Talk:Trans woman/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

It should not be stated that transwomen are women

The Wikipedia article on transwomen should state neither explictly nor implicitly that transwomen are women. This is a gross violation of wikipedia’s principle of neutral point of view, specifically of “Do not state opinions as facts”.

Whether transwomen are seen as women, depends highly on one’s notion of a woman, so we are dealing with opinions here. There are many millions, if not billions, of people worldwide who do not consider transwomen to be women, and from all sorts of creeds and political positions. For instance, at least the majority of trans-exclusional radical feminists reject the statement. No doubt that highly religious Christians and Muslims would disagree, too, as ell as several other right-leaning people.

Hence, the first sentence “Transwomen are women who …” must be rephrased. For example “Transwomen are people who consider themselves to be women, though not being assigned female at birth.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.131.17.177 (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The wording of the lead sentence is based on reliable sources and previous repeated consensus. There's no guideline/policy violation here. Your proposed wording, on the other hand, is poor: "though not assigned female at birth" is begging the question, and in general it's not based on any RS. --Equivamp - talk 06:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

(1) What consensus? I dissent, others dissent. Show me your consensus. Who is consenting to it? (2) Which “reliable sources”? I see none given, but even more: (3) The statement “transwomen are women” depends on one’s exact notion of “women”, which therefore is, as already stated, a matter of opinion – What would a “reliable source” for the statement “transwomen are women” even be? (4) How is “though not assigned female at birth” begging the question? (5) Even so, do you consider the statement “traswomen are people who consider themselves women” false?

If you claim that “transwomen are women” is (A) not a matter of opinion, but of fact, and (B) that it’s factually true and by society accepted to be true, you will have to back that up. All of it, and I see none.

I see really no reason at all why anyone would not just go “Okay, well. Let’s just not make a big hassle out of it, let’s just switch to the more cautios wording, which isn’t false in any way and probably is more accurate to many people.” – why even defend such a small sentence against a true, more neutral, more diplomatic alternative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.131.17.177 (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

No sea lioning, please. The sources are clear. Newimpartial (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I really do see none given. Are we viewing the same article? This is not sealioning. If the sources are clear, I must be blind or too unfamiliar with wikipedia and then I kindly ask to be pointed to these sources and to where I could have found them on the wikipedia page. – Also, my case does not solely or even mainly rest on the lack of sources, this has been only point (2) out of five, with point (3) explaining that it even has to be established that this is a matter of giving sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.131.17.177 (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

On what planet does the very rare Intersection of the radical views of the few trans-exclusional radical feminists and the beliefs of an unknown number of highly religious Christians and Muslims reflect a more neutral consensus. Sources and citations are not usually included in the lede of an article, as it its just a summary of the main body of the article. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I have not even claimed that: I am not suggesting to change the lead sentence to reflect these views (which are not radical at all); I am suggesting to change the lead sentence to not reflect anyone’s mere views at all. As it stands, the Wikipedia page states an opinion as a fact without even trying to back it up. And yeah I know where sources generally are on Wikipedia articles, but there are none cited for the statement “Transwomen are women” – and I am not going through 38 cited sources to see if there’s anything about that in any of them. If you have a specific non-opinion source explaining why transwomen are women, cite it. But again, it isn’t even a matter of sources because we are dealing with opinions.

On a different note, why would these views be “radical”? I suspect that many average people across the globe consider transwomen to not be women – however, I don’t have anything to back that up, so I only mentioned large groups of which this is kind of known. If you are claiming this view is radical or fringe, back it up. In fact, if not viewing transwomen as women was a radical or fringe view, we wouldn’t have trans people complaining about not being accepted as whatever they claim to be by society, no? Doesn’t N. Wynn tell in a bunch of video essays about the struggles to “pass”, to actually being considered a woman?

