images for consideration as well. Levivich 18:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
It will be fun watching you try to find a single image to represent all that ethereal postmodernist/gender studies crap. We do not use lead images which display things which are far outside the norm for the topic. Hermaphrodites, intersex, genderqueers, transsexuals, tomboys, etc. are minor population groups. This is not a dig at them, just a fact that the women's population represented in those is incredibly small. We use images that are largely representative of the topic and, as best we can, show characteristics which contrast it with other closely-related topics. Across the world, the one unique characteristic of womanhood is motherhood - else we'd not be having this conversation. On average, women work outside the home far less than men, which is why a similar contrasting image for a man would be the one showing that work. Men's typical role in society is to provide for the eventual childrearing in that way, so it contrasts with the motherhood display in the woman's image. YES YES YES we get there are exceptions, stop re-capping the exceptions and start narrowing down the typical. -- Netoholic @ 19:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Hermaphrodites, intersex, genderqueers, transsexuals, tomboys, etc. are minor population groups. This is not a dig at them, just a fact that the women's population represented in those is incredibly small. We use images that are largely representative of the topic This type of statement is exclusionary even if it has the cloak of reasonableness, and it doesn't hold water if you spend a moment thinking about it. Only a tiny fraction of the population are redheads, for example. About one in a hundred. Does that mean that Wikipedia's policy should be that a redhead should never appear as a lead image, unless the article is specifically about redheads or a specific redhead? That would be absurd. If someone finds a really good, powerful image of a redheaded woman, we're supposed to say, sorry, Wikipedia has a firm no-redheads policy for lead images. Not that we have anything against redheads, you understand. We're not prejudiced or anything, perish the thought!! We just believe that pictures of redheads should never appear on Wikipedia, ever, unless we're absolutely forced to use one. I'm sure that would make our redheaded readers and editors feel like they are welcomed and valued, and like Wikipedia is an openminded, neutral, and prejudice-free environment. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Some more thoughts on this: I've proposed several images for Man and Woman. Some of them I consider queer in some way; the majority I do not.
My first idea for the lead image for Woman was a self portrait by Frida Kahlo. Of course at this point it seems like the consensus is for a photo, not a painting, and, in any case, it turns out her paintings are all under copyright, so that's a no go. But for a moment I thought it would be a perfect choice. My reasoning was simple: Man (at the time) had the Creation of Adam as the lead: a powerful, iconic painting of a man, by a man. So, I reasoned, Woman should have a powerful, iconic painting of a woman, by a woman. I did some research, gave it some thought, and I realized a Kahlo painting was not only the best choice (based on that criteria), it was the only choice. Nothing else would have that kind of iconic power. It also would've been a queer choice. Frida was an openly bisexual crossdresser and gender-non-conformist. She proudly didn't shave her small mustache and usually included it in her paintings. I can almost hear the screeching of the hypothetical peanut gallery now. "Most women don't have visible mustaches!!" Sure, and most women aren't name Frida, either. Who gives a fuck? It's exhausting, this sense that queerness is something that has to be answered for.
One of the men I threw into the Man gallery is queer. Not visibly so, but it's clear if you do even the slightest bit of digging. And again, who gives a fuck? It's a nice photo. If people like it they can vote for it, if they don't no one's forcing the image on anyone. Do I have to answer for his queerness? Do I have to answer for my own?
(I've removed the joking caption that was here as an editor objected to it -WW)
Ironically the one time someone seemed to get upset with me for the supposed queerness of an image I proposed, I did not, and do not, consider the image remotely queer. It's just a pretty painting of some courtly woman from an old Minoan palace. Why did I pick it? *Shrug* It happened to be on the cover of a book I read recently and I thought it was pretty. What was the book? All Cissies Are Bastards: A Queer/Transgender Manifesto ...No, just kidding, it was a new translation of The Odyssey by Homer. Anyway, this particular editor thought it was androgynous; I thought it was stereotypically feminine. But I argued that if some people thought it was androgynous, that it wasn't a big deal. (Somehow, if they saw the original, I don't think they would consider it gender-ambiguous, on account of the woman have curvy exposed breasts. I cut those out. Why? Some people expressed the viewpoint that the image shouldn't have nudity, and while personally I am 100% pro nudity, I was trying to be consensus-minded.) Cheers, WanderingWanda (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
If you are referring to me about you selecting that painting image, which you clearly are, my objection to it in the #A woman is more than a vagina? section above had nothing to do with queerness. I was not thinking "oh, that's queer" when objecting to that image. I was thinking, "Oh, readers won't be able to clearly discern that that's a woman. It's a poor water color image that does not demonstrate 'woman' well." And, yes, per WP:LEADIMAGE, the image should clearly be of a woman. I very clearly told you that "[your image] does not adhere to what WP:LEADIMAGE states about the lead image being something the reader expects to see. You apparently want to use an image that readers won't expect to see...all for the sake of ambiguity or a 'non-stereotypical view of women.' Our job is to go with an image that readers will expect to see or one that will otherwise resonate with them, or use no image at all. After all, WP:LEADIMAGE also talks about it sometimes not being possible to have a representative image or any lead image. I fail to see how that image you added will resonate with readers in terms of what a woman is." You asked, "Who gives a fuck?" Wikipedia does. I know that you don't like the way Wikipedia works -- going with the majority view per WP:Due or by readers' expectations, except for when the majority view or readers' expectations work in your favor. I know that you don't like being told to stop trying to right the supposed great wrongs. But Wikipedia has rules. Of course, we shouldn't use an image of a woman with a mustache as the lead image of this article. For goodness' sake! Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
And given our history of butting heads (which may be longer than can be observed if you used a previous Wikipedia account) and that I don't trust you, I don't know why you keep referring to me or addressing me, WanderingWanda. First, your silly "joke" above and now your "SHOCKING Minoan Fresco" mess. Do stop referring to me unless needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
(I'll respond more thoroughly to this post elsewhere, but this is not the appropriate venue to 1. make allegations against me or 2. bring up disagreements you've had with me (or other editors) in other venues about other topics.) WanderingWanda (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
If "elsewhere" is on my talk page, don't bother. You will be reverted. And you brought up the disagreements aspect first, with a "joke." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Of course, we shouldn't use an image of a woman with a mustache as the lead image of this article. For goodness' sake! To be clear, for people who aren't familiar with Frida and her art, I'm talking about a faintly visible female mustache, not a big-ol handlebar mustache or anything. Women having some hair in the mustache area is much more common than women with red hair, so imagine an editor saying Of course, we shouldn't use an image of a woman with red hair as the lead image of this article. For goodness' sake! (According to the Wikipedia article on hirsutism: Hirsutism affects between 5–15% of all women across all ethnic backgrounds.Depending on the definition and the underlying data, estimates indicate that approximately 40% of women have some degree of unwanted facial hair.) WanderingWanda (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Comparing my mustache comment to your readhead comment? I mean, I know you often use faulty comparisons to make arguments, but wow. You very well know that I wasn't thinking of a little bit of facial hair. It's not like I thought you were talking about the type of facial hair that my paternal grandmother has. You stated "visible mustaches." You did not clarify. And on your hirsutism point? The Hirsutism article currently starts out by stating that hirsutism "is excessive body hair in men and women on parts of the body where hair is normally absent or minimal," and it currently has a lead image of a woman with a lot of facial air. Below that, another image of a woman with a lot of facial hair. Whether it's a big or a small mustache, we obviously should not use an image of a woman with a visible mustache as the lead image. No, the image shouldn't be of a woman with visible facial hair that can't be chalked up to peach fuzz. It's not the same thing as, or similar to, using an image of a redhead, and you know it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: You know, despite your intent behind posting that image on the right, that woman looks extremely happy and should be rightly-respected for fulfilling some of the most important roles a woman does. There are a lot of women of all economic classes which do the same thing every single day. I don't think its fair for you to turn their contributions to society into a joke. Ask your own mother, or any mother, if at anytime she found herself in that same situation, and how she felt about it given the joy that tends to result. -- Netoholic @ 19:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
What happens if the editors who participated in the last discussion do not participate in this one?  Just asking because I don't see that discussed on WP:Consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Only those who participate can form the consensus. El_C 19:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I understand what you are stating, but I don't fully agree with it since we have consensus discussions all over Wikipedia where a few editors cannot come along and overturn that consensus based on their opinions alone. For example, some of our controversial topics that have had RfCs and may be based on one or more Wikipedia rules. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I think the picture of the mechanic is a fine lead and thumbnail image, and certainly better than going back to using a vagina as the thumbnail as in diff. (My personal highest preference would be for the collage we used to have, but that might require revisiting general guidelines on [not] using collages.) -sche (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Collage has the advantage of being able to display the diversity of the subject. The downside is that if the collage is all one image file, like at Istanbul, then it can make a poor thumbnail because the individual images may be too small to render at a reduced size. If the collage is made from multiple image files, like at Paris or Gender role, then only one of the images appears as the thumbnail, but that image is "the lead image", and so we're back to square one. Personally, though, I think my preference would be for a multi-image collage, like at Paris or Gender roles, although as you say, that might require revisiting general guidelines. Levivich 20:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Notice how the Paris image displays structures which are unique to Paris, and which are typically associated with Paris. It does not show a picture of minor side street that, while still technically unique to Paris, isn't something that clearly illustrates how Paris is different from, say, any small town in France. The pictures don't show Paris covered in snow, fog or during a rainstorm either, because we want those unique structures clearly seen. -- Netoholic @ 23:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Mechanic or model?[edit]

Comment, I hate to tell everyone, but I am wholly unpersuaded that the current picture is actually of a mechanic doing her job. It has all the hallmarks of a 'photo-shoot' with props. The clothes/toolbelt/helmet and goggles are all brand new and surgically clean. The parts in front of the women appear to be parts of a crankcase, though again seemingly without oil or grime and without any crank inside, or other parts, which would be there whether she were currently assembling or disassembling it. Almost all bolts and nuts on the case would be better served by a socket spanner rather than the open spanner she is holding (and crankcases usually need precise torque setting on all nuts and bolts when assembling). Since a crankcase is the very heart of an engine, doing anything to it is extremely rare (and usually involves sending it back to the factory, where all the precise jigs and tools are available). The almost random pile of stuff behind the woman suggest that if this place is anything, it is a breakers yard simply reclaiming metal (all this is more obvious if one goes to the source picture).

Maybe I have misunderstood what is happening in the pic and what the engine parts are and what she is doing to them, but to me this pic looks wholly faked. Even if consciously choosing an 'atypical' profession were an apt thing to do here, choosing a pic in which the woman appears to be merely pretending to do the job for a photo-shoot seems insulting. Pincrete (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Source picture here, which does not claim that she is a 'mechanic'. Pincrete (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

It is ridiculous either way. To me the image just seems WP:POINTy. The lead image should not be a woman in traditional male attire doing a traditional male job. The lead image is supposed to make the subject of the article instantly indentifiable. I suggested a simple nude photo below, but if this is not acceptable then the image should depict the the woman in a more feminine way. Betty Logan (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Rotating gallery[edit]

The problem: 1. The MOS discourages montages 2. One single image of one single person cannot adequately encompass such a broad subject as Man or Woman.

A solution: What if we took a cue from the front page, specifically the featured picture section? We could have a rotating featured image that's changed once a month, with a voted-on cue of images. Has anything like this ever been tried? Just a thought. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It's fine with me. I have a suspicion other editors might not like the idea, but we'll see. Vontheri (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
It's a creative idea, but based on my experiences on various wiki projects, I would advise against introducing any more systems that require indefinite input/upkeep than necessary. What happens when people stop having time or interest to pick new images, or when there's no consensus/agreement for any candidates? Is the most recent featured image (picked by people who didn't have it in mind as a permanent image) kept on indefinitely? IMO, if one image can't represent the subject, we should pick multiple images for a (stable) collage. -sche (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I think that's overcomplicating things. We don't need to encompass all of womanhood in a single image. We just need an image like one that might be the lead image in a normal encyclopedia. If we can, I think it would be best for the image to simply communicate "woman" rather than something more specific like "woman mechanic" or "Congolese woman" or "pregnant woman". Every woman has characteristics and context, but we can aim for something averaged. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
This seems like a needlessly complicated solution for what is largely a trivial problem. feminist (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
No. -- Netoholic @ 08:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Admin note[edit]

 Administrator note: Out of an abundance of caution, I've decided to protect the article for three days. But if you figure this out sooner, let me know and I'll unprotect it early. El_C 14:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Moving on[edit]

Our goal is simple: we should have images that allow readers to identify the topic as quickly as possible. When social differences between men and women are minimized, biology becomes a primary, if not the main, difference between the two sexes. If the point of confusion is that the current lead image is more suitable for Mechanic than Woman, then Netoholic has a point. The current lead image on Man does not show any occupation (echoing Kolya Butternut's point above at #A woman is more than a job?; it should not be hard to find a similar image that shows a woman.

If we don't want a lead image showing a random human being, and the main goal is to avoid having File:Scheme female reproductive system-en.svg as the topmost image, there are many possible solutions. One is to move File:Anterior view of human female and male, with labels 2.png upwards so that it appears above the image of the female reproductive system. The other is to add an image in the sections above. For example, either of File:Neith-Emblem.png, File:Museum of Anatolian Civilizations086.jpg or File:Enheduanna, daughter of Sargon of Akkad.jpg can be added to the History section. feminist (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Should the current lead image be replaced with this one?[edit]

This top choice was the result of a discussion at Talk:Woman/sandbox
See also: Talk:Man#Should the current lead image be replaced with this one? Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The current lead image features a woman who is wearing a hat and goggles and is not facing the camera. The proposed new image is a much better picture as well. SunCrow (talk) 08:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
No - this image does not "give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page (WP:LEADIMAGE) because it doesn't show enough dimensions which would, at-a-glance, communicate the topic of the page is the broad category of "woman", and doesn't show enough differentiation from "man". For example, a number of physical features typical of women (as different from men) are not represented - such as lack of defined breast or hip shape. Other indications of typical societal role aren't apparent either - for example, as the only population which carries children, a picture of a pregnant woman would be far more valuable. The photo itself is low-quality (I find the pink and black areas don't have much definition, becoming two solid blocks of color which visually "blow out" the overall image) and badly-posed. The most important thing when considering images for this is to imagine you cannot read the text of the page, the caption, or the filename of the image. If you saw this image on a Wikipedia page from a language you can't read, would you be reasonably be sure you are on the "Woman" page? Because, for a basic concept article like this, its quite likely a lot of readers coming here are just learning English. -- Netoholic @ 12:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Netoholic, do you believe pink shirt2 is an improvement over the current lead image which depicts a woman engaging in traditionally male physical labor, and whose figure is obscured by baggy masculine clothing? Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Neither the current lead nor pick shirt satisfy WP:LEADIMAGE. -- Netoholic @ 05:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
My above comment was meant to relate the current image to Netoholic's criteria which they describe here:[5]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes – because it's better than the current lead image, for three reasons. (1) subject is facing the camera, (2) subject is "doing nothing" rather than working (the current lead image might cause confusion as to whether it's an image of a woman or an image of a woman mechanic), and (3) it "pairs" nicely with the proposed new image at Talk:Man#Should the current lead image be replaced with this one? (same composition, similar pose, etc.). I think even under Net's criteria above (which I disagree with, for example, I can see her breasts and hips just fine), the proposed image is better than the current image. As for resolution, it's 2300x3500, and the detail quality blown up lets me see individual eyelashes and the piping on the skirt. Sufficiently high-res IMO. Levivich 14:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I just want to say that although Netoholic argued in the #Don't remove the current image section that the current lead image "is basically a man," I can't buy that the current lead image "might cause confusion as to whether it's an image of a woman." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Beyond that, readers will know that we haven't included an image of a man as the lead image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
And, yes, I understand that Levivich was comparing "image of a woman" vs. "image of a woman mechanic" in the sense that the latter focuses on the job the woman is doing, but I just wanted to note that I'm sure that no one will be confused about the gender of the subject. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment. Either would be fine, but I like that the current image challenges gender stereotypes. It's concerning to see these women being discussed in terms of someone's figure being obscured, lack of defined breast or hip shape, or masculine clothing. She's wearing a shirt and a hard hat. SarahSV (talk) 04:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
We are trying to find a representative WP:LEADIMAGE, which means to we have to evaluate them as to whether the pictures communicate typical features. Challenging "gender stereotypes" sounds like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS reasoning and is the antithesis of the purpose of this lead image and discussion. -- Netoholic @ 05:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The image should be representative of women, not male gaze of women. The current image shows a woman at work in working clothes. There's nothing wrong with it. SarahSV (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I have expressed the exact same standards for lead images of both man and woman, so keep your sexist insinuations and external agenda to yourself. -- Netoholic @ 05:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Netoholic, please strike the above comment; there is no need for personal attacks. SV has valid concerns about avoiding male gazey photos. I do agree with you that we should have a photograph which gives readers a sense of the reality of what a woman looks like, which includes the shape of her body. I understand that you would like to see a representation of a gender role or activity, but I think it's better to just have a neutral image which illustrates a woman existing, doing nothing. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
No way. SarahSV in one reply made an assumption about my gender and a sexist insinuation based on that assumption. I have in no way said the image we should use should be overtly lurid or sexual - only one that shows the natural and typical female form in a way which contrasts it from men and from girls, and one which would be easily understood to represent this topic without need of language knowledge. I'll not strike a single character, just as I expect SarahSV won't strike theirs. -- Netoholic @ 11:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The fact that the current image challenges gender stereotypes is exactly why that image is NOT ideal. I'm all for challenging gender stereotypes, believe me, I 100% am, but this article's image not the place for it. This image is the place to show an image of just a woman, nothing more and nothing else. Start adding in things that suggest feminism or any other philosophy, concept, idea, etc. and the image is about that concept, and not JUST about a woman. I would be saying exactly the same sort of thing if the image were showing specifically traditional conceptualizations of a woman, for example if it were an image of a "woman housewife". Either way, it would be invoking certain ideas/ideologies, and not just a woman. Vontheri (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
No; I don't think it's an improvement. Also, I agree with SV. -sche (talk) 08:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
-sche, do you think any of the photos at Talk:Woman/sandbox are an improvement? I recently added more. If not, what are you looking for? Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes; the current photo illustrates a woman doing work, the proposed photo illustrates a woman. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Lean No: of the two, I have a slight preference for the mechanic image.
I've looked at MOS:LEADIMAGE but didn't find the guideline to be of much help in making a decision. It says lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic. I think either one would qualify. It also says a lead image should be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works. I've looked around, and found one example in a reference work that is similar to the current mechanic image (a cover from the Encyclopedia of Women in Today's World, featuring images of a female astronaut, a female scientist, etc.) I've also found one that's similar to the proposed image (a picture in the Cambridge Dictionary's entry for Woman of a woman looking into the camera and smiling.)
Ultimately, either image seems like a good fit based on the guideline, so I'm just going with personal preference. I like the mechanic image more. The proposed image is bland and looks like something from a LinkedIn profile. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak preference for this over the current, but Neither (and None per what I said on the sandbox page(s). It would make sense if the next RfC included none as an option, since that is clearly in the spirit of the RfC on galleries. If there's a question about whatever the first image is appearing as though it's a lead image because of some third party algorithm, that can be addressed separately. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

None is my first choice; second choice is leave it as is. Gandydancer (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment why are we choosing random woman and random man who we don't know who they are? We can't judge the sexuality of the person by his/her appearance.
In my opinion we should choose a photo of a famously known woman especially a famous feminist woman.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
An unknown man and woman simply represent a man and woman.  A photograph of Gloria Steinem represents Gloria Steinem.  I'm not sure what you're saying about their sexuality.  That is irrelevant.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Sexuality? What..? What does the person's sexuality have to do with this? Sexuality isn't the same thing as gender or gender identity... A lesbian (or bisexual or asexual or etc.) woman is a woman as much as a straight woman is a woman... Choosing an image of a famous person invokes more than just the idea or concept of a "woman". This image should be an image that represents the subject of the article, nothing more and nothing less. Vontheri (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes This image doesn't invoke any ideas or ideologies beyond simply that of a "woman"; it is simply an image of a woman. Perhaps it isn't ideal, but every image is going to have at least some issue to at least someone. This image is an improvement over the current image by a million miles, and the goal should always be continual improvement of the encyclopedia, not perfection. Vontheri (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The image should show the natural form of a woman i.e. it should show the distinguishing features. Showing a woman in traditional male garb, or even traditional female garb is dependent on culture and also historical era. I suggest a simple nude photo of a woman (and a nude man at Man) would be better at showing key distinguishing features and make it more culturally universal. All other photos in articles about living organisms do not obscure the subject with attire. I suggest File:Human female.jpg. This would be a good choice because the photo is repeated later with labels. Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I think that picture makes sense for Human female, but I feel that this article is about a woman as she typically exists, which is usually with clothing, although I agree that it is a good idea to show a sense of the physical distinguishing features. I think that because people do have cultural context, we should show it, but I think it is best to be as neutral and universal as possible. I think the Man lead photo does that well. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Kolya Butternut. SunCrow (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No: I prefer the current image used. It's high quality, got a good aesthetic and I don't understand the reasoning that the subject should be doing nothing. People need to simply accept that there's no image we could possibly use that would indicate to all readers "this is the article Woman" because it's just too broad a category for that to a person's first instinct. But an image looks nicer than no image, and I think the current image looks excellent, whereas this one just looks a bit off to me—the asymmetry of her arms, the unpatterned clothing, boring backdrop etc. Perhaps this has been discussed to death, but I may support a composite image of several women, which I think would address some other concerns expressed by those above. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
    Struck the last sentence as it turns out that yes, it has. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Honestly I think it would be best if we could use a gallery of around 5 or 6 six images. If we could do that, then the current "woman mechanic" image would be appropriate, along with other images of women of various cultures and roles. It's unfortunate, in my opinion, that the "no ethnic galleries" rule exists, and even more unfortunate that it has been interpreted to apply to gender in addition to just ethnicity. If we could have a small gallery, I think that would pretty much solve this dispute. Vontheri (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't like that idea because I feel like a gallery represents "culture and social role diversity of women", rather than just "woman". And because a gallery attempts to represent all kinds of women, editors would keep switching out photos in an attempt to better represent all kinds of women. A picture of a woman simply represents the topic of the article by showing an example of a woman. One picture to debate over is better than six. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── We're not restricted to just these two photos! There are lots of great images we could from. We could even get a bot to rotate the image every month if we really couldn't make up our minds. I have a preference for showing more than one woman (because no single woman is all of us :-)), and so here's a small handful that appealed to me.

