Talk:Woman/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 28

WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD

According to The Washington Post in an article titled "Cambridge Dictionary updates definition of ‘woman’ to include trans women" on December 13, 2022: A Cambridge Dictionary spokeswoman told The Washington Post on Tuesday that its editors “made this addition to the entry for ‘woman’ in October”. The expanded definition of woman now includes: "an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth." WaPo also quotes Sophie White, a spokeswoman with Cambridge University Press: “Our dictionaries are written for learners of English and are designed to help users understand English as it is currently used,” White said in a statement, noting that the dictionaries are compiled by analyzing more than 2 billion words. An analysis of this many words allows the Cambridge Dictionary “to see exactly how language is used,” White said.

This updated definition seems to further support concerns about whether the apparent disproportionate focus on biological characteristics in the lead is WP:DUE per MOS:LEAD. I had recently attempted to make a small correction to better reflect the overall article structure, but it was reverted [1]. My concern is this article has 15 content sections, and most do not appear to relate to the biological characteristics summarized in section 3, but the four-graf lead includes a large graf that appears focused on material from section 3, with a level of detail that seems unusual for a lead, and especially for such a broad and comprehensive article. I think a lead with a more balanced summary of the article would help readers have a better understanding of the contents. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC) (section heading edited and previous title incorporated into the comment) Beccaynr (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Support Kolya's reversion of your attempted change to the lead. Also, I don't see why the change in one dictionary's coverage is worth raising here, regardless how beneficial it might be (or even if it's the opposite). The number of reliable sources about the topic "Woman" surely must be in the hundreds of thousands; a change to one of them does not move the needle much. Mathglot (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I will plan on developing a proposal for a more balanced lead, because my main concern is related to how this is a broad and general article, and it appears WP:UNDUE to have a detailed summary of one section in the lead of an article with 15 sections.

In the meantime, this article currently cites Mosby's Pocket Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing & Health Professions (2009) and Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (2017) after the first sentence in the lead. For this broad and general article, WP:NPOV policy seems to support giving WP:DUE weight to more than two medical dictionaries.

For example, when Dictionary.com chose 'woman' as its word of the year for 2022, it noted "the word belongs to each and every woman – however they define themselves." (CNN, Dec. 13, 2022), and the Oxford English Dictionary begins its definition with "I. 1. a. An adult female human being. (The context may or may not have special reference to sex or to adult age: cf. man n.1 4 a, c, d.)". Also, in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of woman, "female" is listed as a synonym, and the definition of female includes gender identity.

From my perspective, the subject of this article appears to be broadly defined in a variety of reliable sources, so some refinement of the lead seems helpful according to policy and the MOS. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

You previously rejected using Merriam Webster's definion of gender. [2] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Kolya Butternut, that diff is to a different article's Talk page subsection that begins with a quote of my edit summary "Rm mis-cited dictionary definition; source cited does not state this; restore status quo pending further discussion on Talk re: dictionaries, WP:NPOV, etc", during a pending AfD, and then a Talk discussion follows where I object to removals of sourced content from the lead, not the Merriam Webster dictionary.

For this article, this Talk page includes:

• Crossroads: The proper comparator is how that dictionary defines 'woman' 04:27, 15 July 2022 [3] (referring to Merriam Webster's)
• Theheezy: Dictionaries can be secondary or tertiary sources. However even if they are serving as tertiary sources, their content highly agrees with consensus amongst secondary sources. This is especially so for reputable dictionaries. Furthermore, they also summarize how each word is used in everyday speech, i.e., the common usage and interpretation of a word. Thus I find it hard to argue that the consensus among secondary sources is somehow radically different from those given in reputable dictionaries. 04:55, 17 July 2022 [4]
• Mathglot: Twenty-one years and four thousand edits later, the first sentence has passed through many permutations, and now reads: "A woman is an adult female human", and as Crossroads pointed out, that does pretty much agree with dictionary definitions. 20:10, 18 July 2022 [5]
• Crossroads: dictionaries, especially scholarly and scientific dictionaries, are useful for establishing the quick and simple definition we need for a first sentence. 04:31, 19 July 2022 [6]