No: On what planet would “transwomen are women …” reflect a more neutral consensus than “transwomen are people who consider themselves women …”? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.131.17.177 (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Forgive me, you ask for sources, but then refuse to include the 38 non opinion (they would be unlikely to included here if they were) sources already provided and then say regarding your own opinion and arguement.... 'I don’t have anything to back that up' ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I ask for sources for a very specific claim, but you refer to “all the sources” as if that’s how citing is done. That’s like saying “Oh, no: This and that is true, I’ve read it in Science magazine. Here are all the 38 issues which have articles on this topic. – Oh, what issue and article exactly for this specific claim? What, why are you asking this, are you refusing my sources?” So you seriously expect me to read all 38 sources to see if any of them argue that transwomen are women? It’s kind of childish at this point really.

And again, I don’t even try to bring in my opinion as a fact on the wikipedia page. You are the one who wishes to have an opinion claimed as a fact at a wikipedia page instead of implemeting a neutral wording. So you back it up. I merely conceded in a side issue (about whether my views are radical) – not even my actual issue – that I didn’t bring up an estimation (thinking many average people do not view transwomen as women) because I couldn’t back it up, and now you pretend like I can’t backup my argument. My argument doesn’t rely even in the slightest on probably half of earths population disagreeing with your notion, so I don’t need to back that up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.131.17.177 (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

At the top of there's a big box that looks like this:

I suggest you read it and the links it contains and note the final comment: Restarting a debate that has already been settled may be taken as "asking the other parent", disruptive and even tendentious, unless consensus has changed or is likely to change. --John B123 (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. I did overlook this box. So I’ve read most of the votes in the straw poll and find none of the opposition of option 2 (the one I’m suggesting) is backed up by any good arguments and neither is much of the support for option 1. For instance, one voter claims this is backed up by reliable sources, but later on most of the listed sources are found to either not even mention the word “trans woman“ or to not defining it, and none of them to support the usage of option 1. Other voters opposing option 2 only refer to the “reliable sources” mentioned before and again others claim that option 2 is harmful as it is implicitly taking a side, namely that trans women are not women, by not explicitly taking the opposing side, namely that they are – so he or she argues we should take the opposing side to avoid taking sides. This doesn’t make sense in the slightest. Yet another one claims it’s a fact that transwomen are women (without backing this up of course) and not stating so would be “tiptoeing” and yet another opposition is grounded that option 2 implies the status of trans women as women rests upon something (again already presuming that trans women are women). Since we are to judge not merely by majority of vote, but also by quality of argument (if I got that right), I do not think that this settlement of consensus truly holds.

But okay – there has been a request for comment before. And even though I think it has been badly settled, I don’t want to push anyone further to change the wording in a situation like this. However, I propose to leave this talk section open and undeleted to see how many other people feel the same – that this is badly settled and that the wording still should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.131.17.177 (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The wording of the opening isn't the option I thought was the best, but we have to go with the consensus. You're right, consensus isn't a count of votes, the strength of argument is very important, see WP:NOTVOTE. As this is not a formal discussion, it won't be "closed", nor will it be deleted. However it will get archived 120 days after the last comment is added. --John B123 (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