If you don't see something you love in this little set, then have a look through c:Category:Featured pictures of women, c:Category:Quality images of women, and c:Category:Valued images of women. There are a lot of great pictures available. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

A rotating gallery was discussed at #Rotating_gallery. You may want to add your images to Talk:Woman/sandbox. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Having a look at the featured pictures on women gallery, and excluding all pictures of notable women (which could be construed as photos representing that person, rather than a random woman) my pick would be the one below. Neutral in expression and attire, neither traditionally overly 'feminine' or 'masculine' in any particular way and a very high quality photograph. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 06:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Manual of Style discussion on lead images[edit]

There is a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images, "What to do for articles since the implementation of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES?", which asks what kind of lead image should be used for this article and other articles about groups of people. This originated out of a discussion at Talk:African Americans Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed edits to lede[edit]

User:Maria Tomoșoiu edited the lede to remove the following sentence:

There are also trans women (those who have a male sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity),[1] and intersex women (those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female).
  1. ^ Sexual Orientation and Gender Expression in Social Work Practice, edited by Deana F. Morrow and Lori Messinger (2006, ISBN 0-231-50186-2), p. 8: "Gender identity refers to an individual's personal sense of identity as [man] or [woman], or some combination thereof."

After that edit was made, the lede read as follows:

A woman is a female human being. The word woman is usually reserved for an adult, with girl being the usual term for a female child or adolescent. The plural women is also sometimes used for female humans, regardless of age, as in phrases such as "women's rights". Women with typical genetic development are usually capable of giving birth from puberty until menopause.

User:Maria Tomoșoiu provided an edit summary that reads as follows: "As the inclusion of the term 'trans woman' within the definition of the word 'woman' renders said definition circular therefore invalid, I have removed it."

User:Newimpartial reverted the edit made by User:Maria Tomoșoiu, stating: "Reverted per BRD. Please discuss."

The reasoning set forth by User:Maria Tomoșoiu is correct. If the term "woman" includes trans women, the definition of "woman" in the article ("a female human being") is inaccurate, or at least incomplete. Thus, the current version of the lede is self-contradictory. I proposed that the edit made by User:Maria Tomoșoiu be reinstated. SunCrow (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding links to previous discussions somewhat related: Dec 2018 and most of the threads on this Feb 2017-Oct 2018 archive page. Schazjmd (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The reasoning provided by Maria (an editor with all of one other edit to mainspace—SPA?) is incorrect; in what way does it make the definition "circular"? The argument that covering multiple parts of a definition makes it "incorrect" also appears to lack a basis in logic or RS, one of which the body of the article cites for its (stubby, eminently expandable) discussion of trans women and of intersex women, which needs to be summarized in the lead in some way since per WP:LEAD the lead is supposed to set out the scope of the topic and summarize the body of text about it. The body needs expansion (perhaps especially about intersex women, since for trans women it can just point a link towards that other article for more content), and the lead-text might benefit from some modification, but not total removal. (I don't even see the issue with "female", since the word is polysemous and trans women are often referred to as females, feminine, etc, even if also referred to as male-assigned. Even the article we link the word to says females only usually have two X chromosomes, and it should possibly acknowledge somewhere that even production of ova is only usual/typical of the category but not inherent in all individuals, as e.g. infertile females are well-documented in RS. That, however, is straying off the topic at hand.) -sche (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We worked this out before; see Talk:Woman/Archive 10#Wording. A lead sentence containing one definition or concept does not mean that another definition or concept for the topic is contradictory. Not automatically anyway. Many terms and topics have more than one definition. Per WP:Due weight, Wikipedia usually gives significantly more weight to the most common definition or concept. It is typical to see a Wikipedia article begin with the most common definition or concept and then go into one or more less common definitions or concepts. So that is why the lead of the Woman article begins with the definition it begins with, but later talks about trans women. The article also addresses trans women lower in the article. Intersex women as well. Are you saying the article shouldn't mention trans women at all? If you are saying we shouldn't mention them in the lead, that is contrary to what WP:Lead states. Those who reply to me on this, don't ping me; this page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

A note that information about transgender and intersex boys was also removed from the lead of Boy, with similar reasoning given. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Trans/intersex men were also removed from the lead of Man, though that change was reverted. WanderingWanda (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
-sche, in answer to your question: The current lede is self-contradictory because it says that a woman is a female human, but then goes on to describe "trans women" as women. "Trans women", by definition, are not female. If a "trans woman" is a woman, than the definition of "woman" as a female human being is necessarily either incorrect or incomplete. SunCrow (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn, thank you for providing a link to the prior discussion. And yes, multiple definitions of a term are not necessarily contradictory--but they are in this instance. To put it simply: If "trans women" are women, then it is inaccurate to define "woman" as a "female human being." To put it another way, if being a woman requires one to be female, "trans women" are not women. When a lede includes multiple definitions of a term that contradict each other, it should say so and explain the differences between those definitions. It should not simply lay out contradictory information the way this lede currently does. SunCrow (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The underlying assumption here is that the word "female" can only refer to people with certain physiological reproductive features. I'm not sure things are actually that clear cut: the Merriam-Webster definition of "gender identity", for example, talks about "male" and "female" identity, not "man" and "woman" identity. In any case, if the word "female" poses problems, a simple solution would be to remove it: A woman is a type of human being. The word woman is usually..., etc. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── SunCrow, I don't agree with your contradiction assessment. This is because of the standard definition/conception of "woman." That is all the lead sentence is doing, and it's what it should do -- present the standard definition/conception of "woman." A trans woman is not a typical woman and many (like you) argue that they are not female. The sex and gender distinction does exist, and some trans women also say that they are not female in the strict sense. But that lead sentence obviously is not about trans women. That is why we note that there are also trans women. As seen with this revert by Mathglot, the lead used to state, "With regard to gender, a woman may also be a person whose sex assignment does not align with their gender identity." As that revert shows, an editor proposed that the lead be changed to the following: "With regard to gender, woman may also refer to gender identity rather than sex assignment." Either version was to explain that a person may be a woman beyond biology (anatomical sex). After that, the discussion I pointed you to ensued. We could go back to an emphasis on gender identity, but the wording would need to be good. And we also need to keep intersex women in mind. I was clear in that aforementioned discussion that "my edit removed 'with regard to gender' [...] specifically with intersex people in mind."

I don't agree with removing "female" and leaving in the vague "is a type of human being." "Female" is a significant aspect of the topic. We are not going to remove "female" just because trans women exist. It would be undue weight to remove "female" to appease sentiments regarding trans women, who are the significant minority. And I'd rather not have the lead focus on the word as though this article is about the word. Yes, going by WanderingWanda's proposal, the word aspect wouldn't be in the first sentence, which is what WP:ISAWORDFOR, MOS:LEADSENTENCE and WP:Refers focus on, but it's still best to not focus on the word.

Betty Logan has been embroiled in the trans woman disputes regarding the definition at the Trans woman article, but I find her to usually have good ideas when it comes to wording. And knowing how passionate she is about this topic, she might want to weigh in as well. So I'm pinging her. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, although I stated that "we could go back to an emphasis on gender identity," the current wording does focus on gender identity with regard to trans women. It's not like the lead is explicitly calling trans women female. It specifically says "a male sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity." To repeat, that first sentence is not about trans women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It would be undue weight to remove "female" to appease sentiments regarding trans women, who are the significant minority. This isn't a question of appeasement but of accuracy. The lead sentence should not be constructed in such a way that it excludes trans women, for the same reason that, say, the lead sentence of Americans should not exclude Muslims. Muslims may be a minority in America, but it would still be incorrect to, say, define Americans as being "Judeo-Christian". The question, then, is whether the word "female" necessarily excludes trans women. I'm not sure it does, but if it does, it should be removed. Pinging Wikiproject Women, WikiProject LGBT, Talk:Transgender. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Your argument that "the lead sentence should not be constructed in such a way that it excludes trans women" disregards WP:Due. For the lead sentence, we do indeed include/restrict the lead sentence to the most common definition/concept of a term or topic for countless Wikipedia articles. We don't try to put every definition in the lead sentence, as is clear by how the lead of the Atheism article is formatted. And we don't give the undue aspect the same weight as the most common aspect. "Accuracy" with regard to the transgender aspect is disputed, and you know it. If it weren't, SunCrow wouldn't have an issue with calling trans women female. I'll alert WP:WikiProject Anthropology, WP:WikiProject Sociology, WP:WikiProject Gender Studies and WP:WikiProject Feminism, WP:WikiProject Women's History, WP:WikiProject Anatomy, WP:WikiProject Medicine and Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view to this discussion. I might even ping all of the editors involved in the debates regarding the lead sentence of the Trans woman article. Should be fun. I very much doubt that an RfC will see consensus agreeing to remove "female." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
And to speak more on the due weight matter, we know that many or most trans women have a penis and that some trans women do not view their penis as a male sex organ. Some of them refer to their penis as "a girl penis" or "female." But we are not going to have the lead of the Human penis exclude the "male" description. We are not going to reword most of the Human penis article so that "males" and "men" are not mentioned. This would be engaging in undue weight to appease sentiments regarding trans women. As seen at Talk:Human penis/Archive 1#"male humans" should be changed to "humans assigned male at birth", a discussion I pointed to times before, I and others did consider not beginning the Human penis article with the statement that it's something that male humans have. The article now simply begins by describing the organ as male, and this is because the literature does. We can't state that it's simply something that some people have and not specify it as a male reproductive system organ. In the case of women, biology is a big deal, as is clear by the article. Sex-related illnesses, for example, do exist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
There's no simple definition of "woman" that isn't circular, is unambiguous and has any common sense validity to it. Before we could even start looking at whether gender is performative, biological or psychological, we would have to question whether a definition should be descriptive or prescriptive. Whether trans women are women but not female or vice versa or something else is a rabbit hole with no answer that we shouldn't go down. Instead the point of the lead should be to impress upon the reader significants aspects which are relevant to the category of womanhood. The current version of the lead, which includes mention of trans women and intersex women, looks like a pretty good first paragraph to me. My only suggestion would be to change "There are also trans women (...), and intersex women (...)" to "Some women are trans (...) or intersex (...)" to prevent the potential implication that these groups are not women, or to imply (based on the connection with the previous sentence) that all intersex women are incapable of giving birth. And then I'd suggest that we expand the lead. I'd say a paragraph on typical biology and anatomy, a paragraph on gender roles and social behaviour and patriarchy, and a paragraph on women's history would be ideal. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll alert WP:WikiProject Anthropology, WP:WikiProject Sociology, WP:WikiProject Gender Studies and WP:WikiProject Feminism, WP:WikiProject Women's History, WP:WikiProject Anatomy, WP:WikiProject Medicine and Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view to this discussion. I appreciate it. More perspectives are welcome. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The definition in the lead needs to be fully sourced and should fully reflect those sources. Maria Tomoșoiu is correct in that the lead is now setting up a circular definition. Since "trans" is a modifier of the word being defined then obviously you cannot use it to define the topic. If mainstream definitions of womanhood extend beyond the female sex and also include males and intersex then obviously they should be included with the appropriate WP:WEIGHT. Betty Logan (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Trans isn't a Grammatical modifier. It's an open Compound noun (and a closed compound noun when it's spelled as transwoman). It does not mean "a woman who is trans" any more than peanut butter means butter that is a peanut or a living room is a room that is alive. It means "trans woman", a complete concept that does not depend upon modifying any other concept. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
      The definition of a "trans woman" draws its meaning from that of a woman i.e. what you have is an circular definition. So no, it's not a complete and independent concept. If the concept of a "woman" did not exist then the definition of a "trans woman" would not make any sense. Betty Logan (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
      The current lead doesn't define "woman" using "trans woman"; it mentions it in the lead, after saying "A woman is a female human being." This is just as valid as saying "An apple is a sweet, edible fruit produced by a Malus domestica. Apples may be red or green." Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Brought from WT:ANTHRO I generally agree with Bilorv, but still think the first sentence is somewhat misleading. It defines "woman" as identical to sex characteristics, but then goes on to contradict that. I looked at how some of the other Wikipedias handle this and I actually like how the German Wikipedia handles this at de:Frau: "The terms [Frau and Femina] refer to the biological sex, the social role, or both. [Die Bezeichnungen unterscheiden das biologische Geschlecht, die soziale Rolle oder beides.])" In that spirit, maybe we could phrase the first line as something like A woman is a feminine human with a particular biological sex or social role. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 21:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • A couple of comments: 1. I'm not strongly advocating for the removal of the word "female". It was just an idea I thought was worthy of some consideration. 2. This Slate article about the dictionary definition of woman may be of interest. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I pointed to that article before. As you likely know, this is seen at Talk:Woman/Archive 10#Gender identity. Like that Slate article notes, the literature is not yet there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
If editors agree to it, we could try the "especially" route that Merriam-Webster is mentioned as taking with "man" in that source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I was confused why the wording between Webster's "man" and "woman" entries were so different, until I remembered that "man" is traditionally used in a supposedly gender neutral way.
Anyway, here's another stab at rewording the lead:
A woman is an adult human being, typically one with female sex characteristics. Commonly, women can give birth from puberty until menopause. Some women are transgender and have a male sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity. Some women are intersex and are born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female. The plural women is sometimes used to refer simultaneously to both girls and adult women, as in phrases such as women's rights. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
That might work. I don't think it should be added without more opinions on it, though. And, yes, we'll likely need an RfC on it. But before heading the RfC route, you could simply propose that wording in a subsection of this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I think Wanda's proposed wording strikes a nice balance. Acknowledges the common usage up front without contradicting further clarification later on in the paragraph. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 23:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Just a note: Someone might argue that trans women can attain some female sex characteristics with sex reassignment therapy and that sex reassignment surgery exists if a trans woman decides to go the surgery route, but that a woman is usually understood to have more than just some or certain female sex characteristics (such as breasts but no vagina). A woman is usually understood to be female in the sense addressed by the Female article. Still, WanderingWanda's wording might be enough of a compromise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I think some of what I've proposed above requires additional consideration, but I'm going to go ahead and implement the change that Bilorv suggested, as it does not seem to be controversial. ("Some women are..." instead of "There are also...") If there are objections feel free to revert. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
The more I look at sources defining "woman" and this article, which necessarily covers a lot of biological and health material that is sex-specific, the more I think we should retain "A woman is a female human being." I'm just not seeing sources defining "woman" in some other way, including in the way you proposed. And I've looked at encyclopedias and academic books for how they may define "woman."
Betty Logan has a point that we should be sticking to what sources state rather than coming up with our own definitions. And I don't think it's appropriate to use an LGBT source or specifically a transgender source for the lead sentence in order to broaden what "woman" covers; that would be undue weight. Same goes for using some opinion piece or other media piece on the dispute regarding defining trans women as women. With regard to the biology material the article includes, I state that it necessarily includes it because it's all important. The article is not full of biological and health stuff without valid reason. It's not like it needs to be trimmed to make way for more society and culture stuff. The "Biology and sex" section is important from an anatomical perspective. The "Health" section is important because of the sex-based stuff it covers. Reproductive rights and freedom are obviously important. Violence against women is obviously important and includes matters such as female genital mutilation (again sex-based). Fertility is obviously important. So the literature on "woman" is overwhelmingly about cisgender women. But as others have made clear below, "female" can also be interpreted as applying to trans women. I know and have talked to trans women who do not consider themselves female; some are clear that, for example, irrespective of gender identity (whether the person is a trans woman or trans man), gynaecology concerns the female reproductive system and women's health and that they, as trans women, don't think they will ever need to go to a gynaecologist; health-wise, all they know is andrology. But WhatamIdoing is obviously correct that some trans women see themselves as female. And if we use wording like "A woman is typically a female human being.," it's awkward and can be confusing because readers might wonder why "typically" is there even with the mention of trans women later on in the lead. If we say "A woman is an adult human being, typically a female person.", some might go with that, but it'll no doubt offend others...both cisgender women and trans women. Not that we should generally edit based on what readers will find offensive. On a side note: We should probably add "adult" to that first sentence (and for the Man article) as well, like sources consistently do. Yes, "adult" is mentioned in the second sentence, but it doesn't mean that it's redundant to have "adult" in the first sentence. The second sentence is focused on specifying that woman is usually reserved for an adult. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Both Merriam-Webster and Oxford Dictionaries define a woman as an "adult female /human/person" so being an adult is intrinsically part of the definition. The first sentence should follow suit IMO and could be sourced to the two dictionary definitions. Betty Logan (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
It's probably worth noting and considering that the phrase "adult human female" has become a transphobe meme: Woman billboard removed after transphobia row. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't see that the one incident, which others might not call a meme, should have any bearing on this matter. And it's nothing new that people question if trans women are women by bringing up the female aspect; we see that this is how this talk page discussion started. We see it at the Trans woman talk page, and I'm sure that most of the people debating the matter there questioning how the lead presents what a trans woman is there are not feminists/are not the acronym you initially used...except for when using it broadly to include non-feminists/non radical feminists. The difference between the one incident you linked to and how this discussion started is that SunCrow didn't start this discussion to disparage anyone. I don't see that because there are people who say "trans women are not women because they aren't female," we should avoid including the very due usage of "adult" and "female" -- which are key aspects of the definition/concept of "woman." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, it makes no sense to have this article exclude "female" from its lead sentence while the Man article continues to get to use "male" in its lead sentence and when many people also say that "trans men are not men because they are not male." And then there are the Boy and Girl articles that also use "male" and "female," respectively, in their lead sentences. I know that trans women get more attention than trans men, in part because there are more trans women than trans men, but if we are going to remove a sex category from the lead sentence of one of these articles, we should be consistent across the board. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't see that the one incident, which others might not call a meme, should have any bearing on this matter. I linked the incident to illustrate a trend. If you search social media for the phrase "adult human female" you will see lots of transphobia pop up. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
What I stated with my "12:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)" and "12:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)" posts still applies, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the sentence is 100% appropriate: with it, it keeps the lede focused on what the generally accepted term of "woman" is but does not dismiss that there are trans/intersex women as well, who are also going to be discusses on this page. The world is still not at a reasonable state that we can use the more progressive consideration that broadly includes trans and intersex women under "women" (its getting there, but it really is not there yet), but we certainly can saying those classes are fully connected to talking about the non biological aspects of womanhood throughout the rest of the article. The only additional change I would suggest is a subheading under "Biology and sex" to explain trans and intersex more (though clearly with more info at the linked pages). --Masem (t) 22:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
And just reading a few of the above, as its impossible to draw an encyclopedic line between the biological aspects and the social aspects of woman (that is, having separate articles on these), maybe the lead sentence starts "In biology, a woman..." and then later in the lede "Woman can also be defined from a social concept, as ...". Then this fully makes sense to bring in trans/intersex women as soon as possible since they will fit more into the society-based concept --Masem (t) 22:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
You have forgotten the POV in which some trans women believe that they are biologically female, albeit not in the ways that happen to be used for determining intersex status.
This whole thing begins with an assumption that the reader's frame of reference is the sex-gender distinction. Not all of our readers will think that there's any difference between woman and female, but I sincerely doubt that anyone who can read English actually needs a dictionary definition. IMO the goal should be to Wikipedia:Build the web to closely related concepts, and then summarize the body of the article. The body, of course, should include all the concepts definitions impartially: woman as a person with certain biological features, woman as a person with a certain gender role, woman as a person with a certain gender presentation, woman as a person with a certain internal identity, woman as status imposed by others, etc. It should not matter whether your idea is "I'm a woman because I can have babies" or "I'm a woman because I do women's work" or whatever; you should find all those ideas mentioned in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I guess what I'm saying is that you have plenty of room to expand the lede to give space to explain the complexity of this article - multiple ways that "woman" can be looked or how some will define themselves by it. Lay out the groundwork that the article here starts with the biologically, and then moves more into societal. Make sure trans and intersex women are both described in the lede (eg keep that sentence). You can cover that some trans classify themselves as women in the lede too. Basically, you could have up to 3-4 paragraphs of lede given the size of this article, and you should use that to prepare the reader for a not-quite-straightforward article. --Masem (t) 00:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Masem, as you know, intersex is also a biological matter. Seen at Talk:Woman/Archive 10#Wording, I relayed, "My edit removed 'with regard to gender,' and I mainly did that specifically with intersex people in mind. [...] so many intersex people do not know they are intersex and are usually considered male or female even if their chromosomes are not typical." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the content that was removed should be restored, but maybe some further clarification on the Sex and gender distinction are needed. Women as defined by gender =/= women as defined by sex. Perhaps simply linking to the Sex and gender distinction article in the lead around the disputed sentence would be sufficient to address any problems? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus (Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus), regarding removed content, this is the revert in question. Some content was removed, and another editor restored it. So it seems you mean that you think that the transgender and intersex content should be in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, with qualifications/explanations that such concepts are relatively novel and should be understood in the dimension I linked to. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove trans- and intersex mentions from lede - Per WP:DUEWEIGHT, the content in the lede should reflect predominance of usage in reliable sources. I think that standard makes it clear that an exhaustive description of trans or intersex women in the lede is UNDUE. In fact, no mention of these classes should at all be in the lede of this article because I think its clear that sources on the broad topic of woman, overall, only extremely rarely mention them. -- Netoholic @ 13:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Two quick points to make: firstly, we're talking about a definition of women, which shouldn't depend on all sources about women, but rather sources about what it means to be a woman. Secondly, we should be weighting contemporary sources more highly than older ones, because language changes and so can understanding of facts (e.g. most sources say "Fermat's Last Theorem is unproven" because it was unproven for 357 years and has been proved for 25; yet obviously Wikipedia should say "Fermat's Last Theorem has been proved"). And to combine these points: a significant number of contemporary sources discussing what it means to be a woman, such as in the academic fields of gender studies and philosophy of gender, discuss womanhood as a combination of biological, social and psychological roles, and in any explanation of what these things are, it would be a significant omission to exclude that some women are trans or intersex. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
      • "rather sources about what it means to be a woman" - nope. Feel free to create Woman (social construct), but the primary meaning of the term woman as supported by the vast coverage in reliable sources (both past and present) is "female human" - referring to the realities which differentiate that biological sex from the male counterpart man. I am not saying that the very modern "gender studies" interpretation has no place in the article, just that it is vastly UNDUE for the lede where space is more limited and the main scope of the article is presented. The focus on this article, though, needs to be about biological realities of the typical class of female humans. -- Netoholic @ 16:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
        • The vast majority of sources use (in their adjective forms) "woman" and "female" interchangeably, so it's preposterous to say "define a woman as a female human and leave it there". You've presented no reasoning for this article to deal with biology alone—this isn't Woman (human biology). Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
          • Don't try to re-frame what I said. Clearly trans and intersex can be covered briefly in the article, but not everything covered in the article is significant enough to warrant mention in the lede summarization. That's the case here. The vast majority of this article should be devoted to "female human". I haven't seen a survey which estimates the trans population to be anything more than about 0.1–0.5% in the U.S. - and since transgenderism is far less common in most of the rest of the world, that number is far lower across humanity as whole. Coverage in reliable sources would likewise reflect this, and per WP:UNDUE, that is far too small a sample to give any consideration in the lede. -- Netoholic @ 17:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
            • @Netoholic: "transgenderism" is invariably used to insult trans people. Per GLAAD guidelines This is a term used by anti-transgender activists to dehumanize transgender people and reduce who they are to "a condition." [6] Please make a point of avoiding this word. Thanks. -- (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep term 'female', watch carefully for undue weight - I strongly disagree with any proposal to remove the word "female" as part of the lead sentence in favor of 'feminine' or any other such substitutes. Dictionaries all define women as female. 'Female', an adjective, does not necessarily exclude intersex and trans women. It can refer to female traits, not just to having two X chromosomes or producing ova.