For this broad and comprehensive article, the use of broad and comprehensive dictionaries seems to have some support, both in past Talk page discussion and based on the nature of this article. Beccaynr (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Folks should read the discussion at a different article where you reject using dictionaries. [7] I don't think I can engage with your arguments until there is evidence of consistency. I suggest you start at that article by revisiting the talk page discussion about dictionaries. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

From my view, that diff does not link to inconsistency, because I did not reject using dictionaries. Also, the female (gender) article is developing into a parent article for a topic that has been the subject of more than 40 years of academic and scientific research. But I do not think it is constructive for us to repeat ourselves about this ad hominem, so hopefully this discussion can focus on this article and its content and the appropriate sources for this topic. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Continued at your talk page: User_talk:Beccaynr#Warning:_Wikilawyering. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I too note the inconsistency in when a dictionary definition is argued to be of use. Additionally, dictionaries should not be cherry-picked, and academic/scientific dictionaries carry more weight.

The "female (gender)" draft was taken to AfD and escaped deletion via draftification, and those of us opposed to its existence as an article were told not to interfere to give you a chance to develop it. That it has any place on Wikipedia, let alone as a "parent article", remains to be established.

This edit was POV and I support its reversion. A large portion of the total sources on women are sources on biological and medical aspects, involving women's health and entire fields like obstetrics and gynecology. Additionally, social aspects cannot be divorced from biological aspects, as it is via those features in large part that someone lives "as female" as described in the dictionary you were pointing to at the beginning of this thread. That is why hormone therapy and other treatments to develop those features are considered necessary medical care for trans women. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

For the sake of clarification, the AfD closing statement on August 3, 2022 includes In general, anyone can edit the draft, but we'd politely request that the proponents of this article are given a disruption-free environment to craft the article - I was not the only proponent of the article, which was tagged as currently being created when it was sent to AfD [8], and I have not been the only editor. Beccaynr (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, if you have diffs of what you consider to be inconsistency with discussion about an article on another topic, and can explain how it seems relevant to my discussion of dictionaries here, that would be appreciated so I could more directly respond. Also, my goal with the edit to the lead in this article was balance per the MOS and WP:NPOV, and specifically for WP:DUE weight based on the contents of the article. I have also said I would plan on posting a proposal.

And according to the Cambridge Dictionary I pointed to at the beginning of this thread, the main definition of woman is:

A1 an adult female human being

an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth

The Cambridge Dictionary first defines female as "female adjective (GENDER)" with the definition "belonging or relating to women", and then "female adjective (SEX)" with the definitions "B1 belonging or relating to the sex that can give birth to young or produce eggs" and "belonging or relating to a plant, or part of a plant, that produces flowers that will later develop into fruit" followed by other uses of the word.

This definition seems to generally reflect the sex and gender distinction, but I think we should focus our discussion on this article and specifically whether and how the lead could better reflect the contents. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The quote of the definition of "woman" is actually two different definitions. The "gender" definition of "female" creates circularity with "woman", so the sex entry is relevant to define "living as female". Sex and gender being distinct concepts does not mean that the two are so disconnected or non-overlapping like that edit implied. WP:NPOV and WP:DUE are defined based on the body of sources on a topic, not the imperfect state of an article at a given point in time. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The lead of MOS:LEAD includes a reference to WP:DUE: As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the MOS:INTRO section begins by stating, The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article and includes Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article. From my view, the main issue is how WP:NPOV applies to the lead, as it relates to providing a brief summary of the article contents. Beccaynr (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

social aspects cannot be divorced from biological aspects - I disagree. Gender as a concept came out of the academic rejection of biological determinism, specifically in an effort to identify the aspects of living "as female" that can be divorced from biological aspects. From a logical standpoint, it is impossible to derive gender just by observing the biology of women, and vice versa. For example, you can't observe female biology and logically derive eyeliner. Nor can you observe eyeliner and logically derive the biology of women. Culture is associated with biology, but it's not the inevitable conclusion, and thus the only way to understand it is to recognize that it has many determinants. The void century (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• fyi, there is an adjacent discussion at Talk:Gender#Lead sentence definition that includes a discussion of sources that may be of interest to editors of this article. Beccaynr (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