IP, as seen at Talk:Trans woman/Archive 5#Neutrality needed in opening description, I commented on the big RfC that took place in 2018. I noted that while there was consensus on a couple of things, there actually wasn't consensus on whether to use "is a woman" or "identifies as a woman." The closer was clear about that. As you saw, about half of the participants supported "identifies as" and solid sources were provided for that wording. Because the opinions were about equally split, there was no consensus to change the lead sentence. The current lead sentence is a WP:Status quo matter. Wikipedia is stuck with it unless a new consensus is formed for changing it (WP:CCC). And given the previous big debate on it, that is unlikely. One can try to get it changed, of course, like you briefly did. And considering that it's been two years since the aforementioned RfC and it's different editors taking issue with the current lead wording, one might argue that WP:CCC's "proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive" statement doesn't apply in this case. It does feel recent to me and others, though. WP:Forum shop, however, doesn't apply. Anyway, I wouldn't advise you to pursue this since taking it on will be very draining and another standstill is the likely result. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You write that “there actually wasn’t consensus on whether to use "is a woman" or "idetifies as a woman.” – yes, that’s true. I should have written “the result has been badly interpreted” as I think that the votes for “is a woman” are badly justified, so I don’t even see it as a true stalemate. Superficially, the votes have been 18–17 support and 5–6 opposition for “is a woman” and “identifies as a woman”. But when I subtract votes with bad justifications (as laid out before), I get 11–17 and 5–1 or something (yieldig 6–16, a clear consensus for “identifies as woman”). (Only the linguistic reason “trans woman implies woman, and it’s shorter” stands, which I also think is very poor because the term “trans woman” itself was coined by a transgender activist and, so no wonder it implies “woman” – now what does this reflect? Nothing. It’s a loaded term upon which no further ontological case should rest. And furthemore, are “body builders” actual builders because it says so? Are “loan sharks” actual sharks?) What I, of course, personally think is going on is that wikipedia articles like this one are closely watched by trans activists who want to see firmly established that “trans women are women”, so they are overrepresented in the votes. I therefore think it is crucial to examine the reasons given for the votes, which in my view, just don’t hold up at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.124.38 (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Discounting editors because you think they may be trans or activists, or assuming hidden intent, goes against a couple of the core principles of wikipedia, WP:Civility and WP:AGF. Highly suggest new editors start editing less contentious articles for a while to get the hang of wikipedia, it's culture and rules. Rab V (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I don’t discount them because I think they are activists, I disagree with them and also think they are activists doing activism because their reasoning is so bad that it makes most sense to assume they argue not for the reasons they hold, but for the political objects they have. I have never argued on the grounds that they are activists. I merely wanted to say that I think that this activism is happening here, so one should be cautious lest wikipedia falls prey to political activism (and, well, I think it already has). In a direct discussion with someone, I would never assume bad intent on the other person’s side or accuse him of activism (even if I was convinced of it), let alone rest any arguments on this assumption. However, that shouldn’t hinder me to express a general concern I hold, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.124.38 (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd advise some of the regular editors on this page to ask for a proof of work, so to speak (see below), before spending such large amounts of time in discussions we've had many times before. As such, to the anonymous user who started this section, can you provide three sources which are reliable for either the statement "trans women are not women" or the statement "it is disputed whether trans women are women"? If you cannot provide such sources than there is no reason why a Wikipedia article would support, implicitly or explicitly, either statement.

A computer science term, "proof of work" is where you get an agent to prove that they've invested time in something before you agree to invest time in a response, so as to not be overloaded by the same requests over and over again. — Bilorv (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what sources will be accepted for backing that something is an opinion instead of a fact (would it suffice to show some differing opinions?), but here are the three I have come up with: (1) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Feminist Perspectives on Sex and Gender says right from the start that “One possible way to understand ‘woman’ in this claim is to take it as a sex term: ‘woman’ picks out human females and being a human female depends on various biological and anatomical features (like genitalia)”. Later on, it discusses various opinions on this term, one being Theodore Bach’s, which excludes transwomen from being women. It even cites a contradicting opinion by Bettcher, after which Bach’s view is considered to be “mainstream”, saying: “Bettcher argues that there is more than one ‘correct’ way to understand womanhood: at the very least, the dominant (mainstream), and the resistant (trans) conceptions: Dominant views like that of Bach’s tend to erase trans people’s experiences […]”. (2) Sophie Allen is a philosopher, who argues in an essay published on Medium that there are serious ontological problems with considering transwomen as women: Medium: If Transwomen are Women, What Is a Woman?. (3) And finally, here is a comment from feminist Catherine Bann, Peacenews: Trans Women are Trans Women upholding the view that female biology does matter regarding women’s issue and (implicitly) when considering whether trans women are women. The author quotes a transsexual women in the final passage saying “Women are members of the female sex. People born male just aren’t and never can be.” (possibly because she doesn’t dare to say it explicitly herself). That also shows that even amongst trans women, there is no consensus about whether trans women are women.

So, well. These are my three sources making clear that “trans women are women” is far from being an accepted fact, but is in reality a mere opinion, which is widely debated and contradicted.