However, I too have WP:UNDUE-related concerns. The current lede spends about 35% of its length on a tiny proportion of the population. The matter of trans women is a political minefield right now; being NPOV will be extremely difficult. I think the lede of our article man handles it well and should be imitated here. One brief sentence on trans and intersex women as exceptions is appropriate, as that article does. There could easily be a little expansion of the lede also, again like the man article.

Regarding not only the lede but the article as a whole: Because the topic is so controversial, great care is needed. Even in academia, there is significant debate on these matters. It is essential to be careful to avoid cherry picking and to accurately represent what a wide variety of RS say. In particular, gender studies often has a strong activist bent and assumes social constructionism, and is not the only field that considers matters related to womanhood. Sociology, psychology, medicine, and yes, biology, doubtless among others, all have things to say on womanhood, and there are diverse schools of thought within these fields. Crossroads1 (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Oy vey. If I had known how complex and lengthy this discussion would get, I wouldn't have asked the question. SunCrow (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
SunCrow, lulz, you expected the discussion about whether trans women are women to be simple and short? :-) Levivich 20:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment (per notification at WT:ANATOMY).
    1. 2 of 5 lines currently refer to intersex and transgender, which is quite a large proportion of the lead compared with such a massive topic. Per WP:LEAD: As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic. I don't think 40% of the topic relates to these concepts or assignations.
    2. I feel the lead could be expanded to do a better job of summarising the topic and this may help obviate the above concern. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep "female" as well as "woman" in the lede, because both terms are used by RS to refer to both sex and gender concepts. See, from many recent reliable sources, the official definitions used for Canadian demographic statistics. Gender identity and gender expression are the defining characteristics of gender in Canada, whereas sex is assigned at birth-the same terminology used in other recent, reliable sources. Woman is used as an equivalent to female in terms of both sex and gender, and the WP article should continue to reflect this. Newimpartial (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The source you linked to states, "Sex and gender refer to two different concepts. Caution should be exercised when comparing counts for sex with those for gender. For example, female sex is not the same as female gender. The variable 'Gender of person' and the 'Classification of gender' are expected to be used by most social statistics programs. The variable 'Sex of person' and the 'Classification of sex' are to be used where information on sex at birth is needed, for example for some demographic and health indicators." This discussion partly concerns that, with editors mentioning the sex and gender distinction, and with me mentioning what I did in my "21:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)" and "11:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)" posts. I, for example, pointed to sex-related illnesses. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, of course the distinction between sex and gender is important, just as the different senses of "gender" are also important (and I have made both of those points on this page before).
The point of my citation this time is that they terms male and female are both (per Statistics Canada) used for sex as well as for gender, as is (more obviously) true of the term "woman". So the argument that "female" should be used only for "sex", or that trans women are not "female", are simply unsupportable arguments in terms of recent RS. Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying. In the case of distinguishing sex and gender, however, trans women may not be considered with regard to a number of sex aspects; that was my point in quoting a part of the source you cited. That the sex and gender distinction exists obviously doesn't mean that trans women are never referred to as female. Others above have noted that it's certainly not unheard of for trans women to be referred to as, or considered, female. On a side note: Why did you state "Keep [...] 'woman' in the lede"? There was no suggestion that "woman" be removed; the title of the article is, well, "Woman." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
My point was to keep "female" as well as woman, rather than rewriting to avoid "female". My reasoning here is that it is unwise, as well as misleading, to restrict the term "female" as if it were only an appropriate label for sex assignment, when it is an equally relevant term for gender including for gender identity.
And I am not pretending to have brought anything entirely novel to this discussion, except a new source. Newimpartial (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Continued discussion[edit]

I decided to spend a few minutes digging around for definitions, because a dictionary seems like a weak source, compared to what we could be using. First, and perhaps most interestingly, Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition (1911) simply skips the definition altogether (read it at Wikisource) and plunges straight into historical subjugation and the suffragettes.

But if you are not inspired by the idea of skipping the definition altogether, then we should move on to better sources.

  • First up is doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199892631.001.0001, which is a gold-plated academic source. In this model, a woman is a person who is discriminated against by other people due to their belief that she's in the child-bearing half of the species. This includes, e.g., intersex and trans and non-binary people who appear female, but it has been criticized for not necessarily including Queen Elizabeth, who might not exactly be discriminated against, at least in the usual ways (although one might wonder whether the pressure to produce an heir for the kingdom is its own special form of "systematic subordination", to use the author's phrase, and the old laws saying that she could only be the monarch if there were no men around probably does make her qualify). What's striking about it compared to the dictionary definitions quoted above is that you are a woman if and because other people think you are, and your own feelings on the matter don't really enter into the question at all (except to the extent that your own feelings might affect your actions, which in turn might affect other people's view of whether you're a woman).
  • Simone de Beauvoir's position, which should at least be acknowledged in the article, was that a woman is a person trained by society to fill that gender role, and that as a matter of practicalities, these people were selected for this training on the grounds that they were born with anatomical evidence of being biologically female. To oversimplify, this is a Womyn-born womyn view: if you weren't raised as a girl, then you probably aren't a woman.
  • Gender Trouble (ISBN 9780203902752) represents the view of third-wave feminism and Continental philosophy. In this, "woman" is not the most important category, "biological sex" is a social construct (just like gender), gender identity doesn't technically exist (but gender expression does, and it's how you show whether you're going along with the power structures), and the whole thing is about power. Women, in short, are the people who don't have a fair share of power overall, and you can identify them by the way they behave. In this category, all transwomen are included (but I suppose that poor Queen Elizabeth might be excluded again). Framing it all in terms of power has been criticized for (I oversimplify again) denying free will.

The other thing that struck me while looking around is that relatively little is made of "adult" specifier that the dictionary includes.

All of these definitions should be represented in the article. We might need a significant section on definitions. Perhaps the ==Etymology== section could be re-worked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Scholarly? Sure. Cherry-picked? Absolutely. These views do not represent the mainstream. This article is and should be focused on female humans (the WP:COMMONNAME for which is "woman") - NOT a broad article about all things called "woman". This article should draw upon sources which a female human is - with primacy given to what they say about biology. -- Netoholic @ 11:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Glad to see you abandoning any pretense to DUE and BALANCE, Netolic, and picking FRINGE POV for primacy over national statistical organizations. At least your motives are transparent. Newimpartial (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Netoholic, I don't think that this article is about "biological female humans". If it were, then we would have named it that. Also, if the subject were the intersection of humans as a species and female as a sex, there wouldn't be whole sections that are irrelevant to biology. All those sections about ==Culture and gender roles==, ==Clothing, fashion and dress codes==, ==Religion==, and ==Education== (to name only a few) convince me that the subject of this article is not an animal of a particular species and sex. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
All of those topics relate to sex/are relevant to biology. Gender roles? Like the Gender role article makes clear, those roles are based around the sex of a person. The "Culture and gender roles" section in the Woman article has a "Violence against women" section. As is clear by the Violence against women article, that violence is because of the woman's sex. Female genital mutilation, which is in the "Violence against women" section, is about the woman's sex. How women are supposed dress or behave? It's about their sex. The education that many of them are denied? It's about their sex. Single-sex education? It's about dividing the sexes. Even the Religion section speaks of what is expected of women because of their sex. Discrimination and violence against women are significantly based more on their sex than on their gender identity. People are assigned a sex based on their genitals, not on what gender identity they may identify with later in life. When violence against trans women happens, it is also about their sex, but in a different way (unless the trans woman passes and is not known as transgender); it's usually due to a combination of homophobia and transphobia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn, I am not sure that you fully processed the Statistics Canada link I provided earlier. At least one RS - namely a major national statistical agency with decades of experience analyzing such topics as Violence against Women - is arguing that gender identity is the preferred variable for the majority of social phenomena (with the notes exception of certain health indicators). Newimpartial (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I read that Statistics Canada link, and also, as you know, quoted it back to you. Firstly, it applies to Canada, not to the world at large. Second, it does not discount what I stated in my "21:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)" post. It's a fact that discrimination and violence against women are significantly based more on their sex than on their gender identity. When people are assigned girls, is society doing all of the gendered and/or unequal things it does to them because of their gender identity? No. It's because of their sex. When they are older, there will be some gender identity discrimination, where they are discriminated against solely because of the "female" identity they used on a form or similar, but women are mainly discriminated against because of their sex. They mainly face violence because of their sex. Do you think that most violence against women is because the women identify as women? So all they'd need to do is just identify as non-binary and they wouldn't face the disproportionate levels of discrimination and violence they face? I can list various reliable scholarly sources that make it clear that the main reason women are discriminated against and face violence is due to their sex. Third, I don't think you are interpreting that source appropriately. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, you are asserting without evidence that violence against women is based more on sex assignment than in gender identity. Do you have any recent, reliable sources for that claim? And your statement about "choosing to be non-binary" is absurd, since I assume you know that additional forms of violence are deployed against non-cis compared to cis people. To move beyond Statistics Canada for a second this is the fact sheet from the Canadian federal department mandated to deal with "Women's issues", articulating gender (rather than sex assignment) as the most relevant frame for understanding violence against women. Newimpartial (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

You really want me to list sources that make it clear that the main reason women are discriminated against and face violence is due to their sex? The sources in the article and all over Wikipedia in articles like Violence against women are not enough for you? Very well then. In the meantime, you should look to gather sources that state that the main reason women are discriminated against is because of their gender identity or that they are equally discriminated against because of their gender identity. The Canadian material you keep citing and interpreting doesn't cut it. Your suggestion that this is the case is what is absurd to me. This is why I mentioned "choosing to be non-binary," since the "women are mainly or equally discriminated against because of their gender identity" view takes the stance that if these female-bodied people did not identify as women, they would not face the disproportionate levels of discrimination and violence they face. That is nonsense, for the reasons I already addressed. Women being scared to go jogging at night is not because of their gender identity. It's because of their sex. Men have been interviewed about the "jogging at night" matter and are usually clear that they are not afraid to go jogging at night by their lonesome because they are male; in other words, they convey that they have an advantage because of their anatomy. It is not about their gender identity. The main reason women are disproportionately affected by -- are targets of intimate partner violence -- is because of their sex. If sex wasn't such a big issue in the case of intimate partner violence, so many more women than men wouldn't be severely injured or die. And, for the record, many non-binary people are clear that they chose their gender identity; many are very clear about genderfucking. I didn't at all state "choosing to be non-binary" to be offensive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
My point about "choosing to be nonbinary" and violence is that it would be absurd to choose a gender identity, to avoid violence, that is subject to additional forms of violence.
And as far as sex assignment is concerned, violent predators never have the ability to detect chromosomes and seldom even have particularly accurate ways to discern anatomy. So in your jogging scenario, sex assignment would be well below gender expression in a rational assessment of risk, except for the matter of height and musculature (and the latter is often affected by transition hormones and gender identity itself). "Passing" trans folks illustrate this nicely: passing trans men will no longer be subject to gendered jogging violence (for as long as they pass), while passing trans women can (and do) become subject to it, as long as they pass. Can you really not seen the role of gender in this, as opposed to sex assignment? It seems obvious to me. Newimpartial (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Of course, by "sex" with regard to "the main reason women face discrimination and violence is due to their sex," I don't mean "the ability to detect chromosomes." And neither do the sources. Some of the sources do state "sex or gender," however. Of course, I see the role that gender expression can play in the matter. But what I stated about sex-based discrimination and sex-based violence still stands. Enough sources stress sex-based violence in terms of women's bodies or perceived ability to do things based on their anatomical sex. As for "passing," I already mentioned that. I stated, "When violence against trans women happens, it is also about their sex, but in a different way (unless the trans woman passes and is not known as transgender); it's usually due to a combination of homophobia and transphobia." "Perceived sex" also falls under "sex-based" with regard to discrimination and violence, which is why a number of trans men have talked about no longer fearing jogging at night. Men who discriminate against, or use violence against, women are not looking at people who appear to be women and wondering what their gender identity is; that is my point. Anyway, I will still list sources to my point tomorrow or the day after that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Flyer 22 Reborn, I will not continue this here, except to say that your argument that "perceived sex" is really about sex, rather than gender, flies rather in the face of the last 30 years of mainstream scholarship about gender, from what I've read. So if you find sources, I would like to see them. The Status of Women page from the Government of Canada, which I linked earlier, presents what I would consider to be a typical contemporary view about the role of gender, rather than interpreting violence in terms of "perceived sex" as being about sex assignment or anatomy. Newimpartial (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I did not state that "'perceived sex' is really about sex, rather than gender." I stated, "'Perceived sex' also falls under 'sex-based' with regard to discrimination and violence." And given your arguments about passing, I'm not seeing what you are stating about "flies rather in the face of the last 30 years of mainstream scholarship about gender." I will let the sources I'm going to list speak for me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
In recent, gender-based scholarship, "passing" represents the full social assumption of a gender identity. Seeing "passing" in terms of "perceived sex" seems to me to revert to an older understanding represented in such identities as "transsexual" rather than "transgender". Newimpartial (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, to clarify, Flyer22 Reborn, I understand your previous comments as arguing that violence based on "perceived sex" is "sex-based" rather than "gender-based" violence. In the context of the last 20 or 30 years of scholarship, I see this claim as EXTRAORDINARY and at least requiring some form of support/explanation based in reliable sources. But perhaps I misunderstood. Newimpartial (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
"Perceived sex" has fallen under sex-based discrimination for years. We can see this going all the way back to a 2001 "Hatred in the Hallways: Violence and Discrimination Against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Students in U.S. Schools" source, from Human Rights Watch, which states, "California's bias crimes law defines gender as 'the victim's actual sex or the defendant's perception of the victim's sex, and includes the defendant's perception of the victim's identity, appearance, or behavior, whether or not that identity, appearance, or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the victim's sex at birth.' [...] Minnesota defines a 'bias offense' as 'conduct that would not constitute a crime and was committed because of the victim's or another another's actual or perceived race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability as defined in section 363.01, age or national origin." [...] The District of Columbia's statute covers acts demonstrating prejudice based on 'actual or perceived' sex, sexual orientation, and 'personal appearance,' among other categories. D.C. Code 22-4001 (200). Bias crime against transgender individuals is covered under the statute if it is based on perceived sex or sexual orientation. In addition, a federal district court has found that discrimination against transgender individuals may be unlawful under district human rights law's prohibition of discrimination based on personal appearance. " Is "perceived sex" always considered in the literature or in law? No. That is why this "Discrimination Based on Perceived Characteristics" The Human Rights Campaign source states, "This report is intended to squarely address the need for explicit nondiscrimination protections on the basis of both 'actual or perceived' status and to tackle common concerns regarding this language. [...] Although nondiscrimination laws are passed with the goal of protecting populations that frequently face discrimination based on a given characteristic, these laws should apply to everyone. They should not simply protect people of a specific race or sexual orientation. Instead, they are intended to declare that discrimination at its core is wrong and contrary to our shared values. Allowing for discrimination based on misperceived characteristics creates a loophole, which undermines this goal. This loophole also allows individuals and businesses engaging in prohibited discriminatory practices to evade enforcement of the law. In many jurisdictions, defendants may claim they were discriminating on a slightly different basis to get the case dismissed at summary judgment." Even this Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) source states, "There are four main types of discrimination. Direct discrimination is when someone is treated differently and not as well as other people because of their sex. For example, advertising a job and stating it is better suited to female applicants. It breaks down into three different sorts of treating someone 'less favourably' because of: their own sex (ordinary direct discrimination), their perceived sex (direct discrimination by perception), their association with someone of a particular sex (direct discrimination by association)." Now, when it comes to discrimination based on perceived sexual orientation, the literature does talk more about that.
You are distinguishing between "sex-based violence" and "gender-based violence," but these two terms usually mean the same thing in the literature. And they are usually about girls and women, as is clear by the Violence against women article. That is why this 2004 The New Humanitarian source states, "Together with 'sexual violence' and 'violence against women', 'gender-based violence' is used interchangeably." It's why this "Inter-Agency Field Manual on Reproductive Health in Humanitarian Settings: 2010 Revision for Field Review" source, states, "The term 'gender-based violence' is often used interchangeably with the term 'violence against women' and 'sexual and gender-based violence'." Not much has changed in that regard since 2004 or 2010. Below is sourcing for the role that sex/biology plays in discrimination, inequality, and violence against women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Flyer, what makes you say that women getting paid less than men, or being told whether their hemlines are at an acceptable length, or that women don't need to go to school, or that they shouldn't be plumbers, is about their sex and not about their (perceived) gender? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
What makes you state or suggest that it's not about their sex, when there are various reliable sources making the "based on sex" and "because they are female" aspect clear? Why would you think it's solely or mostly because of their gender identity? How does that make sense? If not referring to perceived sex or gender identity, your use of "(perceived) gender" is odd. "Perceived gender" is often taken to mean "perceived sex." If you are not referring to perceived sex, what are you referring to? Discounting grammatical gender, gender refers to sex, gender identity, and gender role. The education aspect also includes girls who are not allowed to attend school because of menstruation. If you want me to list sources for the "based on sex" and "because they are female" aspect, I can do that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I specified that it was the perceived gender that matters, because this is about the way other people treat you, and how they treat you is about how they perceive you. If you dress a baby in a frilly pink dress, people treat the baby one way; if you dress the same baby in a blue shirt with a football or a truck printed on the front, people will treat the baby another way. The baby's gender identity, if any such thing even exists in babies, and even if someone thinks that gender identity is the whole of gender or thinks that gender identity is the only true way to determine gender, has nothing to do with it. What matters is the perception of other people (the "perceived gender").
There's nothing biological that makes it inappropriate to dress a biologically male baby in a frilly pink dress, but if you do, that's a socially transgressive act that unsettles people who know that the baby is male. The same is true for an adult in a mini skirt, or an adult in a maxi skirt, or an adult in a pair of trousers: There are social rules about whether any given person "should" wear them, but no biological imperatives behind any of it. Therefore those rules are about "gender" rather than "sex". I agree with you that in almost all cases, the perceived gender aligns with the perceived sex, but it would still be ideal to precisely observe the sex/gender distinction when we can do so easily. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── You can specify "perceived gender," but it's not what sources usually state. There is no clear distinguishing between "perceived sex" and "perceived gender," considering that the terms "sex" and "gender" are usually taken to mean the same thing even with the existence of the sex and gender distinction. There is a bit on perceived sex in the literature, like I noted to Newimpartial above, but perceived sex usually does correctly equate to actual sex. And either way, sources are very clear that women face discrimination and violence significantly or primarily due to their sex or gender roles; those same sources or other sources note that gender roles are based on sex. Discrimination against women is usually called sexism, and we can see in the Sexism article that "based on sex" is key, and that sexism primarily affects women and girls. Also, like I told Newimpartial above, "sex-based violence" and "gender-based violence" are terms that usually mean the same thing in the literature, and they are usually about women and girls. Sources below:

Sources on sex/biology being a significant or primary reason for discrimination, inequality, and violence against women, ranging from 2004 to 2018.
  • This 2004 "The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination: Bias based on gender and sexual orientation" source, from Greenwood Publishing Group, pages 5-6, states, Although it is biologically appropriate and desirable for adolescent girls to increase their fatty tissue to maintain normal reproductive functioning, girls perceive any increase on body weight or size as problematic in a culture that values a lean 'masculine' body for women and devalues and criticizes a more feminine, round, shapely body [...] Kaschak (1992) described this violation of the female body as a combat zone in that 'women become the enemies of their bodies in a struggle to mold them as society wishes, to mediate and embody conflicts between the physical and demands of society' (p. 193). [...] Frederickson and Roberts (1997) delineated the consequences of shame, anxiety, and serious mental health problems that result when women's bodies are objectified. Women's guilt about not being physically perfect and desirable and taking up more than their share of space leads to feelings of guilt and self-devaluation. These feelings may be further accentuated in cultures where women are hidden from view by clothing or isolation. Because these attitudes are widespread, they result in prejudice and discrimination toward women who do not meet the cultural ideal of beauty. These women feel shamed and criticized, and their development is limited."
  • This 2004 "Encyclopaedia of Women in South Asia: Afghanistan" source, from Gyan Publishing House, page 191, states, "Often, violence is not random - women and girls are victims simply because they are female. Thus, gender-based violence is an expression of gender inequality but it also may serve to bolster wider patterns of gender discrimination and injustice."
  • This 2004 "Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women: Global Women's Issues and Knowledge," from Routledge, page 1810, states, "While society may value women as mothers in principle, in practice they receive little support. Women cannot necessarily count on the sustained assistance of the men who father their children. Mothers who enter paid employment (either out of necessity or in pursuit of additional fulfillment) find that their biology is used to discriminate against them."
  • This 2004 "Gender and Development in the Middle East and North Africa: Women in the Public Sphere" source, from World Bank Publications, page 94, states, "In MENA, gender roles and power dynamics within the household determine to a large extent women's access to and interaction with the state and public sphere. These dynamics are shaped by elements that can be grouped into what we will call the 'traditional gender paradigm.' This paradigm is based on the recognition (a) that men and women differ biologically and that these biological difference determine their social function, (b) that men and woman carry different and complementary responsibilities within the family, and (c) that they have different but equitable table rights associated with those responsibilities."
  • This 2005 "Contemporary Japanese Thought" source, from Columbia University Press, page 61, talks about discrimination and the "natural order of their sex" with regard to women, adding that "being female becomes a negative symbol for women; it becomes that which they must deny as much as possible in order to be human."
  • This 2006 "Encyclopedia of Sexual Behavior and the Law" source, from CQ Press, page 144, states, "Although sex and gender are two separate aspects of an individuals' identity, in many legal contexts the terms are used interchangeably. What used to be called simply sex discrimination has now evolved in many cases into gender discrimination, which includes sex discrimination based strictly on biology. Some states expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender, or the sexual persona adopted by an individual as opposed to simply his or her biological sex."
  • This 2011 "Gender Stereotyping: Transnational Legal Perspectives" source, from University of Pennsylvania Press, page 104, states, "The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women ('Women's Convention' or 'Convention'; see Appendix A) obligates States Parties to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women. It will be recalled that article 1 of that instrument defines 'discrimination against women' as 'any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. [...] The Committee has further explained that discrimination against women on the basis of sex includes those differences of treatment that exist 'because of stereotypical expectations, attitudes and behavior directed towards women which are based on the biological differences between women and men, and that exist 'because of the generally existing subordination of women by men.'"
  • This 2013 "The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Politics" source, from Oxford University Press: Although the source says that much discrimination against women occurs because of gender roles and that "women face discrimination not only on account of their sex but on account of their gender roles," it goes on to note that these gender roles are based on sex -- what is expected of a person who is female -- and the ways in which women face all sorts of discrimination and society-inflicted issues simply because they are female. It also states, "As discussed already, gender equality can be framed primarily as a problem of direct, sex-based discrimination or as one of more far-reaching gender equity."
  • This 2013 "Women's Studies: The Basics" source, from Routledge, page 93, states, "As the physical body intersects with culture we see both medical inequalities in the treatment of women's illnesses and in the violence done to the female body that is undernourished, beaten, or even murdered on the basis of the lower value that cultures places on women."
  • This 2013 "The Anatomy of Adolescence (Psychology Revivals): Young people's social attitudes in Britain" source, from Routledge, page 93, states, "There are still social pressures placed on women to restrict themselves to marriage and family life. And even those who choose to pursue a profession may find themselves discriminated against because of their sex."
  • This 2014 "Women, Crime and Criminal Justice: A Global Enquiry" source, from Routledge, pages 81-91, says "if we want to understand violence against women, it is logical to look at the youngest women: girls." It then goes on to note the various ways in which girls are discriminated against because of their sex/because they are female. These sex-based issues include sex-selective abortion, female infanticide, sexual abuse such as child sexual abuse, incest, child prostitution, sexual objectification, child marriage, female genital mutilation, and pornography. In fact, it makes sure to note that female-based victimization starts from birth, per what the World Health Organization (WHO) states. The Violence against women article also notes "from birth," per the WHO."
  • This 2014 "Stress, Social Support, And Women" source, from Taylor & Francis, page 20, states, "Violence against women is also related to the interaction of biology and environment. Women are both at a disadvantage to protect themselves against a physical assault perpetrated by a man, and are selected as objects for violence in the case of rape.
  • This 2015 "Trauma and Recovery on War's Border: A Guide for Global Health Workers" source, from Dartmouth College Press, page 142, states, "Gender-based violence (GBV) is defined as any harm perpetrated against a person's will that results from power inequities based on gender roles. The overwhelming majority of cases involve women and girls. [...] From infancy to death, girls and women are at risk for all types and forms of violence in ways that boys and men are not. For this reason, the term 'gender-based violence' is often used synonymously with the term 'violence against women and girls.' " The source goes on to note that girls and women live in a constant state of fear, and that this is because of their sex -- the things that come along with being female in society.
  • This 2016 "Gendering women: Identity and mental wellbeing through the lifecourse" source, from Policy Press, page 80, states, "Some tension exists between the terms 'gender-based violence' (GBV) and 'violence against women and girls' (VAWG) that is worth noting here. While both terms are useful and have slightly different meanings and foci, they are often used interchangeably, as if by 'gender' we really mean 'women.' " The source talks about "gender-based violence" being a broader term that "refers to violence against adult women, men, trans-identified people, as well as girls and boys on grounds of their gender identity or sexual orientation." But, just like various other sources make clear, it also states, "Globally, women and girls continue to be the main targets of and victims of violence on grounds of their gender, their femaleness, and as such there is a continued need for a focus on violence against women and girls specifically (VAGW)."
  • This 2016 "Rape Loot Pillage: The Political Economy of Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict" source, from Oxford University Press, page 48, states, "Women are frequently targeted for violence by marginalized men because they are blamed for 'stealing their rightful place at the table' (Kimmel 2005, 429) or are seen as responsible for the men's emasculation and/or marginalization. Perhaps more often, though, women are targeted because one of the most readily available means to reconstitute or retrieve the power owed to a man under patriarchy is by exercising his 'male sex privilege' (Moschetti 2005; Patemen 1988) of accessing women's bodies for personal fulfillment.
  • This 2016 "Controversies in Equal Protection Cases in America: Race, Gender and Sexual Orientation" source, from Routledge, goes over how sex discrimination evolved to include or mean gender discrimination. For example, under its "Early Sex Discrimination Cases Narrowly Construed the Meaning of Discrimination Because of Sex" heading, it states, "When legislation prohibiting sex discrimination was first adopted, courts tended to rule that the purpose of these laws was limited to providing equal opportunities for women women and men. The typical early successful sex discrimination cases involved men or women who were treated differently because of their biological sex. For example early decisions invalidated employer rules that provided only men could be airline pilots and only women could be flight attendants." I included this source because it's one of the sources that addresses both sex discrimination and gender discrimination, but these terms usually mean the same thing in the literature.
  • How about sexism in video gaming? We all have heard of the Gamergate controversy, right? This 2017 "Sourcebook on Violence Against Women" source, from Sage Publications, page 310, states, "Women gamers are often vilified on the basis of their sex."
  • This 2018 "Writing Terror on the Bodies of Women: Media Coverage of Violence against Women in Guatemala" source, from Rowman & Littlefield, page 24 states that "women face certain forms of discrimination, exclusion, and human rights abuses based on their sex that require specific recognition and forms of address."
  • This 2018 "Violence against women" WHO source states, "In conflicts, women's bodies too often become battlefields, with violence used to humiliate and oppress. Risks are amplified because women can be uprooted from their homes, and separated from their usual support networks, while social and legal protection systems are weakened or destroyed."