For editors who oppose changing the lead, what would be required for you to consider a change? I want to confirm that the BRD that seems to happen every few months with this lead isn't merely the confirmation bias of a few editors. Beccaynr brings up a valid point, which is that the lede sentence is currently based on two medical dictionaries. Is this really WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY? Beccaynr has said this article has 15 content sections, and most do not appear to relate to the biological characteristics. The void century (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why is "women" pronounced like it is? 92.192.60.10 (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language for questions like this. Mathglot (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add citation requested to some parts of the introductory paragraphs

Please change

"Throughout human history, traditional gender roles have often defined and limited women's activities and opportunities, resulting in gender inequality; many religious doctrines and legal systems stipulate certain rules for women."

to

"Throughout human history, traditional gender roles have often defined and limited women's activities and opportunities, resulting in gender inequality; many religious doctrines and legal systems stipulate certain rules for women." Mcsamr (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Per WP:LEAD, this statement appears okay and doesn't need a citation EvergreenFir (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

"Typically" women inherit XX chromosomes and are capable of pregnancy

Pinging @Crossroads, Sideswipe9th, and Newimpartial: all the editors who I'm aware have directly interacted with this issue. If you're joining us from WP:Conservatism, welcome. Please leave your cowboy hats, gumboots, and revolver pistols by the door.

@Cable10291: You left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism inviting editors to "get involved in a discussion" about the sentence which currently reads Typically, women inherit a pair of X chromosomes, one from each parent, and are capable of pregnancy and giving birth from puberty until menopause. Since you did not (outside your edit summaries) actually begin such a discussion, I invite you to do so here and gain consensus for the change.

My view is that, for the sake of precision, "typically" is a necessary qualification here, as it is demonstrably the case that some women (including those assigned female at birth) do not solely inherit two X chromosomes, and some women (including those born with wombs) are not capable of pregnancy or menstruation. Furthermore, some humans who do typically inherit two X chromosomes are not women. In other words, intersex humans exist, infertile humans exist, transgender humans exist.

I consider all three of these facts to fall into WP:BLUESKY territory (and furthermore, that editors surprised by them may wish to do further reading before contributing to GenSex topics), but I did attempt to remedy the apparent lack of a source by citing an intentionally entry-level "Intersex 101"-type source, which was later removed. If desired I can probably find another which would be more satisfactory. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 04:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: If the "typically" here really is likely to be challenged, I suspect the better remedy would be either an explanatory footnote, or an additional body paragraph explaining various common phenotypes beyond XX that frequently result in female sex assignment. I was hoping Wikipedia might have an easily linkable section somewhere which neatly lists all the possible X/Y-linked chromosomal abnormalities (these are listed in Template:Chromosomal abnormalities and a fairly similar list exists at Intersex#Prevalence), but barring that, a more general pointer at the Intersex topic area might be the next best thing. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 04:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree "typically" or some qualifier is neccessary here EvergreenFir (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

This may be a helpful citation here: link. Theheezy (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any benefit in changing this away from "typically". We also shouldn't go overboard with anything WP:UNDUE. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I would have said that "typically" was unnecessary until further reading. Now I think it is required. See User:Theheezy citation above and also Here , Here Lukewarmbeer (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

See WP:SSF Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The only change I'd suggest to that sentence is that "one from each parent" become "one from each genetic parent", as non-genetic parents exist (adoption, gamete donation), too. I'm not sure that this is an important enough point to emphasize in the opening sentences, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

What is this article supposed to be about?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I apologise profusely if there's an answer to my question within the many talk pages for this article. I've scanned them but not found it.

So what is the article supposed to be about? It seems to me that if consensus were reached on this question, some of the other controversies would go away.

For example, is the article supposed to be about "women" in the sense in which the majority of native English speakers use the word "women", namely to refer to adult humans of the female sex? If so, the first sentence of the article is fine as it is, but the paragraph about trans women is incongruous (if anything, it should be about trans men rather than trans women).