I also still think that burden of proof lies on the one saying that something is a fact instead of the one saying that it isn’t. I still see no reliable sources for the case that transwomen are factually women. 78.49.135.228 (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest registering an account if you wish to work on this article but that is up to you. It may be that there should be a section on any philosophical or semantic dispute over whether trans women are women. We would not have any trouble finding sources which say they are. Read up on WP:RS and do a little more research and this is a possibility. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I have reopened this talk page since it had been archived for non-holding reasons: (A) I have not once complained about trans women. (B) My case does not rest upon my sole opinion, nor have I explictly stated it. (C) I have only once been asked for sources – namely in the last post before this discussion had been archived, leaving me no chance to respond. I have now included sources. It does not make sense to leave this discussion archived. I kindly ask everyone to leave it open and not to revert my decision to re-open it. Alternatively, I would open a new talk section, but this would look confusing and unnecessarily clutter this talk page. Also, there would be no merit. Thank you! 78.49.135.228 (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

IP, do not remove comments after people have responded to them, Also, add signatures to all comments. Better yet, stop sealioning. If there is something here worth saying, surely you can cut to the chase and say it without these walls of text. All of this has already been discussed to death in the past, and repeating this as if it were brand new is not civil behavior, and is not productive. Wikipedia is not a platform for unrestricted speech. You do not have a right to say whatever you want on this or any talk page, and nobody is obligated to respond to your personal satisfaction. Grayfell (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Related discussion from my user talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I have not removed comments after people have responded to them. I only re-opened this talk section and removed my complaint about it being archived (to which noone has replied), replacing it by the explanation you now moved here. I have again removed this complaint, because it is irrelevant now, clutters this page and now Eggishorn has been so nice to link to the relevant discussion on his or her talk page. I also now moved my response to Bilorv at the right place. If you want to revert all this, feel free to do so, but it doesn’t make sense and only makes this talk section look confusing. Also, this is no sealioning. I have clearly stated an issue with this article and from then on, only responded. I think the request for comment has been badly decided for reasons I have already given, so it might be worth it to reconsider it. 93.132.191.74 (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, well, Equivamp, if you are to revert the changes I have made, it would obviously have been only fair to at least leave the comment I put here explaining the changes Imade. I also responded to Grayfell in this comment. At least my changes only removed my own comments. Now this is just rude. Please refrain from doing reverts which remove actual relevant discussion for the sake of restating irrelevant comments. 93.132.191.74 (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not rude, because we don't go back and modify talk page comments unless there is a good reason. "I thought it was better this way" is not a good reason. I have previously directed you to the Talk Page Guidelines and I will again quote those here: But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes.Emphasis added It doesn't matter that you don't think it was a direct reply, modifying comments, even your own, after the conversation has progressed is definitely and widely perceived as rude. Your refactoring of your own comments after DIYeditor and Greyfell responded is not a good practice for an effective conversation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I was specifically refering to having a comment of mine being removed by a revert – this is what I have considered “just rude”, not the revert itself. (I thought I had been pretty clear on this?) I don’t know what refactors you are talking about now, but in case you mean the change of order of the comments: I restored an original order, indicating who is replying to whom. How is that bad or “ineffective”? I also don’t know to whom it should be rude if I merely remove an obsolete comment, specifically addressed to you, which I have also repeated on your talk page, after the discussion on the talk page had been settled. Do you think it’s rude that I removed this after we talked about this at length at your talk page? If you want to continue this discussion, we should maybe again move to your talk page. There has been more than enough meta-discussion on this talk section …93.132.191.74 (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It's important to remember that Wikipedia's policy is to assume good faith. This means that, unless significant evidence is given to the contrary (such as vandalism), every editor should be treated under the assumption that they are only interested in helping the article, and they should not be attacked based on views they may not hold. I do agree that more neutral wording is needed in the opening definition of trans women, perhaps something along the lines of "A trans woman identifies as a woman and was assigned a sex other than female at birth." However, trans women should still generally be referred to as women and with she/her pronouns, as Wikipedia's Manual of Style states, "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." Mediator64 (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Merriam Webster defines the word "woman" as "an adult female person", and defines "female" as "an individual of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs". The statement that "trans woman are woman" is not neutral, and it should be changed to "A trans woman is a person that identifies as female, but was not assigned female at birth.", or one of the several other neutral alternatives. 45.46.166.68 (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)45.46.166.68