There isn't as much out there on women being significantly discriminated against based on their gender expression or gender identity, unless one takes "gender roles" to cover that. But, again, gender roles are based on sex -- notions about how males and females should act. Also, there is not much out there on the topic of gender expression, especially outside of gender identity, which is a big reason why WP:Student editors have had a difficult time expanding the Gender expression article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It will take some time for me to process all of these sources, but as a first pass I would like to clarify the following points:
  • I believe we both agree that the terms "sex-based violence" and "gender-based violence" are generally used more or less synonymously to discuss violence directed primarily at women and girls.
  • I believe we both agree that characteristics of female bodies play a role in both violence and in discrimination against women, as do characteristics of male bodies (as enabling violence or falsely universalized standards of "normal").
  • I believe we disagree about how often the sources are referring to "female" as anatomical sex vs. legally-recognized sex vs. socially-defined gender vs. gender identity.
  • I believe we disagree whether gender roles are "based on" anatomical sex (your position), or whether they are subject to more profound processes of social construction and/or embodiment (my position). It seems obvious to me that both of these positions can be sourced, and indeed both have been sourced in this section of this Talk page.
  • We also seem to disagree about whether "gender" can be reduced to "gender identity" - it seems to me that "gender roles", although they can be interpolated from outside in a way unlike some gender identities, are nevertheless part of a domain of gender and are not part of the domain of sex.
  • It seems obvious to me that at least some of the sources that you have cited just now, that are not distinguishing between gender-based and web-sex-based violence, are doing so without assuming or arguing that sex (vs. gender) is the basis of this violence. If it would help advance the discussion, I could specify which of your sources I am referring to.
  • It seems obvious to me that both violence against women and discrimination against women are related both to assigned sex and to gender, and that both gender roles and gender identity and expression are involved in the latter. I see nothing in the sources provided to date that would call this into question.
So I will leave these points, I think, as a signpost to further discussion, which I hope will contribute (eventually) to help clarify what role sex and gender ought to play in this article. Also, I do very much appreciate the effort involved in your pulling these sources together. Newimpartial (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Just to clarify: Although I've stated that gender roles are based on anatomical sex, I'm not saying that they are not a product of socially-constructed behavior. With the exception of the role that biology plays in gendered behavior, gender roles are all about socially-constructed behavior. Obviously. I'm saying that these roles are given to people based on their sex. Along with sex assignment, comes the gender assignment of "boy" or "girl" and the accompanying gender roles. Sources support that. As for "female," above I made sure to include sources that focus on the words "sex" and "biology." One can take "sex" to mean "gender," but I think it's clear that the sources are primarily focusing on biology/people's status as female, which is why they talk about women's bodies and things like sex-selective abortion, female infanticide, sexual objectification, and female genital mutilation. Also, to repeat, excluding grammatical gender, "gender" refers to biological/anatomical sex, gender roles, or to gender identity. Out of those three options, as you know, it's most often equated with biological/anatomical sex. I'm not going to think that a source means gender identity unless it states "gender identity." I also reiterate that there is not a lot of material in the literature on the term/topic "gender expression," especially outside of gender identity. I've looked. I've been at the Gender expression article when student editors have edited it. That stated, although, as seen at Talk:Gender expression, I was against a Gender expression article, I'm not that against it these days. I don't understand what you mean by your "it seems obvious to me that at least some of the sources that [I] have cited just now, that are not distinguishing between gender-based and web-based violence" sentence. You stated, "It seems obvious to [you] that both violence against women and discrimination against women are related both to assigned sex and to gender." But how you are defining gender, especially when sources are clear that "sex-based violence" and "gender-based violence" usually mean the same thing in the literature, and do indeed often talk about biology/anatomy with regard to women being discriminated against or facing violence? "Sex-based discrimination" and "gender-based discrimination" usually mean the same thing as well. What I disagree with is the notion that women are as affected by their identity as women as they are by their assigned/physical sex. It is their physical sex that leads to the assignment of "girl," the accompanying gender roles, and things like sexual objectification. Like the WHO notes, discrimination and violence against women starts from birth. In fact, they make it clear that it starts pre-birth in some cases (the topic of sex-selective abortion); so that is before any gender identity is formed.
As for the rest, no problem. I prefer trying to understand and work with editors than just being in dispute with them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
While I certainly can't reply to all if that at once, and do it justice, I think it might be helpful to me to start at the end. Of course sex-selective abortion operates prior to the making of gender (from the perspective if the unborn, at leas) and practices such as selective exposure of infants operate at the moment of sex assignment itself. I for one would not question these facts.
But I (and sources like the Ministry of the Status of Women, in Canada) would absolutely insist that gender roled and gender identities are absolutely crucial to both institutional discrimination and violence against women. Pregnancy is not the major cause of women's differential labour market outcomes; institutional arrangements around child rearing and the gendering of occupations are. Sexual violence is not produced primarily by differential musculature, hormones and orifices; it is primarily produced by gendered differences in encouraged/expected/tolerated behaviour and in recourse to mechanisms of social control.
I believe both of my statements about the predominance of these factors are backed by scholarship that insists on the priority of gender over sex in these phenomena and in the fundamental assumption that gender can no longer be reduced to or explained in terms of sex assignment. But once again, I am happy to continue the discussion and to cite or interpret sources as needed. Newimpartial (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Unless talking about trans women, I just can't agree that "gender identities are absolutely crucial to both institutional discrimination and violence against women." I'm not seeing that in the literature. And without sources other than the Canadian source you keep citing in a way that I don't believe is accurate, I'm not going to take your word for it. Yes, women are discriminated against by people simply knowing their gender identity without having seen them, since many men see "female" or "woman" on a form or similar and pass or, if online, decide to harass that woman. I get harassed on Wikipedia by male editors who know I'm female (usually by IPs, registered newbies, or past disgruntled editors I've helped get blocked and/or banned). But is the gender identity aspect as "crucial to both institutional discrimination and violence against women" as physical sex is? I'm not seeing that. And as a woman, I've not experienced it. Throughout my life, it has significantly been more about my physical appearance than it has been about my gender identity. And although we are living in the Internet age now, I'm certain that the vast majority of women share my experience on that. But since this is about women in general and Wikipedia doesn't go by the personal experience of Wikipedians, I've looked to sources. I'm reading other sources now, older and newer, and the focus is still on sex/biology and sometimes gender roles being "absolutely crucial to both institutional discrimination and violence against women." This is reflected by the sources I cited above, and I'd rather not keep citing source after source. Yes, I saw your autocorrect fix and this accompanying edit. I still don't understand that statement. To repeat, I made sure to include sources that focus on the words "sex" and "biology." I couldn't avoid the gender aspect, and I didn't try to, but the sex/biology aspect is there as clear as day. The 2013 "The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Politics" source states, "As discussed already, gender equality can be framed primarily as a problem of direct, sex-based discrimination or as one of more far-reaching gender equity." The source is stressing both sex/biology and the gender roles/gendered behavior aspect. When it comes to gender identity, the literature mainly concerns trans women and other trans people, including those who identify as non-binary/genderqueer. In general, when it comes to discrimination and violence against women, sources focus on various sex-based things/women's bodies. They also obviously touch on gender roles/gendered behavior. I am not seeing any "priority of gender over sex in these phenomena." What I keep seeing are sources like this 2008 "Culturally Alert Counseling: A Comprehensive Introduction" source, from Sage Publications. On page 450, in its "Women and Career" section, it states, "In women's cases, career goals tend to be related to whether a female believes she can succeed based on her biological sex or whether she will be discriminated against due to being a woman (Betz, 2002)." Yeah, that's from 2008 and it cites a 2002 source, but it's not like recent sources do not state same thing or similar.
Also, it is not up to us to think that sources mean "gender" when they state "sex," especially since "gender" can mean three different things. And I've already addressed the three things that "gender" means in the context of these topics (keeping in mind that "gender expression" is not talked about as much and is typically discussed in relation to gender identity); I've noted that "gender" is usually taken to mean the same thing as "sex," especially with regard to discrimination and violence against women. But when a source on topics affecting women state "sex," they usually do mean physical sex, and we can see this when they focus on women's bodies and other things that are sex-based in the strict sense. You stated, "Sexual violence is not produced primarily by differential musculature, hormones and orifices." That is your opinion. None of the sources are focusing on hormones, but many do focus on women's bodies, and that includes the WHO. Yes, culture affects attitudes toward sexual objectification and sexual violence. But when a man focuses on a woman's body, he is not considering her gender identity. If he decides to fondle or rape her? It is not about her gender identity. It is indeed about her body (and, yes, power for those who take the "rape is about power" stance). When he rapes her, he is indeed expecting a vagina unless sodomy is the focus or unless he is aware that the woman is a transgender woman without a vagina. If he finds out that she is transgender while attempting to rape her, he is very likely to physically harm her in some way and/or kill her. He might even rape her anyway, but he clearly was not expecting a trans woman. And women's gender expression? Whatever gender expression she is showcasing doesn't negate her physical appearance and men reading her as female.
Obviously, some sources go out of their way to first distinguish sex and gender. You brought up a Canadian source. Well, this 2016 "Introduction to Sociology – 2nd Canadian Edition" source, in its "Chapter 12. Gender, Sex, and Sexuality" section, states, "Sex refers to physical or physiological differences between males and females, including both primary sex characteristics (the reproductive system) and secondary characteristics such as height and muscularity. [...] The distinction between sex and gender is key to being able to examine gender and sexuality as social variables rather than biological variables. [...] The experience of transgendered people also demonstrates that a person's sex, as determined by his or her biology, does not always correspond with his or her gender. Therefore, the terms sex and gender are not interchangeable. A baby boy who is born with male genitalia will be identified as male. As he grows, however, he may identify with the feminine aspects of his culture. Since the term sex refers to biological or physical distinctions, characteristics of sex will not vary significantly between different human societies. For example, it is physiologically normal for persons of the female sex, regardless of culture, to eventually menstruate and develop breasts that can lactate. The signs and characteristics of gender, on the other hand, may vary greatly between different societies as Margaret Mead's research noted. [...] In Canada, there has not been the same formal deliberations on the legal meanings of sex and gender. The distinction between sex as a physiological attribute and gender as social attribute has been used without controversy." The source goes on to talk about the 2002 case of Nixon v. Vancouver Rape Relief Society. In its "Making Connections: Sociological Research Being Male, Being Female, and Being Healthy" section, it states, "In 1971, Broverman and Broverman conducted a groundbreaking study on the traits mental health workers ascribed to males and females. When asked to name the characteristics of a female, the list featured words such as unaggressive, gentle, emotional, tactful, less logical, not ambitious, dependent, passive, and neat. The list of male characteristics featured words such as aggressive, rough, unemotional, blunt, logical, direct, active, and sloppy (Seem and Clark, 2006). Later, when asked to describe the characteristics of a healthy person (not gender specific), the list was nearly identical to that of a male. This study uncovered the general assumption that being female is associated with being somewhat unhealthy or not of sound mind. This concept seems extremely dated, but in 2006, Seem and Clark replicated the study and found similar results. Again, the characteristics associated with a healthy male were very similar to that of a healthy (genderless) adult. The list of characteristics associated with being female broadened somewhat but did not show significant change from the original study (Seem and Clark, 2006). This interpretation of feminine characteristics may help us one day to better understand gender disparities in certain illnesses, such as why one in eight women can be expected to develop clinical depression in her lifetime (National Institute of Mental Health 1999). Perhaps these diagnoses are not just a reflection of women's health, but also a reflection of society's labeling of female characteristics, or the result of institutionalized sexism." So sources like this touch on how society views women, and I'm all for societal views of women being in the article. All that I have done is question the notion that women are as affected by their identity as women as they are by their assigned/physical sex, and I've explained why (with sources). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I really don't want this to turn into a (zero-sum) argument, as opposed to a discussion, so I don't want to go point by point if this can be avoided. But clearly there are gender roles (institutionalized or not) as well as assigned sex and gender identity. Why do you seem constantly to assign gender roles - to which your own sources refer - to be about sex rather than gender? It seems obvious to me, for example, that the distribution of child care and of housework, after the weaning of infants at any rate, is nearly 100% a matter of gender roles and early 0% about (male and female) physiology. It is therefore not surprising that national and cultural differences in this area are significant. Isn't it clear, then, that this important area in women's equality is about gender rather than sex?
Also, if you believe that what men and women see as your "physical appearance" is your anatomical sex rather than your gender, I don't know what to tell you, except that I cannot believe that this is actually true. I for one find gender (and gender expression) much, much easier than sex to see on a daily basis, with remarkably few exceptions. If I didn't have gender to go on, I would probably classify people by height and weight, which are both much more reliably observed than sex IME. Newimpartial (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't see what is left for me to state to you on this matter. Your "Why do [I] seem constantly to assign gender roles - to which [my] own sources refer - to be about sex rather than gender?" question is odd to me. I already relayed, "Although I've stated that gender roles are based on anatomical sex, I'm not saying that they are not a product of socially-constructed behavior. With the exception of the role that biology plays in gendered behavior, gender roles are all about socially-constructed behavior. Obviously. I'm saying that these roles are given to people based on their sex. Along with sex assignment, comes the gender assignment of 'boy' or 'girl' and the accompanying gender roles. Sources support that." That is why your "Isn't it clear, then, that this important area in women's equality is about gender rather than sex?" question is not something I can agree with. Without an infant's sex, none of these gender roles would follow. Gender roles are not the main reason that girls are sexually abused. It is not the main reason why women face sexual objectification (which is about their bodies) or rape. If women were not physically weaker, on average, would society be as male-dominated as it is? No. I don't agree with any notion that it would be. Intimate partner violence would not be as gendered toward women as it is if the biological differences between males and females were not factors. It seems that you take the stance that gender roles are not based on a person's sex. This contradicts the literature. Should I now include a variety of reliable sources making it clear that gender roles are given to people based on their sex? Because that is what I mean by "gender roles are based on sex." They are given to people based on their sex. I've included sources that focus on biology and sex with regard to the discrimination, inequality, and violence that women face. None of those sources focus on gender identity. The vast majority of the literature, old and new, does not focus on gender identity with regard to the discrimination, inequality, and violence that women face. The sources I included that speak of gender roles are not equating gender roles with sex (although some do note that gender roles are based on sex). I have not stated that gender roles do not contribute to discrimination, inequality, and violence that women face. I have stated that gender roles are based on sex and that I dispute the notion that women are as affected by their identity as women as they are by their assigned/physical sex.
As for "if [I] believe that what men and women see [as my] 'physical appearance" is [my] anatomical sex rather than [my] gender, [you] don't know what to tell [me]"? What? You don't have to tell me anything. It's not a belief. It is something that I and many or most other women have experienced. What is "gender" supposed to mean in this case? Gender expression? I can tell you right now that it is not about the clothes I am wearing or whatever femininity I'm showcasing. It's about being read as female due to my physical appearance. The Canadian source I cited above states, "Sex refers to physical or physiological differences between males and females, including both primary sex characteristics (the reproductive system) and secondary characteristics such as height and muscularity." That is exactly what I mean by "physical appearance" in this case. Yes, we can talk about trans women who pass, but "pass" is the keyword in this case. Simply wearing feminine clothes and expressing femininity will not get them read as female. I have gay male friends who are as feminine as they want to be; some are androgynous, but they still usually never get read as female. And I stated "usually" because the one time that one of them was questioned on whether or not he was female, his voice certainly gave him away once he spoke. Men also typically have deeper voices than women, as a result of their sex. Furthermore, it is well-known that trans women have a significantly more difficult time passing than trans men do, and this is due to biology; it's not due to some gender stereotypes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
We do indeed appear to be headed for an impasse, but I would use this opportunity to clarify that your "gay male friends" are presumably not presenting or expressing a female gender identity, so they are being read correctly as androgynous (or feminine) male-gendered bodies. Meanwhile, your trans friends presumably either have their gender read "correctly" while passing or "incorrectly" when overwritten by elements of their sex assignment. But in no situation I can think of besides a nude beach (or an orgy) do people routinely read bodies in terms of anatomical sex without the layering of gender. I also find it quite absurd that you take what "you and most women" experience about "physical appearance" as some kind of epistemological ground, without some kind of sourcing in comparative experience. I have been looking this morning at the current state of scholarship about the social discernment of sex and gender, and probably the most mainstream RS on the topic seems to be Richard Lippa, for whom there is certainly no binary reading of "biological sex" into "men" and "women" without a good deal of cultural and behavioural mediation. This is the kind of moderate stance that I would like to see reflected in the eventual article here, not one based primarily on chromosomes or orifices.
As far as gender roles being "based on assigned sex", this is clearly not always the case where assigned sex can be changed through a range of medical, therapeutic and legal modalities, as is the case in most Western countries at the moment, to varying degrees. It is also the case that gender roles themselves have been successfully changed, supplanted or eliminated in various contexts in the last two generations. So to say that they are "based on anatomical sex" in most cases still seems to me to be absurd. Newimpartial (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I just had to interject. My impression of society, not just my own behavior but that of most everyone else, is that they read bodies in terms of anatomical sex. Frankly it is many of your assertions I find absurd. Read up on secondary sex characteristics. I can tell who a woman is by her feminine face and her body which is clearly shaped a certain way regardless of clothing and her voice is generally unmistakable. This is why trans women generally seek to emulate these characteristics and trans men move away from them. This is why a woman in jeans and a t-shirt is obviously a woman as much as a woman in a dress. Crossroads1 (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Adults can be identified as male or female just from their faces.[7] I suppose that someone with Prosopagnosia might have difficulty with it, but most people do this very, very easily. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
My gay male friends (no need to put that in scare quotes) not presenting or expressing a female gender identity has not a thing to do with them not being read as female. It has to do with them not having female secondary sex characteristics, which are very real and are not socially-constructed, no matter how much some gender theorists go on about biological sex being socially-constructed. This is why so many trans women, including a number of my friends or acquaintances who are trans women, do not pass as women and talk about it being a real issue for them. Two of them do not try to pass and indeed question the need to pass; they, like some other transgender people, take issues with the notion of passing. Most of the trans men that I know couldn't pass either until they had been on testosterone for at least a year. One of them still does not pass as male because he is not on testosterone. People "routinely read bodies in terms of anatomical sex" because of secondary sex characteristics; sexual dimorphism exists for a valid reason. Yes, there are some people who are read as the sex they are not, but (without getting into talk about checking for one's chromosomes) people are usually correctly read as the sex they are. I never stated that I'm speaking for all women; in fact, I was clear that "since this is about women in general and Wikipedia doesn't go by the personal experience of Wikipedians, I've looked to sources." For me, it's always about what the literature states and with due weight; many editors on this site know that.
The perception of arguing based on personal opinion is one reason why I usually keep my personal life off Wikipedia. I try to edit as neutrally as possible. And by "neutral," I do mean Wikipedia's idea of neutral. Doesn't mean that I never express my personal viewpoint on talk pages, though, obviously. Is my experience of physical sex playing a far more significant role than gender identity shared by the vast majority of women? I'm certain that it is. And the literature supports me on that. If it was significantly about, more so about, or equally about gender identity or gender expression (again, a term that, at this point in time, is not used nearly as much in the literature and is used more so in the context of gender identity), sources would state, or at least indicate, that. They don't. You speak of sources. I've cited them. I do not need to list some comparative study of cisgender women and trans women on this matter. The vast majority of women are cisgender. When cisgender women state their experiences, trans women should listen, not act as though they know more about what it means to be a woman, given the sex and socialization differences between cisgender and transgender women. I listen to trans women. It doesn't mean we are always going to agree. When cisgender women state their experiences as women, some trans women get the impression or believe that the cisgender women are trying to exert primacy or negate trans women's experiences. It's not about that, at least for some cisgender women; it's about cisgender and transgender women usually having very different experiences as women, especially in the case of trans women who did not discover their identity as women or come out as transgender until they were adults, with some not going on their new path until much later in life.
As for "gender roles being based on sex", like this 2009 "Essential Concepts for Healthy Living" source, from Jones & Bartlett Publishers, page 143, states, "Throughout the world, obvious biological differences form the basis for traditional gender roles. In many cultures, for example, women are responsible for routine child-bearing and household management. This traditional gender assignment likely developed for a variety of reasons, such as a woman's biological role in giving birth and nursing infants. It is also likely that because men, in general, are physically stronger than women, their customary roles have been protecting and providing for their families, especially in hunter-gatherer or agrarian societies." The source also states, "In addition to biological factors, culture (often determined by race and ethnicity) and religion heavily influence sexual attitudes and behaviors." But I haven't disputed the latter. What I have stated, like the source states, is that gender roles are based on a person's sex/biology. This 2011 "Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Class: The Sociology of Group Conflict and Change" source," from Pine Forge Press, page 25, states, "From birth, the biological differences between the sexes form the basis for different gender roles, or societal expectations about proper behavior, attitudes, and personality traits of males and females." Like the previous source, it goes on to talk about the hunter-gatherer aspect for males and nurturing aspect for females. It also talks about gender inequality and the social construction of gender. More recent sources state the same or similar. But I'm not going to keep listing sources that support my statements. It's clear that you will believe what you want to believe. As far as ideology goes, I can see that we have different views. As for sex changing, people have different views on that, depending on how one defines sex, such as if defining it beyond chromosomes like you are. Altering sexual characteristics, as is done with sex reassignment therapy, is different, but some define that as changing sex. In the case of binary trans women, they usually do take on the gender roles of women; that they are trans women doing it doesn't make those gender roles any less based on sex. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Just two small points for now: how can trans people who take on the gender role not corresponding to their assigned sex be basing the roles on anatomical sex? This seems to me to be an incomprehensible claim.
Also, I have succesefully completed graduate courses on the anthropological literature on sex, gender and the division of labour. Apart from trying to avoid a directly confrontational discussion on principle, another reason I am trying to keep my interventions brief and narrowly focused is than I am having difficulty with the condescending tone I can't help but increasingly detect in your comments here. I have no desire to "hash things out" in a zero-sum format in which you, perhaps unwittingly, end up backing Crossroad1's proposals. Newimpartial (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Your small point about trans people with regard to gender roles makes no sense to me. I really can't grasp your line of thinking on that. Your small point about your graduate courses and condescending tone is interesting since I don't talk about my professions/qualifications on Wikipedia (keeping WP:Expert in mind) and since I have consistently found your comments to be condescending in tone. I'm not going to weigh in on Crossroad1's RfC; that is why I didn't vote when commenting there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I myself would like to address your first point as I think I see what you are saying. Remember the sometimes maligned phrase "gender is a social construct"? The term is social construct, not individual. A trans woman takes on a woman's role, created by society, for biological females. Thus gender as a set of social ideas is based on biological sex. Exceptions do not take away from this, the pattern is clear, as Flyer's many sources show. Crossroads1 (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

My sense is that the main point of contention here is what is meant by "based on". Are those two little words taken to mean "derived from", or "influenced by", or "signified by", or "paradigmatically referencing", or something else? The only one of those senses that I see the the recent, reliable sources as roundly rejecting is the first ("derived from"), but that is also the sense I see you and Flyer trying to incorporate in the article as well as in this discussion. Perhaps you can see my dilemma. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I certainly am not arguing for any sort of biological determinism. Flyer does not seem to be either. My reading of RS is that people have biological sexes, and meanings/ideas/roles are attached to these by society. These socially constructed ideas are called gender. But society attaches these to people on the basis of their sex. Trans and intersex people are 'exceptions' in some sense within this system. At any rate, further debate on this may just bloat the talk page further. Per WP:NOTFORUM, maybe we should stick to concrete proposals regarding the encyclopedia. And I freely admit I am partially responsible for keeping this going way longer than was necessary. Crossroads1 (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
No one has seen me trying to incorporate anything into the article. Tweak things? Yes. Revert things? Yes. Restore things, such as the gender identity aspect to the lead? Yes. And "derived from"? No one said anything about "derived from" until Newimpartial's post. And there are no "recent, reliable sources roundly rejecting" any such thing. On Wikipedia, we are meant to stick to what the sources state, not interpret them with regard to our own meaning, anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
  • note: the following discussion originally followed the comment of 00:31, 11 July 2019 by Flyer 22 Reborn, which that user has moved up the thread in a way that leaves the following section out of context.
  • Note: See here and here. Newimpartial moved their comment in a way that took the material out of context. The comment that they moved was outdented and clearly addressed to me; my reply directly follows. It is not confusing in that format. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Note"' - actually, the sequence and context of this exchange was perfectly preserved prior to this move by Flyer 22 Reborn, which was contrary to the intent of the TPG. But whatevs - I tried to yes-and it, and instead just get friction in return. Newimpartial (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Contrary to the intent of the TPG? Sighs. The above is more useless debating from Newimpartial. As the edit history shows, all I did was move my comment to where it originally was. It didn't disturb anything or cause anything to be confusing, unlike Newimpartial moving their comment and unnecessarily causing this friction they speak of, and now this collapsed thread that begins with friction unrelated to the below commentary in this collapse box. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I will try once again at clarification, aand to avoid a zero-sum game (and I am sorry that my tone has come across as consescending to you in the past, while in equal measure perplexed as to how). So to take the point about trans people and gender roles, it would seem to be either impossible or "unnatural" for people to take on gender roles that are opposed to their sex assignment, if gender roles are "based on" anatomical sex.