Alternatively, is the article supposed to be about "women" in every sense in which competent English speakers use the word "women", including fringe uses? If so, perhaps there should be more about trans women in the article, but the sections about biology will need to duplicate what's in Man, since trans women are biologically male.

Finally, I note that article is "part of a series on women in society". Is a sense of "woman" stipulated for the purposes of that series? I've searched the help pages but not found anything.

Let me emphasise that I'm not trying to reignite discussions that have already been had, which should be clear enough from a careful reading of the paragraphs above. H Remster (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

This discussion may be helpful to review: Talk:Woman#WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I've looked. What specifically are you directing me to? H Remster (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The implicit consensus is what you see in the article. That it is exclusively based on biological sex and that anything else is "fringe uses" is not supported by reliable sources. Presumably you would dislike it even more if someone tried to make the article exclusively about gender and not sex, so no reason to rock this boat. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Although it's important to remember that nothing is forever and that An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement. In this way, the encyclopedia gradually improves over time. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this is an answer to my question. I've asked what the article is supposed to be about, i.e. what its subject-matter is supposed to be. You've replied "The implicit consensus is what you see in the article". The implicit consensus about what? H Remster (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

On another page, editors have used the creation of discussions like this to argue that the first sentence should explicitly define the topic as more so based on gender. Do you wish to enable this? Crossroads ^-talk- 19:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I wish to establish (here, on the talk page) what the article supposed to be about, i.e. what its subject-matter is supposed to be. H Remster (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The subject matter is what reliable sources, as a whole and in proportion, have to say about the topic of "woman" or the plural, "women". Crossroads ^-talk- 19:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, I think we understand the phrase "subject-matter" differently, so I'll rephrase. I wish to establish (here, on the talk page) what the article is supposed to be about, i.e. what the topic is supposed to be. H Remster (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

If your response is simply that the topic of the article is the topic of "woman", my next (and also original) question is: "woman" in what sense of the word "woman"? H Remster (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

In the sense of how RS defines it, which includes trans women. Filiforme1312 (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Filiforme1312 Ah, the sainted RS. You'll be adding a section on female servants and personal attendants, then? No, I thought not. H Remster (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we work based on RS. If you feel those are DUE go ahead and create a new talk section and myself and others would be happy to help. Filiforme1312 (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I was being flippant. I've just come back to respond properly.

If you read my original post (which I doubt), you'll know that I'm not trying to get the article changed. Rather, I'm suggesting a way of neutralising some of the controversies that have arisen in these talk pages, namely by clarifying or even stipulating what the topic is. If the topic is whatever-gender-studies-experts-mean-by-"woman", then so be it. Gender studies is hardly a credible academic discipline, but that's neither here nor there if the article is a gender studies article. H Remster (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Lol I did read your post. Glad you read my user page and consider me an expert. Filiforme1312 (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I've no idea what a user page is, but I took you to be an activist. H Remster (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This article is about adult female humans. The contents of the body are that subject matter. We're having a similar discussion at Talk:Man, which I think is at a similar place as here: folks are happy with what the body contains, though of course the quality and depth can be improved up to the WP:FA level yet. I'm not seeing any broad move to actually change what man or woman are about, though there is musing about how to best approach the definition. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

And is the article supposed to cover every sense of "female" or just the majority, biological sense? H Remster (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

This article does cover multiple facets of female, though in keeping with summary style, sub-categories like trans woman or mother are split out and only briefly mentioned here. The logic is straightforward: all mothers are women, but not all women are mothers. So it bears mentioning here, but not at great length. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I get that, but all mothers are also female (in the biological sense of "female"), whereas no (or hardly any) trans women are female. That makes the paragraph about trans women look like a change of subject – on the assumption that the article is supposed to be about adult female (in the biological sense) humans. H Remster (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the subject. Female in humans is about sex and gender, which is mentioned at the article about female. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

What a curious response. Obviously I misunderstand the subject, or I wouldn't have needed to ask the question in the first place.

So the correct response to my initial comment is that the article is supposed to be about both "women" in the sense of "adult humans of the female sex" (the majority sense) and "women" in the sense of "adult humans of the female gender" (as yet a fringe sense). Where I went wrong was in suggesting that "the sections about biology will need to duplicate what's in Man, since trans women are biologically male". I can see now that additional information about the sex of adult humans of the female gender who aren't also adult humans of the female sex is irrelevant to the article.