We don't use the dictionary as a source for concepts. We use secondary sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

If you search a dictionary long enough, you will find definitions that contradict each other. Language is complex, so a dictionary cannot act as a source in this way. However, for the sake of this talk, it goes to show the definition of the word "trans woman" on this article is not neutral. In my view, no source could ever tell you what the "true" definition of a word is, so I doubt the search for secondary sources will provide anything satisfying. And while I do strongly believe in recognizing trans people as the gender they identify, Wikipedia is not the place for such advocacy. It is Wikipedia's policy to refer to trans women as women in general, and that policy should not be violated, but again I believe more neutral wording for the opening definition will add to the informational value of this article. I feel that this discussion has gone for a long time; it might be time to contact an administrator or other authority to resolve this issue. Mediator64 (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

This issue has been raised several times in the Talk page but has not been addressed. There are several factual errors in this article.

Trans women are biologically male. They carry XY chromosomes and exhibit functional characteristics. They are not and can not be female. Trans women can change their expressed gender but not their biology.

This article as drafted contains several items of misinformation. For instance, it is suggested that human beings do not know the sex of their offspring and randomly assign a sex at birth. This is false.

A human has a sex at the moment of conception. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181215141333.htm https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Sexual_differentiation_in_humans

This is fact except for a very small percentage of intersex conditions, however trans women are not intersex.

The sex of a foetus can be observed at almost any point before birth given modern technology. This is fact. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5958571/

It is therefore incorrect to say that sex is assigned at birth. Sex is not assigned; it is an immutable part of the body that occurs at conception.

Anything in an article on wikipedia which states anything other than fact (or at least footnotes that this is an opinion held by a small portion of the populace) calls the entire worth of wikipedia into question.

This page is subject to what I would call "identity politics capture", in that persons who have an interest in the subject matter and a minority opinion have this page under their control. I believe this is against the philosophy of wikipedia and should be addressed. --Stopbeingobtuse (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Stopbeingobtuse 13.07.20

Please review WP:MEDRS, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:STICK. A few links to WP:PRIMARY sources and your own WP:SYNTH do not mean there are "factual errors" in the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where is the consensus documented? H Remster (talk) 10:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

RfCs, other discussions on related pages, talk archives, etc. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

So how is it established that consensus has been achieved? Is there a voting mechanism or something? H Remster (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@H Remster: Please refer to my comment made on 19:04, 6 July 2020 in the conversation you started on the topic (the above section). EvergreenFir (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Thank you. It's the link to the "giant RfC" that I needed. I wonder how representative the participants were of language users in general. H Remster (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@H Remster: Here you go: [1]. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: It's OK, I'd already found that in your 6th July comment. I was just confirming that it answered my question. H Remster (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Congrats on your very first contribution to Wikipedia. I've left you a welcome message at your Talk page. There are already 41 footnotes in the article, which for 10k of readable prose, is pretty decent, so I don't know what you mean by an "opinion held by a small portion of the populace". As for sex assignment at birth, I think perhaps you are not familiar with the term; for a more detailed treatment, see Sex assignment. As far as your comment about "a minority" having the page "under their control", I don't know what you mean, since anyone can edit this page. In particular, the current state of the article represents the contributions of over 200 editors over a period of thirteen years. You're welcome to contribute, too, although there might be a minimum wait period for brand-new editors editing in controversial topic areas like this one, I'm not quite sure. But why not start off in a less controversial area of the encyclopedia, while you learn about editing here? It would be much easier. Mathglot (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I may not have made changes to a Wikipedia entry before but I am no neophyte. 41 footnotes to articles out of many hundreds of thousands of scientific articles about sex is not a consensus especially if the footnotes are carefully cherry picked or misleading. I understand sex "assignment" as a view held by a very few people who tend to be activists in this area, also I am commenting on this Wikipedia entry, not that one. 200 contributors who all believe the same false thing still results in a false thing. And I'm not sure I care about your suggestion that I go away and edit something else. As you say - anyone can edit - therefore I can edit. I'm here. Why not address the points I raised?