Perhaps another way to look at this is in terms of the role of secondary sexual characteristics themselves. Does violence and discrimination against women arise from breasts and beards, or are breasts and beards deployed as part of constructions of gender that give rise to violence against women (cultural understandings such as "Madonna/whore" that interpolate women's bodies for violence) and discrimination (cultural understandings of authority that use such secondary sexual characteristics as vocal timbre and facial structure as markers for the legitimation of power). There is quite a lot of literature - only small pieces of which I have cited - that makes this point, that violence and discrimination against women operate primarily thorough gender roles and gender power dynamics rather than directly through anatomical sex. Most of the sources that you yourself have cited make this point themselves, though it would seem churlish to me to go back through them and cite the relevant passages back at you. I would much rather simply hope for a contemplation whether "based on", giving primacy to sex over gender, might not actually be the formulation most reflective of the most recent and reliable sources in this field. Newimpartial (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I don't see a need to continue this discussion with you. But I will state this much: That you can't see how your tone has come across as condescending and has made me want to state something along the lines of "I know the literature and I know what I'm talking about" is perplexing to me. It's enough to make one talk about their professions/qualifications. Take your commentary about perceived sex, for example, until I cited a few sources on that. Take your "absurd" commentary, when things you state (such as your emphasis on gender identity) are not supported in the literature. Even your "it would seem churlish to me to go back through them and cite the relevant passages back at you" comment is condescending. And you have recently focused on gender roles when I never disputed the impact of gender roles. How many times must I state that? You relayed "that violence and discrimination against women operate primarily thorough gender roles and gender power dynamics rather than directly through anatomical sex. Most of the sources that [I myself] have cited make this point themselves." No, most of them don't. And none of them state that. You are distinguishing gender roles and sex in ways the sources do not. I cited two sources that make it clear that sex forms the basis of gender roles, and you are still commenting in a way that seeks to separate gender roles from sex. The two -- sex and gender roles -- are thoroughly intertwined. That women are significantly or primarily discriminated against on the basis of their sex is a fact, and is supported by numerous reliable sources, including a number of sources I cited. And these sources are not using "sex" to mean "gender roles." This is even clearer when they state "biological sex." Unless talking about trans women, no sources are focusing on gender identity with regard to discrimination and violence against women in nearly the same way as they do with regard to physical sex and/or physical sex and gender roles. Anything else I state on this matter would be redundant to what I've already stated. And I'm tired of providing sources that relay exactly what I've stated. And one more thing: Scientists generally agree that hormones, such as testosterone, play a significant role in gendered behavior and other behavior. We can talk about society contributing to or encouraging violence against women as much as we want to, but researchers highly doubt that the reason that males are significantly more violent and sexually deviant than women are is due solely to culture. The fact that the vast majority of rapists, child sexual abusers, pedophiles and serial killers are male cannot be summed up as "it's due to culture." It is highly doubtful that if it weren't for cultural influences, we'd see just as many female rapists, child sexual abusers, pedophiles, and serial killers. These are all topics that I am well-versed in; so I know what the researchers state on the matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
And that specific straw man argument ("it's due to culture"? Really? I specifically said "operate through"), in reply to my rather rather earnest attempt at clarification in my last reply, would be my cue to stop trying to engage with you, Flyer22 Reborn. There is clearly nothing helpful to emerge here. Newimpartial (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Was not a straw man argument. I just wanted to add a different aspect to why male violence and deviancy exists. If we're done here, good. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Introducing an argument that nobody in a discussion is actually making, in order to refute it, is either a straw man or a slippery slope argument of some kind. That particular argument, presented in this context, is hard to see as anything other than a gratuitous attack. Also note that male violence is part of the topic of the article Man, not this article. Newimpartial (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
"[A] straw man or a slippery slope argument of some kind"? Nope. An attack? Nope. Your "particular argument, presented in this context" piece makes me think you think it was transphobic or was leaning in that direction. I am well-aware of people who make arguments about trans women in relation aggression/violence. I was not attempting any type of attack or transphobia with that comment, but I perhaps should have kept the "trans women in relation aggression/violence" aspect in mind. I made that comment because I am not in the habit of looking at male violence from solely or primarily through a "constructions of gender that give rise to violence against women" lens. Any time I see something regarding it, my brain goes to the knowledge I accumulated from the fields I work in. Talk of rape culture is important and all, but I don't just look at culture on the matters of male sexual violence, including rape. And as for male violence being a part of the topic of the article Man, not this article? We were talking about male violence. And male violence is a part of this article -- Woman. I'd rather not discuss anything further with you on these matters. And for anyone wondering, male violence (including domestic violence) in relation to deviancy is discussed in the literature. I'm not a big fan of the word deviancy, given its previous use for homosexuality and for some other aspects of human nature outside of the typical that should not be called deviant, but enough sources do use the word deviant or deviancy even today; some specify deviancy as "crime" when talking about males and their violence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Violence against women is part of this article; male violence (and "deviance") is part of Man. The two topics overlap significantly but are by no means synonymous, and substituting one for the other above was quite unjustified. Newimpartial (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Violence against women is primarily committed by men; it is male violence. And in the context of enough of the literature, it is deviant. And "substituting"? Sighs. Now you are just arguing to argue. We're done here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Currently, there isn't anything in the Man article about male violence anyway. "Hunter-gatherer societies" is not what is usually meant by "male violence." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, I looked at other sources as well. This is why I told WanderingWanda, "I've looked at encyclopedias and academic books for how they may define 'woman.' I'm just not seeing sources defining 'woman' in some other way, including in the way [WanderingWanda] proposed." Some of what you brought up with the sources you listed above are covered in some feminism articles and in the Femininity article, where Simone de Beauvoir's views are included. Given the substantial overlap, it's a good thing that the Woman article has not become a content fork of the Femininity article. You stated, " First, and perhaps most interestingly, Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition (1911) simply skips the definition altogether [...]." Not exactly; it notes, "The very word 'woman' (O. Eng. wifmann), etymologically meaning a wife (or the wife division of the human race, the female of the species Homo)." That can be argued as presenting a definition. We can see that "female of the species Homo" is there; that is not about gender identity. I wouldn't state that the "Etymology" section of the Woman article should include specific authors' definitions or views. Those views are, after all, those specific authors' views. That's why WP:In-text attribution should be used in those cases. That's not what etymology is about. I'm not saying that you are suggesting that we should put that material in the Etymology section. You did suggest to have it reworked, which might mean including etymology with authors' views, but that's not ideal. What you cited would, however, fit in the Terminology section. As for the "adult" specifier, it's obviously important for the lead (whether in the first sentence or second sentence, but I stand by my view that it should be in the first sentence). Same goes for the "adult" specifier in the Man article. After all, "woman" usually does not refer to a child. And, yes, "man" can mean different things, but the literature on men is overwhelmingly about adult men, not boys or underage teenagers. Of course, what is an adult can be subject to dispute as well.
Netoholic, it's a just a "views" matter. I don't see it as problematic for the article to include different views on what a woman is. But if we were taking about stuffing the lead with different views of authors, that's a no from me. A brief summary that different views on what it means to be a woman exist is all that is needed for the lead. If we were talking about falsely balancing this article so that it's half about cisgender woman and half about trans women, I would be against that. I made this clear before just last year, with my "07:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)" post. And we can see that other editors above have expressed due weight concerns with regard to how much material to devote to transgender and intersex women in this article. In the 2018 discussion I linked to, I stated, in part, "This article is not simply about defining 'woman.' Even if it was, it's still the case that the vast majority of reliable sources on the definition of 'woman,' recent or otherwise, do not explicitly consider trans women or non-binary people (meaning the non-binary people who identify as a woman one day and not as a woman the next, and the ones who describe themselves as a blend that happens to include 'woman')." I stated that because the majority view of a woman is still the cisgender viewpoint, the article should not be artificially balanced to be about both cisgender and trans women, "which would hardly be any different than merging the Trans woman article into this article." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The first book offers this explicitly as a proposed definition:

"S is a woman iffdf S is systematically subordinated along some dimension (economic, political, legal, social, etc.), and S is “marked” as a target for this treatment by observed or imagined bodily features presumed to be evidence of a female's biological role in reproduction."

The iffdf means "if and only if, as a definition". The later part of the book then says that, in practice, multiple definitions could be valid and that you need to choose an appropriate definition for your context. What it means to be a woman in the context of, say, infertility could be different from what it means to be a woman in the context of, say, street harassment.
This and the other definitions are also described at if anyone wants to have a quick summary. I think that all of these should be included in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Again, I have no issue with covering different points of view on what it means to be a woman or on what womanhood means, as long as it's done with due weight. I'm iffy on referring to authors' personal POVs as "definitions." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Those are very widely cited scholarly sources, and the one I quoted is explicitly labeled as a definition. They should not be denigrated as mere "personal POVs".
They're not the only ones we should cite, of course. We should also be citing at least one athletic body, as athletes can be disqualified from Women's sports if they don't meet the definition of "woman" for their sport. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
"Very widely cited scholarly sources" does not equate to "these are actual definitions of what it means to be a woman or what womanhood means." They are personal POVs, which is why we wouldn't state them in Wikipedia's voice, whereas we do state that a woman is "a female human being" in Wikipedia's voice. We don't present the personal POVs of what femininity is as definitions of femininity in the Femininity article either. Virginia Woolf's views, which are widely cited, are just her views in that article. Simone de Beauvoir's, which are widely cited, are just her views in that article. Julia Serano's views, which are widely cited with regard to transgender topics, are just her views in that article. If you want to get into the topic of transgender and intersex women in women's sports, I'm fine with that. Of course, that should be covered. But both sides on that matter, such as the those concerning trans women, should be presented. The sources on the matter are not about them not "meet[ing] the definition of 'woman' for their sport." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I generally agree with WAID that the Etymology terminology (or some appropriately-titled) section should be expanded to include, in an NPOV/DUE way, the main viewpoints (such as those posted above), and with Bilorv that the lead should be expanded (and a summary of the etymology section should be part of the lead of course). Levivich 20:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
    Leviv, why should the content that WhatamIdoing pointed to be in the Etymology section as opposed to the Terminology section or a section with a different title? How do authors' personal views about what a woman or womanhood is belong in the Etymology section? No need to ping me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
    Good point; I updated my comment. Levivich 20:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

"A woman is a female human being." and "Some women are transgender and have a male sex assignment" are surely incompatible given the definition used on the female page.

I appreciate it's a hot button topic but either the first is correct or the second is. They can't both be based on current usage.

Unless I'm blind I see no detail within the article on the term women also referring to gender identity as opposed to the more traditional usage/concept of sex identity.

Either the gender identity aspect should be added or the transgender comment should be removed because right now its a contradictory bolt on without justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Many if not most researchers ignore postmodern philosophy, so any material about it that gets added should be minimal and not overrun any section it gets added to. Crossroads1 (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Specific lead proposal[edit]

I had edited the lead to this:

A woman is a female human being. The word woman is usually reserved for an adult, with girl being the usual term for a female child or adolescent. The plural women is also sometimes used for female humans, regardless of age, as in phrases such as "women's rights".

Like most other female mammals, a woman's genome typically inherits an X chromosome from her mother and another X chromosome from her father. The female fetus produces larger amounts of estrogens and smaller amounts of androgens than a male fetus. Differences in the relative amounts of these sex steroids are largely responsible for the physiological differences that distinguish women from men. During puberty, these hormones result in the development of secondary sexual characteristics. Women with typical genetic development are usually capable of giving birth from puberty until menopause. However, there are exceptions to the above for some transgender and intersex women.

But it was reverted as it was felt consensus on it had not yet been reached.

This proposed lead parallels the lead at man. There is no reason for an encyclopedia to be more mealy-mouthed defining 'woman' than 'man.' The vast majority of writing that refers to 'women', whether in journalism, psychology, sociology, economics, medicine, law, casual usage, and so on, does so with an apparent definition that is the essentially the same as that mentioned above. It is therefore extremely undue to give weight in the lead to postmodern philosophical debates that frankly, most people, including academics, simply ignore.

I suggest a sort of straw poll on this lead so we can see where we are at. I suggest !voting in favor if you think it is an improvement, even if you have critiques. As I said before, 'female' is an adjective that does not exclude trans or intersex women, and the current lead gives undue length to talking about these tiny groups. And this is only about the lead, so it does not have to do with later possible edits to other sections. Crossroads1 (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Crossroads1: If you would like a more formal discussion than an informal poll, you could try an RfC. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing "postmodern" about the current definition of "woman" in this article. I offer the current Canadian statistical definitions and official discussion of gender-based violence as evidence for the state of recent, reliable sources.
Also, apart from the discussion by human geneticists and some biologists, there is little discussion of chromosomes in the discussion of women, so the text you propose seems massively UNDUE. Frankly, this page receives much more editorial attention than does Man, so if anything it would be appropriate to revise that page to follow this model, if the RS supported this, than to follow the course you propose. Newimpartial (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The current lead spends about 35% of its length on less than 1% of the population. This is grossly undue. There is no postmodern philosophy in the lead yet, but there seemed to be some suggestion of that above. The topic of 'man' is much less politically controversial, so it seems a good way to sidestep these hot button issues and stay NPOV. Your two sources are basically a single source (the government of Canada). How about instead the US government, a much larger nation, and the Australian government. And these are just the first two I looked up. And they both ignore gender identity and the gender/sex distinction entirely. I am open to removing the chromosome sentence and adding some info to the lead about social roles and meanings of womanhood and their position in current society, as the article itself does; but my main point is that biological femaleness is extremely closely intertwined in RS and excessive length should not be spent on trans and intersex women in the lead (more detail on them later may be appropriate of course). Crossroads1 (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that WP proceeds on the basis of recent, reliable sources, not which nation has a bigger d!ck. Also, what statistical organization has a better reputation in the area of demographic statistics, Statistics Canada or I'll wait. Newimpartial (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, the relevant Australian RS would be this. Newimpartial (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
My point is that most sources discussing women do so without getting bogged down in word games. We should be able to do the same. My reference to America has nothing to do with metaphorical genitalia; but it shows that your choice of Canada was cherry picked. Crossroads1 (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Since you picked Australia, where the demographers say essentially the same thing as Canada's, was that cherry picked too? Newimpartial (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I should have said the specific pages chosen were cherry picked. This kind of material delving into different definitions is fine later on, but is just as inapproriate for the lead as a detailed discussion of biology. Even then, we must watch extremely carefully not to give undue prominence to any particular critical theorist, and give due weight to common usage as synonymous with female. Crossroads1 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The common usage certainly is synonymous with female. I believe you and I agree that "woman" and "female" are both terms that are often used to refer to assigned sex and to gender, often without distinguishing the two significations. My concern is to retain clarity in the lede that the term "Woman" refers to a sex assignment category, and a set of gender roles, and a set of gender identities - the recent RS all refer to one or more of these, with gender identity as the element emerging strongly in the last 20 years. The Man article does a rather poor job from the standpoint of balance in this sense, but "male" has always been something of a residual category in gender studies. Newimpartial (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
No, recent RS by and large ignore postmodern theorizing and use the common usage. Gender studies can think whatever, but their perspective is one of many and many scholars ignore them or are critical. Crossroads1 (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

You yourself have admitted that the current lede does not reflect "postmodern theorizing". National statistical agencies do not reflect "postmodern theorizing" either. Where do you get this red herring? And the sex/gender distinction is more than 50 years old, and is scarcely "postmodern".

I also fail to understand why you keep dismissing the work of professional demographers, a group that probably has more investment in operationally defining "adult human female" than any other discipline. Smells like IDONTLIKEIT from here. Newimpartial (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I fail to understand why you are fixated on the work of demographers. The article is 'Woman' not 'Demographics of womanhood.' You seem to be arguing in favor of adding material on the gender/sex distinction to the lead, that is why I am against such philosophical debates in the lead. However, the current lead is problematic because it gives undue discussion to trans and intersex women. Crossroads1 (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Statistics Canada and the ABS don't do philosophy, man. That's why I keep citing them - because their interest in the definitional issues is practical, not theoretical. And the "Biology and sex" and "Health" sections of the article are sources to demographic data, so it's not as though it isn't being used here. Newimpartial (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Article lead[edit]

Two distinct questions here:

Is there a need to discuss gender identity or the gender/sex distinction in the lead of this article?


Does the current lead spend undue length discussing transgender and intersex women? Crossroads1 (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC) NOTE: edited due to concerns below, updated Crossroads1 (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


My initial comment on this is that the role of edge cases in this article's lede should be based on recent RS on the topic, not the POV of RfC participants. Newimpartial (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

My initial comment: The purpose of the WP:LEAD is to summarize the article. The vast majority of RS discussing women do not bother to define them, thereby implicitly using the dictionary definition of female adult human. Material delving into the meaning of womanhood regarding gender vs. bio. sex may have a place later on but is not appropriate in the lead, giving this controversy undue prominence. A short sentence on trans and intersex women as exceptions to certain biological traits is fine as I suggested above, but there should not be such a high proportion of the lead spent on them. To help with this I suggest expanding the lead to better summarize the article.Crossroads1 (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

No - per WP:UNDUE, there is no need to include gender identity or the gender/sex distinction in the lede. Furthermore, attempts to do so have resulted in confusing language that tends to make the lede self-contradictory. SunCrow (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Suncrow, the article itself deals with sex and gender at considerable length. How could this be UNDUE for the lede? Newimpartial (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment: I looked over the rest of the article. Only two sentences are spent discussing how gender/gender identity may be distinct from sex. This does not warrant a discussion in the lead. Crossroads1 (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'll alert the pages that I alerted at the beginning of this discussion -- the one SunCrow started above -- to this RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

No - To Q1. If the article uses the definition of women as adult human female then gender identity is irrelevant here and should be removed.

Yes - To Q2. There is no detail on the subject in the article itself. This might be the first srticle I have read that makes a reference in the lede that has no follow on in the actual article.

If gender identity is deemed relevant the lede needs major reworking (and I don't agree that the term Woman should be redefined like that) with a detailed section needing to be added to the main body of the article.

I have not used Wikipedia in over 10 years so hope my formatting is ok. (talk)

Status quo The sex and gender distinction is a significant viewpoint of what a woman is. There should be discussion of it in the lede, the amount it has now is fine.

I like the current amount. It goes over the major contemporary definitions of what a woman is. If anything I would say not talking about it would be non-neutral and a poor summary of the article. There are whole second level headings that cover terminology, biology, and the role gender of gender in defining "womanhood". It's a significant point that is important context for understanding parts of the article, it should be summarized in the lead. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

1. Yes, we should mention trans and intersex women in lead (and the article body). The way the lead currently talks about trans and intersex women is perfectly mainstream. The APA's 2018 Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Girls and Women , a broad, evidence-based document from a respected medical organization, talks about trans women within the opening paragraphs of the introduction. "But trans/intersex women are a small minority!" Sure, and there's nothing unusual about bringing up edge cases when providing a broad overview of something. The vast majority of mammals don't lay eggs, but the lead of the Mammal article still mentions egg laying mammals. Furthermore, the number of trans and intersex people in the world isn't that small. If you're in a room with two hundred people in it, there is probably at least one transgender person there and at least two intersex people (by some estimates there are actually more intersex people in the world than redheads.)
2. No, the lead does not spend undue length discussing transgender and intersex women. It currently just devotes a single sentence to each. WanderingWanda (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