For what it's worth, I'd have thought that separate articles for the two sense of "woman" are called for, with a disambiguation page. But I'd be surprised if that idea hadn't been floated already. H Remster (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that sources, or society for that matter, differentiates between those senses of woman, so neither would we. Nor do I think the female gender is a fringe concept. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say that it's a fringe concept. I said that it's a fringe sense of "woman". Here's a paper that illustrates the point. The hypothesis that people don't differentiate between the two senses can't explain the pattern of responses. H Remster (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Somehow a paper from the "Journal of Controversial Ideas" doesn't strike me as something we should be relying on heavily. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

What do you know about that journal? H Remster (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

A journal, which by definition, publishes controversial ideas. Inherently, that is outside the mainstream, which means it is more likely to be WP:FRINGE, and certainly a minority viewpoint. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Have you deduced that from the title, or looked into why it's called that? H Remster (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

In fact, you can find the answer in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the journal's homepage. It has nothing to do with being fringe. H Remster (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"The Journal of Controversial Ideas offers a forum for careful, rigorous, unpolemical discussion of issues that are widely considered controversial, in the sense that certain views about them might be regarded by many people as morally, socially, or ideologically objectionable or offensive." (emphasis added) I don't think that makes for something that Wikipedia should be following. Regardless, that one paper alone is not cause for us to suddenly split our coverage of man/woman out into separate articles. This article is doing the trick just fine. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't saying it did (make for something that Wikipedia should be following). I was saying it explains the sense in which the ideas the journal contains are "controversial". And I cited the paper in the first place only as a response to your 21:27, 26 March 2023 post. It doesn't surprise me for a moment that you don't want to see the article split. H Remster (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

There are many pages of archives on this talk page regarding your question and similar questions. There are even helpful links to important discussions at the top of the page. Theheezy (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Another contributor who hasn't read my original post. H Remster (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2023 and 15 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shantalr00 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Shantalr00 (talk) 05:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete a word

Womanhood is defined as the period in a human female's life after she has passed through childhood, puberty, and adolescence.

The definition you gave about"womanhood" is actually called a baby girls/girls/woman's life and not this umbrella malleable term that everyone one uses to their liking. YOLO WOLF (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, you're going to have to be more specific and clear about what you're trying to say. Theheezy (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2023

Smacks of transphobic trolling Dronebogus (talk)

Use a natural born woman image to illustrate what a woman is Ygg20cent (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC) What is a woman? 203.63.211.25 (talk) 07:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC) A woman is an adult who identifies with the set of social roles and characteristics typically associated with the female sex. A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC) a woman is not a set of anything, did you bother to read "Typically, women inherit a pair of X chromosomes, one from each parent, and are capable of pregnancy and giving birth from puberty until menopause." 2A02:2F07:6010:A900:80C4:23F2:FB4D:6094 (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC) Woman is a gender, which is a set of social roles and characteristics... Also, yes, I have read that, those are typical features of the female sex, though have exceptions, such as those who are female but have XY chromosomes, due to androgen-insensitivity, and others exceptions; so that is why it is typically. Those are typical features of the female sex, of which the set of social roles and characteristics is typically associated with. A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC) and so the picture should be representative of the "typical features of the female sex", not exceptions. Exceptions have their place in their specific categories. 2A02:2F07:6010:A900:80C4:23F2:FB4D:6094 (talk) 08:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC) What's wrong with the current picture? Is it not a typical woman? A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC) What do you mean by this? A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Woman