Point one: (1) Human beings have a sex at conception. (2) This can be observed at almost every point before birth. Ergo, sex exists before birth. Human beings do not have a sex picked out of a hat at birth.

Point two: (1) Human beings have a sex at conception. (2) Sex is determined by chromosomes, and males have XY, I can cite all this but hopefully people have taken a biology class at some point in their lives? (3) Humans do not change their sex chromosomes at any point in their lives. Ergo, males do not change sex. They are not female at any point.

Please notice I am not discussing gender at this point, which is a separate issue. This Wikipedia article should state very clearly for the avoidance of all doubt that trans women are born male but identify as a different gender that does not align with their sex. They are not female and this should not be confused. Stopbeingobtuse (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

As soon as anyone starts making unfounded rants and assumptions against other editors they loose the argument. Wikipedia:Civility is at the core of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. When editors show mutual respect, they are respected more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodney (talk • contribs)

"I understand sex "assignment" as a view held by a very few people who tend to be activists in this area..." The terminology of sex assignment is standard and has been for decades, long predating the modern understanding of transgender people. It is used throughout peer-reviewed medical literature and by major professional organizations (APA, CDC) in plain-language resources for the general public. Even the article abstract you linked above uses it (though it uses gender in a context where sex would be more common): "...the fetal gender was assigned as male if the angle of the genital tubercle to a horizontal line through the lumbosacral skin surface was >30°..."--Trystan (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Stopbeingobtuse: Trystan is right to point our your incorrect statement regarding sex assignment at birth. I commented on Talk:Sex assignment back on 03:10, 31 August 2019 noting that the following use this phrasing: American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association (2), American Psychiatry Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, CDC, NIH. I can only assume the list has grown if I were to spend the time finding more examples. To suggest this is a minority view is fallacious. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a semantic dispute masquerading as a metaphysical one. The problem is that the key terms - "woman", "female", "gender" - are ambiguous. Some people use them principally to denote sociological classes or categories, while others (including me) use them principally to denote biological classes or categories. For the latter, this makes the unannotated clause "A trans woman is a woman" at first sight extremely puzzling, because it reads as if a trans woman is a person who's undergone some sort of chromosomal transformation (if chromosomes are what the reader takes to be the relevant biological feature). However, the easy solution, namely to add a clarificatory footnote [recommendation alert!] or parenthesis, won't be applied, and I strongly suspect the reasons for this to be political. If you call chickens "tables", then it is easy to prove that tables lay eggs. (Norman Malcolm) H Remster (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

H Remster and Stopbeingobtuse: I'm not sure what part of, "we follow the reliable sources on a topic" the two of you don't understand. The reliable sources on Trans women use the concept of sex assignment. Also, Remster, you don't get to choose the sense in which the reliable sources on Trans women use the word "woman", which is more likely to be about gender and gender identity and less likely to be about chromosomes, hormones, anatomy or whatever is passing for "biology" for you this morning. Newimpartial (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

This is one of the rudest comments on this page. Civility and NPA have gone out of the window, and this is me talking. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 11:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Are you referring to Remster or Newimpartial? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

"... or whatever is passing for "biology" for you this morning." I think this all started when they allowed universities to teach social science. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 18:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