An examination of these sources reveals that they are in no way comparable. They spend very little material talking about these groups. Should we also talk about lesbian, adolescent, refugee, etc. women in the lead since the APA does? The mammal lead is much longer and spends just a few words on egg laying mammals. If anything these sources prove we do spend too much length on these groups as is. Crossroads1 (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  1. Yes, trans and intersex women absolutely belongs to the lead. Recognition of trans and intersex women as women (also, trans and intersex men as men) is present in nearly all mainstream media organizations, healthcare professional organizations, human rights NGOs and academic sources, i.e. basically all reliable sources. Intersex conditions and gender-sex distinction is much relevant to basic definitions of menhood and womenhood, as our scientific understanding today into natural variations in human sex was much shaped by research into those fields. This isn't a debate. This is established science vs. The Flat Earth Society.
  2. No The the weight isn't undue. It was structured in that way for clarity. The reason we don't have longer paragraphs in body was probably because we have that detailed in its respective pages, but expanding those paragraphs may also be very necessary. Tsu*miki* 🌉 06:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I sense a knee jerk reaction here. If you please look at my specific proposal above, I did not seek to remove these groups from the lead nor do I deny they are women. Rather (1) some want to elaborate more on gender vs. sex in the lead and I object to that, (2) I wanted to consolidate them into one sentence because of undue-related concerns, and also maybe (3) lengthen the lead to actually summarize the article more. Crossroads1 (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - as this topic is of extremely high risk of external canvassing on fringe channels and forums, comments to this RfC and relevant discussions by apparent SPAs, canvassed accounts and trolls should be procedurally disregarded. Tsu*miki* 🌉 06:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'll note, because it might be easy to miss, that Betty Logan was pinged to this talk page. I'll leave it to others to determine if this was an appropriate notification or not per the guidelines in WP:CANVASS. I'll just say that I can think of several knowledgable and thoughtful editors who would have valuable insights to add to this discussion, but I have always avoided selectively pinging editors in contentious discussions or in RfCs because I don't want to be seen as canvassing. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly object to the wording of this RfC the lede does not include a "discussion", these are simple plain English definitions which summarize a critically important part of the article, and are suitable for a lede. The phrasing of this RfC is chosen in such a way as for experienced Wikipedians to give a knee jerk reaction that ledes are not for "discussions". Objections based on the lede being circular because 'transwoman' includes the word 'woman' are bizarre and irrelevant and when a lede is only 97 words long, claiming that "undue length" is an issue is itself bizarre. This RfC should be closed down as a non-neutral question and one created with an agreed wording. -- (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Status quo (ante the recent disputes) is good; the body cites some of the available RS documenting the trans aspect (which is indeed significant enough that it has its own entire article meeting WP:N); the lead should summarize that, and does so with a due amount of weight/length. (I also share the concerns about the non-standard/neutral wording of the RfC, and have therefore responded to the issue at hand, as I notice others above have done, rather than to the specific wordings, which seem to have changed substantially while the RfC was underway.) -sche (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's too soon to be talking about the content of the lead, when the previous weeks of discussion have shown so many holes in the body of the article. The body of the article contains only 11 words specifically about trans women (the lead has 18). Gender expression is not mentioned. Little effort is put into a definition, and the etymology may be too detailed and is sourced to a couple of online dictionary websites. We should write first, and deal with the introduction later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I definitely agree the body has many lacunae and needs expansion. The "History" section is comically lacking: I would suggest re-titling what is currently there "Earliest named women" or something, but obviously there should be an actual "History" section with more history than just those names! -sche (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that section is startlingly incomplete. I thought about removing it entirely. I'm not actually sure how one would one write a history of women in general, rather than the history of women in particular places. There are some commonalities of women's experiences across cultures in ancient times, but beyond noting that childbirth was dangerous, they're not necessarily specific to women. "Life is hard, and then you die" applied to the men as well. More specific treatments were rooted in specific times and places: Women are considered property here but not there, women can own land here but not there, women can be priests in this religion but not that one, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes we should mention trans and intersex women, No they are not currently mentioned enough, and agree with Fae that this RfC is not worded in a neutral fashion (though my complaint is that these two questions are actually the same question and the entire purpose of the second is to lead the reader to an answer). LokiTheLiar (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
You want the lead to spend more length on trans and intersex women? Also, if anyone would like to explain how the RfC is non neutral, and how they would say it, please do so. There are two questions because one has to do with whether extra material should be added and one with whether the existing material is appropriate. I never intended any unfairness. Crossroads1 (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment
  1. No – The subject of the article is female humans. That is what the article is about. It might be clearer with that name but that is an article titling issue. The transgender link should be removed from the lead and relocated to the "see also" section.
  2. Yes – As it stands the emphasis on transgender women in the lead is undue. The inclusion of the transgender stuff is what it looks like: an attempt to hijack another article by a group of editors attempting to promote their personal agenda. There is no reason to discuss transgender women in this article, that is what the transgender woman article exists for. The inclusion of intersex women in this article has some legitimacy, which may or may warrant a mention in a properly balanced lead, but other than that the only place transgender women should vbe appearing in this article is the "see also" section.
Betty Logan (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Your argument is based on personal opinion and not encyclopedic conventions. To say "trans women shouldn't be discussed at woman because there's a transgender woman page" is equivalent to the clear nonsense argument "apples shouldn't be mentioned at fruit because there's an apple page" except for one thing: your implicit POV-pushing assumption that trans women aren't women against what the majority of reliable sources say. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
    My argument is based on the scope of the topic, which is determined by the sources used by the article. The article discusses biology, reproduction, fertility, health, education, socio economic factors and fashion—all relating to human females. By extending the definition of womanhood to include transgender women in the lead falsely posits that transgender women are also the subject of these sections too when that is factually not the case. Betty Logan (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I've replied to this argument here as well. You say that fashion relates to human females but let's be clear: it relates to gender identity, not sex. Lots of intersex people don't find out that they're intersex until reaching adulthood (if not later)—either as it's undiagnosed or the parents keep it hidden—so it's unconvincing that the XX chromosomes are what give you the female experience of the education system, or of fashion. As for the section "Culture and gender roles", this is based on what gender people perceive you as, and many trans women who began transitioning years ago will be perceived as women by a good 100% of the people they encounter. This article is not an article purely about human biology, but also about sociology, gender studies, history and psychology etc. Using an incomplete human biology framework isn't based on the scope of the topic at all. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Betty is entitled to her opinion, even if most editors disagree with it. Also, women's fashion doesn't necessarily relate to gender identity (see Gender expression). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The current lead is fine By "current", I'm referring to the lead as of [8], beginning with "A woman is a female human being" and ending with a sentence about trans and intersex women. One common aspect of women is "capable of giving birth", but there are also groups of women who are not capable of giving birth, so it makes sense to mention a couple of those groups. It's the same thing with saying that "women" typically refers to adults, but is also sometimes used to refer to females humans of all ages. I don't see how that's an issue with due weight, it's more about being precise with our definitions. I guess since the lead is so short, anything given a sentence proportionately takes up a lot of the lead. But I think the solution to that is to add to the lead; it's a fairly long article and we could include additional paragraphs summarizing the history, religion, gender role sections etc. However, the current lead works perfectly as an introductory paragraph. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Solution is to expand the lede to include more stuff that has due wight there but currently isn't there. While the lede is short, and the sentence on trans and intersex women takes up much of the space here, it is not undue, the real issue is that there is a lot more stuff that has due weight for the lede that should be added to the lede as well; the solution is to expand the lede, not pull the trans and intersex sentences out, which are useful for clarity regardless of political leanings. Mentioning trans women is fine, so long as it is only a single sentence. However, I do highly prefer the original "Trans Women are those whose sex assignment..." rather than "Women may also be transgender..." The former is defining a subclass of women for clarity, and is difficult to misinterpret, the later seems likely to inflame tensions by using wording "women can also be transgender" (which some people refute) rather than the term 'trans women' (which regardless of your political leanings has a clear and well understood meaning). I feel like the former is more clear, less controversial, and feels less out of place. Part of my reasoning here is also that defining trans women is useful in the lede, being a major topic in current culture, but saying that "some women are X" seems out of place as there are a lot of attributes that could fit X and it sounds like a superfluous detail being added, even if the topic is itself useful to discuss in the lede. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 06:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No on the first. I agree with User:Betty Logan's observation. This article is about female humans. A female is born with XX chromosomes. An intersex female is born with chromosomal sex that is not consistent with her external genitalia (and in reality is not a common occurrence). A transwoman is born with XY chromosomes and a male external genitalia ... then chooses to transition from male-to-woman. This transition follows male birth-infancy-puberty-adolescence-early adulthood; and often takes place at middle age or after. You can include a brief section in the article's body explaining male-to-woman transgenders, but it does not belong in the lead. Any article that is allowed to bend over backwards in order to appease gender activism becomes garbage.
  • Yes on the second. Pyxis Solitary yak 07:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC) 23:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC) (forgot to include rsp on second.)
    • Dictionaries and reliable sources do not define woman as "a person born with XX chromosomes" and that definition excludes intersex women anyway. Reliable sources discuss womanhood as a variety of things; in addition to biological, the term can also describe something social or psychological. And one small point: as Wiktionary notes, using "transgender" as a noun is designed to cause offense. The non-loaded term is "transgender people". Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
If a woman is defined as a female human being, then the XX chromosomes that determine female sex is the definition. There are more scientific and medical publications in existence that define XX = female; than dictionaries, user-generated Wiktionaries, and hand-picked reliable sources about the interpretation of "woman". Pyxis Solitary yak 23:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Let's see what that source says about Swyer syndrome: In Swyer syndrome, individuals with one X chromosome and one Y chromosome in each cell, the pattern typically found in boys and men, have female reproductive structures. [...] Women with this disorder [...] and Girls and women typically have two X chromosomes (46,XX karyotype), while boys and men usually have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. But even if I accepted your statement as true, let's think about the scope of the article again—it has sections on education, women in politics, culture and gender roles etc. This isn't an article just about cell biology, and the definitions used in sociology, in gender studies, or even in history and psychology, also need to be taken into account, as much of the content is about these different academic fields. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
This is what I also read: Swyer syndrome is a mutation that occurs in approximately 1 in 80,000 people...SRY gene mutations that cause Swyer syndrome prevent production of the sex-determining region Y protein or result in the production of a nonfunctioning protein. A fetus whose cells do not produce functional sex-determining region Y protein will not develop testes but will develop a uterus and fallopian tubes, despite having a typically male karyotype...The mutations in this gene that cause Swyer syndrome decrease signaling that leads to male sexual differentiation and enhance signaling that leads to female sexual differentiation, preventing the development of testes and allowing the development of a uterus and fallopian tubes....Nongenetic factors, such as hormonal medications taken by the mother during pregnancy, have also been associated with this condition. However, in most individuals with Swyer syndrome, the cause is unknown. None of this changes science about the chromosomes that determine the female and male sex. There are several genetic disorders (Achondroplasia, Cystic fibrosis, Down syndrome, Hemophilia, etc.). What is the point of Swyer syndrome? That it's an "aha!" genetic defect which can be interpreted as resulting in transgender women? I hope not. Pyxis Solitary yak 14:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I said nothing relating to trans women. I'm saying that it exemplifies that "XX chromosomes" is not a satisfactory definition of the word "female". People with Swyer syndrome are classified as female / women because of their female primary sex characteristics. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
"I said nothing relating to trans women." Nor did I say you did. But Swyer syndrome can be tooled as providing implications. You may not be satisfied with XX chromosomes defining female sex, but I leave the satisfaction to science. The sex of juvenile skeletons cannot be determined with morphological methods; because of this, DNA provides the answer. When anthropologists discover ancient human bones and morphological sexing is not possible, genetic material and chromosomal DNA diagnosis of X and Y chromosomes is used to determine biological sex. This fact is not changed by personal viewpoints and current gender activism. And it's clear that discussions on Wikipedia about sex and gender become bottomless sinkholes. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes to the first question and no to the second; that is, status quo for the first paragraph (this one which mentions intersex and trans people) and then expand the lead. The layout of this RfC is confusing and people have responded with different wording but by my count we're currently 9-5 in favour of those four things (just an indication of consensus, as RfCs are not votes). Anyway, that's just the preamble, and here's my justification: the majority of reliable sources (including the dictionaries that people have tried to use as evidence) classify both intersex and transgender women as women, which is why our first sentence on trans woman defines the term as a woman who was assigned male at birth. The pertinent question is not "is a trans woman part of the definition of woman" because we are not a dictionary and the lead is meant to address key aspects of a topic rather than just defining it. One key aspect of womanhood is the ability to give birth, but then we should address the other key aspects, that women who can't give birth may fall into. To properly explain what womanhood is, we need to discuss some edge cases, so to speak, so this content would be a glaring omission if it was removed.
    Many of the comments in opposition to the status quo are based on assertions (e.g. "The subject of the article is female humans. That is what the article is about.") rather than arguments, particularly assertions founded on an unspoken assertion that trans women aren't women (which is not what reliable sources say). The only reasonable argument I can see is due weight, which is precisely why the lead should be expanded. As I said two weeks ago, here, I'd suggest a paragraph on typical biology and anatomy, a paragraph on gender roles and social behaviour and patriarchy, and a paragraph on women's history as the main aspects of the topic. I strongly agree with the comments of WanderingWanda, Tsu*miki* and Red Rock Canyon and per Insertcleverphrasehere I'm happy to compromise on "Trans women are those whose sex assignment..." rather than my proposed "women may also be transgender..." And finally, I believe I'm also in agreement with the person who started this RfC, Crossroads1, though their position isn't crystal clear to me. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes to the first question; they should be mentioned. And a hard no to the second. There's barely a lead here. It's a one-sentence intro, two sentences clarifying terminology, a sentence about giving birth, and a sentence about trans and intersex women. A lead should summarize the content of the article, and for an article this long should be 3-4 paragraphs per MOS:LEADLENGTH. Let's focus our efforts on writing a lead, rather than arguing about dismantling what little has been done.--Trystan (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


I question the neutrality of the second sentence of this RfC and suggest that it be removed. (WP:RFC Statement should be neutral) – WanderingWanda (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I have reworded it, but it is a distinct issue and needs to be addressed. Crossroads1 (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It's unclear what the options are here - especially, there are two questions asked. If I say no, am I saying no to the first question or the second question? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

There are two distinct questions that need resolution. Crossroads1 (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

When in doubt about what words mean -including "woman"- it's worth checking the definitions provided by major dictionaries of the English language. Here are the Merriam-webster's definitions for the word. Ideologues, writers, activists and other categories -in academia, various branches of various governments, and so on- might try to hijack and redefine concepts from time to time, but I'm not sure if the leads of wikipedian articles should embrace such redefinitions and give them undue weight before they become more widely established -at which point most lexicographers would have already made the necessary amendments. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

  • No-one is disagreeing with that as a definition i.e. the first sentence. But the lead (of a Wikipedia article in general) needs to do more than just defining the titular term (WP:NOTDICT). While we're looking at Merriam-Webster, take a look at their definition of trans woman: a woman who was identified as male at birth. Hence your source gives a clear argument of why trans women do fall under the scope of woman. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Lexigographers are not reliable sources, and should be treated as inferior to academia. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree." Dimadick (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Will it be necessary to specifically look up some of the countless medical, psychological, etc. peer reviewed papers that discuss women and simply use the dictionary meaning? Or will pointing out they exist be enough? Also, MOS:LEADREL states, "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article." Very little material on women delves into gender vs. sex; the vast majority ignores it. Crossroads1 (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
A few points:
—Lexigographers update definitions once the new meanings have become widely common -i.e: once they are dominant, in culture. They are great filters against most "concept creeps",against popularizing fringe definitions -even when they come from various academic corners- and so on.
—Not all academic sources and disciplines are as reliable especially when discussing current controversies and subjects being debated -in fact, outside of the hard sciences and very few other disciplines, most papers coming out of academia are junk, often on par with punditry. The so called social-sciences -for example- are one of the fields most hit by the Replicability Crisis.
—I agree with citing "current scholarly consensus when available". On this subject -however- consensus does not seem to be available -which explains the long, at times heated debates on this talk page.
—What would be the reasoning for accepting changes to established definitions just because some ideologues, philosophers, academics, activists or writers propose them? Those definitions might be representative in a few niche academic fields, often in a few countries only, but terms like "woman" have existed long before them.--ColumbiaXY (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Where the best-reputed statistical agencies in the world use certain terms with certain definitions, like the Australian and Canadian statistical agencies with male and female gender, I think the issue has moved beyond "philosophers" or "activists". Newimpartial (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
You have cited two examples only. A minority of English speaking countries. (talk) 23:17 11 July 2019
The US and the UK are not as far along, but are clearly headed in the same direction. There is nothing FRINGE about the sex/gender distinction, or the recognition of gender identity. Newimpartial (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't change the fact the article opens with a sex based defintiion and does not include any gender identity details that support the remarks in the lede. Yes the concept of Gender identity is gaining ground but sex is sex. Despite that I'm open to expanding the concept of Woman (and Man) to ALSO be a gender identity but the article makes no reference to it beyond a remark in the lede and until it does that remark should be removed. (talk) 01:31 12 July 2019
There is an extensive discussion of gender in the article that needs to be supported in the lede; it is not all sex-based. But yes, gender identity definitions (like those from national statistical agencies, who are paradigmatic RS) should also be incorporated. Newimpartial (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Newimpartial, let me ask you this, as looking over this again it is not totally clear. Do you seek to add more material on gender vs. sex to the lead, or do you think its current mention of transwomen is enough (again, for the lead)? Crossroads1 (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
For the record, I my position has always been that the amount of gender identity content in the lede is appropriate, but more reliably-sourced material should be added to the article. Newimpartial (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Dimadick, dictionaries are reliable sources under Wikipedia's rules. Scholarly sources are often better, but that doesn't mean that non-scholarly sources are actually un-reliable. To name only one example, the Merriam-Webster dictionary is cited in about a thousand articles right now, and that's not the most popular dictionary in use.
I'd love your help in finding some good scholarly sources. I cited a couple above, from philosophers (but not, as it happens, a single post-modern one in the lot), but we need more from other fields. The definition depends upon the context, so representing multiple contexts will be important. For example, a realistic definition of pregnant woman might include anyone who's pregnant, regardless of age, gender identity, gender expression, etc., but a reasonable definition of woman for the purposes of preventing street harassment of women might include most drag queens. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Definitions should be restricted to the lead and the Terminology section. Unsure if you are suggesting otherwise, but just making my position clear. Crossroads1 (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit by SunCrow, which uses the rather deceptive edit summary of "rephrase" - their edit is in no way a simple or neutral rephrasing, rather it fundamentally changes the meaning of the lede without any apparent consensus here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

In hindsight, I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof that my edit summary was inaccurate. However, I stand by my edit. SunCrow (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Despite 11 days of very lengthy talk page discussion since my post above dated July 1, and despite the good faith efforts of other editors, it does not appear that we are any closer to reaching consensus on the lede. For the reasons I have set forth earlier on this talk page, I have tagged the article for undue weight and for being self-contradictory. SunCrow (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree that there are undue-weight issues, but only in the lead as of right now. However where does the article contradict itself? I think RS indicate that intersex and trans women fall under "female" due to generally having at least some female secondary sex characteristics and a female gender identity. I think you and I agree that we do not want to risk resolving the "contradiction" in favor of no longer describing women as female, as someone suggested way above. Crossroads1 (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
"Female" is always part of this debate, but it usually happens at Talk:Trans woman. The most recent example there is Galestar. When people speak of "female" in this case, they are talking about how it's defined in dictionaries, encyclopedias, biology and anatomy books. It's not usually defined in those texts as a person with female secondary sex characteristics or just as a person with female secondary sex characteristics, and not all trans women have them. Some don't seek out sex reassignment therapy, either due to not having the money for it or due to personal choice. I haven't seen editors disputing that intersex women are female. But, anyway, editors keep debating "woman" in relation to gender identity and "female." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
My mistake on Galestar. Galestar was simply pointing out that a previous RfC closed as "no consensus." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
+1. (Tangential) Anytime someone is pointedly using "female" rather than "woman", I start to wonder if they have stopped talking about female humans and are now talking about female cats, or maybe they are just being pointy. -- (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I've reverted the tagging as it implies there's something wrong with the status quo, which is precisely what the RfC is intended to decide upon. If the status quo is deemed acceptable, the tags are incorrect. If the lead needs to be changed, then the solution is to change the lead and not to tag-bomb it. The discussion here hasn't garnered consensus that the lead is self-contradictory, so it's misleading to place that tag in particular. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Bilorv (he/him) (talk), you have not demonstrated a sufficient reason to remove the tags (please see WP:WNTRMT for reference). I don't believe that consensus was needed to insert them. Also, adding two tags to a page and explaining those tags on the talk page is not WP:TAGBOMBING. In the event that anyone believes I have not adequately explained the reasoning behind the tags, I will reiterate and amplify: The article is self-contradictory because it defines "woman" as a female human being and then adds "trans women" (who are, by definition, not female) to the definition. The lede places undue weight on transgender issues vis-a-vis the percentage of persons who identify as transgender (which in the United States, according to LGBT_demographics of the United States, is estimated at 0.6%). I have reinserted the tags. SunCrow (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
SunCrow, did you actually read Bilorv and other editors' explanations above? There is practically nothing self contradictory about trans women being women. Our modern scientific understanding of femalehood and womenhood is fundamentally defined by scientific research into transgender and intersex individuals, which has demonstrated that chromosomes alone does not determine sex and trans women/men, even before transition, are endocrinologically, neurologically and psychologically female/male to varying degrees similar to intersex women. Most healthcare professional organizations, especially gynecology professional organizations, recognize trans women as women and their healthcare need as essential necessity. Your personal fringe opinion against cited reliable sources does not matter here, and you should never, ever use tags as badge of shame to undermine sourced content you don't agree with. And your original research weighing scientific importance on the basis of population is painfully inaccurate. You must stop this disruptive editing, else you're walking yourself into a dangerous path. Tsu*miki* 🌉 13:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Tsu*miki* 🌉, first of all, I attempted to engage you on your talk page about the edit summary you used in your first revert of the tags I added. I have now discovered that you displayed a high level of maturity (sarcasm) by simply removing what I said rather than responding like an adult. I will repeat my comment: "Your misleading and accusatory edit summary was unnecessary and not appreciated. If you have questions about the reasons I added the tags, you are free to those questions on the talk page; there is ongoing discussion there. I would remind you of WP:WNTRMT and WP:AGF." Your argument above on the issue that we're supposed to be talking about is so absurd that it's not even worth answering. As to your barrage of accusations: I did not contradict cited, reliable sources. I have not expressed a personal fringe opinion. Your contention that the figure I cited above is "painfully inaccurate" is baseless. But none of this is surprising; my prior experience with you has taught me that you are willing to use falsehoods if you think they will give you the upper hand. As to your point about what I must do: I do not take orders from you. Remember that. SunCrow (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Keeping the sex and gender distinction in mind, our understanding of femalehood or womanhood is not about science...unless one is talking about social science. The "scientific research into transgender and intersex individuals, which has demonstrated that chromosomes alone does not determine sex and trans women/men, even before transition, are endocrinologically, neurologically and psychologically female/male to varying degrees similar to intersex women" commentary is inaccurate. Editors here can read this 2016 "A Review of the Status of Brain Structure Research in Transsexualism" source. And, per WP:MEDRS, review articles are the type of sources Wikipedia prefers if we are going to get into talk of brain differences. There is no scientific consensus on the causes of transsexuality. And brain studies on this topic are flawed, since some of these same brain scans also show that cisgender lesbian women have brains more similar in shape to cisgender heterosexual men and cisgender gay men have brains more similar in shape to cisgender heterosexual women. But we don't say that this means that the gay men should be women and that lesbian women should be men. Those brain scans relate to the topic of transgender people as well because some researchers wonder if what we are seeing in the brains of trans women who have brains similar to cisgender women is a gay male brain. While the brains of some androphilic/early-onset transgender women are similar to the brains of cisgender women, it has not been shown to be the case for gynephilic trans women in terms of brain structure. Like the 2016 review notes, androphilic and non-androphilic trans women have different brain phenotypes, and non-androphilic trans women differ from both cisgender male and female controls in non-dimorphic brain areas. And yet we get people stating that trans women have brains similar to cisgender women in a way that makes it seem as though this applies to both types of trans women, or that it applies to all trans women. And, indeed, some transgender activists or allies, as is clear by this 2018 The Daily Beast source, stress not looking for brain causes in transgender people. They see it as harmful. Because, for example, what about the transgender men and women whose brains scans come back as not indicating that they have brains similar to their identified sex/gender? Does this then invalidate their gender identity? No. And also important is the fact that the brains of transgender women are different controls-wise, but they possess their own distinct characteristics. Although, in some studied, their brains are similar to the typical average female brain, their brains largely match their natal sex. And, in this 2015 "Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic" meta-analysis, Joel et al. report, "Brains with features that are consistently at one end of the 'maleness-femaleness' continuum are rare. Rather, most brains are comprised of unique 'mosaics' of features, some more common in females compared with males, some more common in males compared with females, and some common in both females and males." Their research has received some criticism, though. There has also been less research done on the brains of trans men than on the brains of trans women.
As for the tags, SunCrow was adding them in good-faith since there have been people who have disputed either the way that the transgender text is presented or whether it should be in the lead. And this dispute is definitely more about the transgender text than it is about the intersex text. But the edit warring over it -- on both sides -- should stop. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Flyer22 Reborn. In response to your comment, and as a show of good faith, I will not re-insert the tags that I added at this time. SunCrow (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Good faith or not on the part of SunCrow is not what I was disputing with regards to removing the tags, but I will dispute it now. It's been repeatedly explained that the lead paragraph is more than a definition—as any lead paragraph on this non-dictionary website should be—and the trans&intersex sentence is not a definition, but relevant information to the subject matter. This refusal to hear the point in combination with edit warring is not acceptable behaviour from someone who wishes to be taken seriously. To be taken seriously, one should listen to other editors and engage in discussion rather than repeatedly trying to exert their will directly on the article page. In particular, SunCrow appears not to have read the following sentences I wrote: If the status quo is deemed acceptable, the tags are incorrect. If the lead needs to be changed, then the solution is to change the lead and not to tag-bomb it. Their repeated assertion that the lead violates UNDUE is personal opinion and nothing more. The result of the RfC will tell us whether there's consensus that the lead violates UNDUE, as the second question clearly asks: Does the current lead spend undue length discussing transgender and intersex women? Until then the tag is an attempt at supervoting. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Bilorv, I could very easily make a similar claim that you and many other editors on this page are not hearing the point that I raised here on July 1. My point was simple: If a trans woman is a woman, then "female human" is an inaccurate definition of "woman". If a woman is a female human, then a trans woman is not a woman (unless, I suppose, there is an exception to that definition). This is not rocket science. So who, exactly, is not hearing whom? SunCrow (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
No-one has filed an RfC about that and your false equivalence is besides the point that you were edit warring to re-add the tags. I did take your comment into consideration when writing my first response on this page, There's no simple definition of "woman" that isn't circular, is unambiguous and has any common sense validity to it. Before we could even start looking at whether gender is performative, biological or psychological, we would have to question whether a definition should be descriptive or prescriptive. But I guess that comment is a pretty oblique response to what you said so I'll make my point more explicit: your point relies on a mystery definition of "female" that you've declined to provide. We could sensibly define "female" as (of a human) a girl or a woman. Most reliable sources classify trans women as women so that's it, no original research about contradictions change anything, and getting bogged down in definitions doesn't help. Instead we should be discussing general properties that apply to most women (e.g. capability of childbirth; performative aspect; secondary sex characteristics; oppression under patriarchy etc.) and noting where they do not apply when significant. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh wow, never expected myself to be a truscum for once. While trans brains are something I need to read more in depth about, the rest of my points above still holds - modern human sex distinction takes into account of far more factors than chromosomes alone, and that almost all medical professional organizations recognize trans women's womenhood. Wikipedia is not meant to respect editors advancing fringe ideas, and AGF can only extend for about a mile. Egregious cases of IDHT and attempts to influence discussion outcomes are almost inexcusable. Tsu*miki* 🌉 16:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the assumption of good faith can only extend so far, Tsu*miki* 🌉. SunCrow (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Your points about the research need work, but, yes, chromosomes alone are not the only thing researchers look at when it comes to sex differentiation. This is clear just by researchers examining the brains of transgender people to look into causes as to why they identify differently than their assigned sex. And while the sex and gender distinction isn't taking "sex" to include brain anatomy, sex assignment (unless considering prenatal sex discernment) has always been about the genitals of a child. And we all know that if "sex" is taken to mean "gender identity," that certainly does not just concern one's body. I concede that SunCrow has not acted in the best way. Since more than one editor has reverted him on the addition of the tags, he should stop now. Looking at other opinions above, the "undue weight" concern is not just about whether or not editors view trans women as women. It's also about whether or not the text is too much for the small lead. We can see that people have suggested expanding the lead and some content about gender identity lower in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: SunCrow's statement If a trans woman is a woman, then "female human" is an inaccurate definition of "woman". If a woman is a female human, then a trans woman is not a woman (unless, I suppose, there is an exception to that definition).