Please can we stop replying to trolls per WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Stop trying to redefine women to include males. Evolution has created sex, anything socially created shouldn’t attempt to redefine reality. 78.17.84.113 (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC) Sex and gender are different. A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC) @A Socialist Trans Girl You post a lot on here! Clearly it is a topic you feel very strongly about. However, as has been discussed previously, there will very, very likely not be a change made to the article. Dopeliciouss (talk) 07:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC) I wouldn't say it's very very unlikely that a change will be made, since I believe that the progress in the discussion has made quite a lot of progress, and there's a very strong case for it being changed. A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC) @A Socialist Trans Girl You're the only one I've seen make a case for it, but there's probably others who would agree with you as well. Either case, as was discussed in your thread about it, a change to this article would for example lead to other articles having to be changed as well. Dopeliciouss (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC) Well I explained how the example given (Women's health) does not need to be changed, and so far no other examples of articles that would have to be changed have been provided. A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC) Note: Two abusive comments removed and thread rolled up as unconstructive. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC) References

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2023

Mikrus Kot (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit request, remove the word "Typically" 
Female human cells contains two X chromosomes. 

"Typically, the cells of female humans contain two X chromosomes, while the cells of male humans have an X and a Y chromosome."

 Not done: As it stands is more accurate. --Equivamp - talk 12:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

This might throw some more light on the subject.

More Women Than Expected Are Genetically Men

Typically is quite appropriate when you have read this. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

There's also Trisomy X, in which females have three X chromosomes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't a woman be defined as "an adult female" instead of "an adult human female"?

Granting good faith to a new user, but this page is contentious enough already without getting sidetracked musing about whether some extraterrestrials are women. Please stick to the sources. Collapsed per WP:NOTFORUM.

Because what about Aliens? Like Gamora, Mantis, Frigga, Nebula, etc. They are women too. I know that there are no proofs for the existence of such Aliens but there is a possibility that we may find such Aliens in the future hence let us change this article to support all races that have two sexes (even if they are hypothetical). And now comes the problem of adult animals. Hence let's keep the definition as "Adult females with 6th sense" or something along those lines. What do you all think? Can we make that edit? This is important especially for writers writing about alien races with two sexes when mentioning a so-called "alien woman" in their writings (also for readers/audiences when they have to mention or refer to such characters like Gamora, Nebula, etc). ShobanChiddarth (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)  Not doneNo Reliable Sources offered to support such a change. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC) Actually @User:DanielRigal, I'd say that @User:ShobanChiddarth's proposal of the removal of Human in the definition is very much justified, as people refer to non-humans as Women all the time, such as gods/deities, GlaDOS, and other examples. A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC) It seems far too speculative to be talking about hypothetical alien species. Of course, sci-fi writers are free to extend the concept of woman in whatever ways they find interesting when writing about their fictional aliens but that isn't really an issue outside of fiction. It does not affect the definition of woman for this article. If we ever do encounter intelligent aliens then it will not be for us to define them as men, women or anything else. It will be for them to tell us how gender works for them, if indeed they have it at all. I'm not against a brief mention of the uses of the term woman in sci-fi but it can't inform the definition used in the lead. As for deities, I don't think it is normal to refer to a goddess as a woman. Certainly I'm not going to be the one to tell Taweret that. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC) Aliens might be, but with referring to gods/deities as woman (they're not human) and GlaDOS. (also not human), it's a very valid point, and I don't see the issue with removing human from the definition. A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC) @DanielRigal I am not talking about gods. So you say if we ever encounter an intelligent alien species, they must define how gender works for them. And if their gender works similar to ours, both the articles "Woman" and "Man" will be edited to have the term "human" be replaced with something like "adult female/male with 6 senses" or something like that. If that is what you are saying, I agree. ShobanChiddarth (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC) If we ever encountered an intelligent alien species then a whole lot of articles would need updating and it is not for us to pre-empt those changes. I'm not sure what you mean by "6 senses", and it is certainly not a term we can use in Wikipedia articles, but if you mean something like "self aware intelligence" then I'd agree. If the aliens say that they are men and/or women then we (humanity) would have to accept that into the definition of those terms and once the Reliable Sources update their definitions then so would Wikipedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC) @DanielRigal Yes that's what I meant. Thanks. ShobanChiddarth (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC) As for the use of 'human' here, it has an easy explanation. The term 'female' fits all species which have male and female members, so using the full term here differentiates from other lifeforms. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC) How about adult female animal rationabile? If this is actaully a problem, the easy solution is of course adult female person. small jars tc 17:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC) Collapsed per WP:NOTFORUM. Mathglot (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)