My sense is that Sun Crow does not allow for "female human" to refer to female gender identity, which is a sense in multiple, authoritative reliable sources (for which my go-to remains this Statistics Canada source, because of its clarity and the reputation of the organization publishing it. So SunCrow, I'm afraid you may have to re-think your syllogism... Newimpartial (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure where to place this comment, but the lede should retain the sentence about trans and intersex woman. It provides clarification as to what the scope of the article is presenting. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 00:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment The sections (and the sources they are attributed to) concerning history, biology, health, reproductive rights, gender roles, violence against women, fashion, fertility, education, employment, politics and science, literature & art are all specifically discussing the human female. Females account for about 99% of the scope of the article, so in fact the sentence in the lead does not help clarify the scope of the article; in fact it does the opposite. Extending the definition of women to encompass transgender women in the lead of the article implies that biological women and transgender women share a common history of shared experiences, but that is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts and the sources used in the article. It creates the implication that the content, findings and conclusions contained within these sections also applies to transgender women, but regardless of the extent to how much that is true it is not substantiated by the sources. Betty Logan (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
In fact, the discussion of history, gender roles, violence against women, fashion, etc., etc.. relies primarily on RS that use concepts of gender rather than those of anatomical or assigned sex. While of course the feast majority of those gendered female are also AFAB, the implication that these extensive literatures define their subjects on the basis of anatomy rather than socially-defined gender is simply false and relies on am antiquated POV. This distortion has nothing to do with whether trans women share the historical experience of cis women - it is about whether the historical subject of women is defined by anatomy or by social role; I believe the literatures cited are actually quite clear on this point. Newimpartial (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The concept of gender that is applied almost exclusively by both the content of this article and its sources is a tautological one with that of a biological woman. The generalizations that form the basis of this article are not possible to make about transgender women because transgender people by definition will have had male and female experiences depending on the extent of their transition and when it occurred. For example, a transgender woman may have had a male experience of education and female experience of the workplace, so it is not possible for the "Education" section of the article to draw any meaningful conclusions about the educational experiences of transgender women. Betty Logan (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
For example, a transgender woman may have had a male experience of education and female experience of the workplace. True but irrelevant. The Religion section is irrelevant to women who were brought up in irreligious households and the Reproductive rights and freedom section is irrelevant to women who are infertile or even those who are post-menopause. And in fact let's look at what the Education section does say: it talks about lower literacy rates, university enrolment and STEM gaps. Well none of these things are applicable to a girl from a wealthy family who goes to performing arts school. As I've been saying, the article is not supposed to describe things that apply to every woman—because such things don't exist—instead, it talks about the overall picture (e.g. the stats in Education) or things which will generally affect the majority of women (Reproductive rights; Religion). Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Betty Logan, we do not simply have "biological women" and people who transition later. The female gender also includes intersex women and "biological males" raises as women - my point is not that the numbers of there are significant, but that the focus of most sections of the article is in gender rather than sex, just as your "if not nude, then feminine" argument about the first image stops being about anatomical sex the moment a purely anatomical nude is off the table. Newimpartial (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
In the #Continued discussion section, I've already addressed that the "Health," "Reproductive rights and freedom," "Culture and gender roles," "Violence against women," "Fertility and family life," "Religion," and "Education" sections concern sex/biology. I've addressed that women and girls significantly or primarily face discrimination and violence on the basis of their sex; various reliable sources (including some I listed in the aforementioned section) support that fact. And, of course, "Health" concerns sex. "Reproductive rights and freedom" concerns sex. "Violence against women" concerns sex; the World Health Organization (WHO) is clear about that. "Fertility" concerns sex. I view all of the sections I just mentioned as an "of course, they concern sex" matter, but the "Health," "Reproductive rights and freedom," "Violence against women" and "Fertility" sections are a very obvious "concerns sex" matter. This doesn't mean that gendered beliefs, including gender roles, are not also a factor for some of the sections. Obviously, "Culture and gender roles" concerns gender as well. Same goes for "Education," "Women in politics" and "Science, literature and art." As for clothing, there are girls and women who are oppressed with regard to what they can and can't wear, and this is due to the fact that they are female. If they had a penis at birth, it wouldn't be happening; yes, in this case, I'm using "female" to refer to the girl's body, like many sources do. In that "Continued discussion" section, I've also been over the fact that cisgender women and transgender women have very different experiences, which a number of reliable sources are clear about. Editors can believe what they want to believe, but the sources speak for themselves. And I have access to a wealth of academic sources. If an editor wants to interpret "sex" or "female" as referring to gender, they are free to do so, but we will not extend that interpretation to the article unless the source is clear that it's using the terms that way or "sex" and "gender" interchangeably. And, Newimpartial, I'm not getting into this debate with you again. Betty Logan, of course the article is not going to cover transgender women just as much as it covers cisgender women (and it shouldn't, per WP:DUE), but covering trans women somewhat, including in the lead, is not saying that cisgender women and trans women are largely the same and don't have different issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
And as I have pointed out above, many sources on those topics, including those you yourself have cited, refer to gender as well as or in addition to sex. There simply is no interpretive rule in English that specified that gender "actually means" sex unless a source specifies that it does not - which is the only way I can make sense of the hermeneutic you used for the sources you cited, as they typically referred to gender as well as sex. In this sense, yes, please let the sources speak for themselves. I had no desire to "debate this" even once. Newimpartial (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
You did not state "gender as well as or in addition to sex" before. I, however, did for a few of the sources. Nowhere did I state that "gender" equates to "sex" in these cases. In fact, I stated just the opposite, including in my "13:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)" post in this very section. What else did I state in the "Continued discussion" section? Oh, that's right -- that the sources I listed mainly focus on "sex," "female," "biology" and "bodies" with regard to the discrimination and violence women face. The bolded parts are right there for everyone to see. They can also read the rest of the sources if they have access. The WHO means what it means, and very much addresses sex/the bodies of women, and it does that in different publications. And if sources mean "gender" to refer to gender roles or gender identity, they would state that. You don't get to interpret sources to your liking. Sources are very clear that gender roles are based on sex, and yet you continue to dispute that even after I cited two sources making that very clear. You went into some personal interpretation. You keep trying to separate sex from gender roles in a way that makes no sense, and you are wrong for reasons Crossroads1 and I have already been over. You keep taking about "gender" in some vague way, as if it doesn't usually refer to physical sex. And if one doesn't mean physical sex when referring "gender," what are they talking about? Oh, that's right -- gender roles or gender identity. And don't even bring up gender expression again, when it's not cited in the literature nearly as much and is so intertwined with gender identity. Because of the different meanings of "gender," you keep using that term to obscure what is being talking about in the if the sources are taking about gender roles or gender identity when they are not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Adding "primarily" when the sources do not state "primarily" is not letting the sources speak for themselves. I am perfectly content with the WHO definition of gender, Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men - when it is not necessarily to make additional specifications such as "gender identity". I am only "separating" gender from assigned sex in the way the reliable sources do - by distinguishing them from one another. I am not divorcing them or placing them somehow in conflict. Newimpartial (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The sources I listed, and many other sources, are focused on women facing discrimination and/or violence women due to "sex," "female," "biology" and "bodies." One cannot take that to then mean gender roles or gender identity. That is my point. A few of them address gender roles, but even a number of those later on make it clear that these gender roles are assigned to people on the basis of their sex. I am not seeing as many sources stating that women face discrimination and violence based on their gender identity, unless the sources are talking about transgender women. That is another point of mine. And I see far more sources stating that women face discrimination and violence due to "sex," "female," "biology" and "bodies" than due to gender roles. Unless you have sources to prove me wrong, I don't see what's left to discuss. But then again, just listing sources that talk about women facing discrimination and/or violence based on gender roles or gender stereotypes is not enough; of course, those sources exist. It doesn't negate the fact that women facing discrimination and/or violence women due to "sex," "female," "biology" and "bodies" is talked about more, and that gender roles are based on sex. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
One more time: you can't simply assume that by "gender" sources mean "sex", "biology" or "bodies" unless they specify otherwise. Nor does "gender" have to mean either sex assignment or gender roles or gender identity, as if these three options were exhaustive and/or mutually exclusive. Gender consists of "socially-constructed characteristics", and it is not the business of editors to impose some specific understanding of those characteristics - such as that they are "based on sex", beyond what the RS actually state for themselves. As to what is "talked about more" in the recent RS, that should be an empirical question rather than an ideological one. Newimpartial (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
One more time: "Nowhere did I state that 'gender' equates to 'sex' in these cases. In fact, I stated just the opposite, including in my "13:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)' post in this very section. What else did I state in the 'Continued discussion' section? Oh, that's right -- that the sources I listed mainly focus on 'sex,' 'female,' 'biology' and 'bodies' with regard to the discrimination and violence women face. The bolded parts are right there for everyone to see. They can also read the rest of the sources if they have access. The WHO means what it means, and very much addresses sex/the bodies of women, and it does that in different publications. And if sources mean 'gender' to refer to gender roles or gender identity, they would state that. You don't get to interpret sources to your liking. Sources are very clear that gender roles are based on sex, and yet you continue to dispute that even after I cited two sources making that very clear. You went into some personal interpretation. You keep trying to separate sex from gender roles in a way that makes no sense, and you are wrong for reasons Crossroads1 and I have already been over. You keep taking about "gender" in some vague way, as if it doesn't usually refer to physical sex. And if one doesn't mean physical sex when referring 'gender,' what are they talking about? Oh, that's right -- gender roles or gender identity. And don't even bring up gender expression again, when it's not cited in the literature nearly as much and is so intertwined with gender identity. Because of the different meanings of 'gender,' you keep using that term to obscure what is being talking about in the if the sources are taking about gender roles or gender identity when they are not."
Do move on. Acting like I'm assuming that "gender" means "sex," "biology," or "bodies," when the sources very clearly state (with bolded emphasis) "sex," "biological sex," "female," "biology," "biological differences," and "bodies," is nonsense. The only one who has tried to interpret the sources in ways they don't state (such as with your "What do they mean by 'based on sex'?" philosophy, which Crossroads1 addressed you on here and here) is you. And as for "Nor does 'gender' have to mean either sex assignment or gender roles or gender identity," those are the three meanings of "gender" outside of grammatical gender, as made clear by numerous reliable sources. Hardly ever is "gender expression" included. And outside of these meanings, what else is being referred to? To state that something else is being referred to is pure speculation and silliness since reliable sources, outside of talk of grammatical gender, use "gender" to mean those three things. I'm not interested in an editor's view of gender as "socially-constructed characteristics" in some vague way. Really, I can't help but think you are trolling. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

All I am saying about the WHO is that when they say "gender" they mean gender and when they say "sex" they mean sex. Perhaps we can agree on that? And please don't start on ASPERSIONS when I have done nothing but assume good faith throughout this discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

That is not all you were saying. I can only sigh at the rest. Best for us both to move on yet again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
And as for the WHO, they distinguish between sex and gender in a source specifically meant to distinguish them, but even they use "sex-based violence" and "gender-based violence" to mean the same thing, like most other reliable sources usually do. Sometimes "sex and gender-based violence" will be used by sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
And we apparently differ in that to you the primary meaning in all cases is "sex-based", whereas to me the primary signification depends on the context. Sigh. Newimpartial (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
No, I never said that the primary meaning in all cases is "sex-based." What I have stated is that a significant or primary reason that women face discrimination and/or violence is due to their sex/biology. What I have relayed is that I see far more sources stating that women face discrimination and violence due to "sex," "female," "biology" and "bodies" than due to gender roles. I've already made it clear to you with this source that "the term gender-based violence is often used interchangeably with the term violence against women and sexual and gender-based violence." I could point to various reliable sources that state the same thing or similar, varying only by using "usually" or "typically" in place of "often," or "sex-based violence" in place of "sexual and gender-based violence," but I see no need. There are sources that distinguish between "sex-based violence" and "gender-based violence," like this 2015 "Invitation to Peace Studies" source, from Oxford University Press, pages 72-73, emphasizing the significant ways that women are subjected to violence based on their sex, but most sources do not distinguish. And since we've discussed "based on sex" and the meaning of sex so much, I find it fitting to quote the following from the source: "Sex-based violence is physical or mental harm directed at people because of their biological appearance -- or assumed appearance -- as either female or male. 'Sex' is a biological concept in this phrase and refers to physiological differences between females and males. Sex-based violence is sometimes directed at males but much more often at females (Geneva Declaration 2011). Because of their biological sex-based characteristics, females are aborted, beaten, neglected, starved, raped, denied freedoms and rights, and killed by their families, male friends, and communities. Girls and women are also often the victims of sex-based violence during wars and insurrections and then again, once hostilities subside, when they are more often than males held responsible for the healing of their families and communities that mostly male combatants have damaged." Interesting that when the source defines "gender-based violence," it doesn't attribute all of that due to the reasons for gender-based violence. One can say that it would be redundant for the source to address all of that again, especially since it notes that sex-based violence and gender-based violence often overlap, but the source addresses a number of discrimination and violence aspects I attributed to girls and women's physical sex, and it also states that these things are due to physical sex. The source also touches on female infanticide (like I did) and intimate partner violence in relation to biology/physical strength (like I did). Yeah, the source notes that sex and gender are both aspects when it comes to violence against women, but I never disputed that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
"'Sex' is a biological concept" is a disputed claim. For example, Judith Butler seems to believe that the way we divide the two common sexes as a biological thing is itself a result of social power. This isn't as an unreasonable an idea as it seems, if you think about it. We define biological sex according to six factors (side note: Pyxis, some of your comments above seem overly focused on what's called chromosomal sex, but it's more complicated than that), and some of those factors come with rather arbitrary cutoffs for something that the public assumes is very objective. But the fact that modern medicine uses these six was determined by the state of technology and knowledge at the time the definition was written (which means that this definition is rooted in society, not pure biology), and the definition will probably be different a hundred years from now (which means that the current definition is probably not the One True™ Definition – just the one we've collectively agreed to use for many purposes). In other words, the current definition of a "biological adult female human" is just as "socially constructed" as the non-biological definitions of a "woman".
Also, while I'm posting anyway: To User:Bilorv and the other active editors in this discussion, please read WP:LISTGAP, especially the parts that talk about what to not do. It doesn't come up often (because most discussions aren't so long and complicated), but it's ultimately helpful if the more experienced editors learn the right way to manage our indenting mess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
That some social and/or gender theorists call biological sex a social construct is something I mentioned in the "Continued discussion" section with my "23:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)" post. The "Invitation to Peace Studies" source even uses the word concept, which many or rather most people would disagree with. And some aspects of sex, such as the chromosomal aspect, do get more weight in the literature than other aspects. Our Sexual differentiation in humans article shows this. And our sex determination system? It is called the XY sex-determination system. So it's no surprise that society focuses more on the chromosomal aspect when speaking of biology in relation to sex beyond physical appearance. If we look at the Sex differences in human physiology article, it of course goes into a lot more than the chromosomal aspect. But our sex-determination system does start with the chromosomal aspect, which is why the Sex differences in human physiology article starts with that. That some social and/or gender theorists call biological sex a social construct doesn't mean that biological sex is disputed in any real way. It's certainly not WP:Due enough to put into our biological and anatomy articles (except for maybe a piece in the Sex article if we were to add a "Society and culture" section to that article). This is, after all, why, at WP:Med last year, you stated, "Given the number of times we've encountered new trans* editors who want to add personal self-perception or hypothesized neurological differences as a factor used to determine biological (i.e., not psychological or social) sex/intersex status (i.e., not gender), it might not be a bad idea to have two or three strong sources behind that statement." By the way, regarding the "In humans, biological sex is determined by" text, you added "by five factors present at birth," not six. I'm wondering what you are referring to by "six." When it comes to the "biological sex is socially-constructed" view, it belongs in the Gender article, where it is. It's mentioned in the Sex and gender distinction article. It's mentioned in a few other articles where appropriate. I see no valid reason for the "Biology and sex" section of the Woman article to go off on a tangent about social and/or gender theorists conceptualizing biological sex as a social construct. I have no issue, however, with including Judith Butler's views or other scholarly views in a section about views on what a woman or womanhood is. And, really, people can call biological sex a social construct as much as they want to, simply because society, for example, gave the reality of biological differences between males and females (which applies to more than just humans) a name, but it's a biological reality that girls and women have to deal with throughout their lives in terms of discrimination, fear (such as afraid to go jogging alone at night because they might be overpowered and harmed by a man), and all of the things that the "Invitation to Peace Studies" source states. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Concerning the "biological reality that girls and women have to deal with throughout their lives in terms of discrimination, fear (such as afraid to go jogging alone at night because they might be overpowered and harmed by a man)" - biological realities associated with anatomical sex undoubtedly exist, but I am aware of any recent, reliable source that attributes either discrimination or the fear of violence from the perspective of women and girls to "biological reality". Please note that the reliably sourced approaches to stop or prevent violence against women, such as this this Canadian inquiry and this WHO initiative, are invariably social rather than biological in focus, in both their investigation of the issues and their proposed solutions. Newimpartial (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)