And you don't think that Remster constantly sliding from "biology" in general to a definition in terms of "chromosomes" and back isn't a (largely unconscious) reiteration of the same form of ambiguity they allege the article to have concerning "woman"? Perhaps Remster intended to illustrate some psychological process or other, IDK; if so, I'm afraid the satire (?) went over my head. Newimpartial (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The OP had it right. Stop being so obtuse. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 19:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: You said "I think this all started when they allowed universities to teach social science.". Well, this is exactly what social sciences study. If you dislike a field of science, you're welcome to express that. But that doesn't change what this page is about or the sources we use. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It isn't exactly empirical though, is it? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 19:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: It's not astrophysics, but it does employ the philosophy of science and the (post-)positivist views that we can approximate human behavior through scientific research and modeling. Generally, it takes probabilistic statistical approaches given that behavior is not deterministic. It further attempts to parsimoniously describe and explain human and social phenomena. But that's a topic for my research methods class, not this talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Roxy, the OG OP was making ideological rather than factual statements, so for you to say they "got it right" is essentially a pseudo-statement. Newimpartial (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Congratulations on utterly misreading my comment. H Remster (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I can do a bit better: The sentence "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth" reads, to someone for whom the principal usage of "woman" is biological, as if a trans woman is either a person who's undergone some sort of biological transformation or a biologically female person whose biology was misidentified at birth. H Remster (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

OK merry folks of Wikipedia land, lets dial back a bit. If an an article is about transgender issues, then article about about trans women is simply going to be about gender not sex biology. Biology is a whole different topic, not all 'biological' women are the same, nature is a rainbow of variety. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bodney: Do you not think there's a standard usage of "gender" as synonymous with "sex" (as well as the asynonymous usage)? I agree, by the way, that if it's clear to the reader that "gender" is being used in the sociological sense, then there's no case to answer. H Remster (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

What I took be the relevant part of your comment was, others (including me) use them principally to denote biological classes or categories. For the latter, this makes the unannotated clause "A trans woman is a woman" at first sight extremely puzzling, because it reads as if a trans woman is a person who's undergone some sort of chromosomal transformation (if chromosomes are what the reader takes to be the relevant biological feature). I don't think I misread it. And according to your most recent comment, even if the article specified that transgender is about gender, it would also need to specify that by gender it really means gender and not a circumlocution for sex. Ay, caramba. Newimpartial (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: I've clarified the sentence you've quoted in an additional comment, which I'm afraid crossed with yours. I don't recognise what you've said about my "most recent comment" as a characterisation of anything I've actually said, so it's hard for me to respond to it. H Remster (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to start using "woman_bio", "female_bio", "gender_bio", "woman_soc", "female_soc", and "gender_soc" to try and get round the lexical ambiguity of these words in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H Remster (talk • contribs) 13:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

That's great, but the subscripts you use in your private language are unlikely to become relevant to this article. As far as your "clarification" is concerned, the thing is, we follow the sources, and the sources for "trans woman" do not follow your usage in which the primary meaning of "woman" is "biological" (by which, apparently, today you mean "chromosomal"). In following the sources, an article on Wikipedia on this topic will necessarily be primarily engaged with gender rather than sex, per policy. Your reluctance to acknowledge this policy matter is getting perilously close to civil POV pushing, if it isn't there already. Newimpartial (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it worth trying to get the clarity of meaning expressed by the Remster, into our article, which at the moment, doesn't say what the "consensus" on this page says it says. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: First, I'm not proposing using subscripts in the article. I'm proposing using them in this discussion to indicate concisely whether I'm using the words in their biological or their sociological senses. This is to avoid remarks like "[I]t would also need to specify that by gender it really means gender and not a circumlocution for sex", which disregards the lexical ambiguity of the word "gender" and attributes to me a thought I never expressed. Second, I didn't say that the primary meaning of "woman" is biological, nor did I mean to imply it (although once I saw the way your responses were heading, I suspected that might be your interpretation). I was talking about the reader's default understanding of a lexically ambiguous word. Here's an analogy. If a British person asks a British person "Do you like football?", the hearer's default understanding is likely to be that the question is about association football (soccer); but if an American person asks an American person ostensibly the same question, the hearer's default understanding is likely to be that the question is about American football. This doesn't imply that either hearer thinks that one usage is correct and the other incorrect, that one is better than the other, that one is more important than the other, or that one preceded the other historically. What it implies is that in some contexts, e.g. where a British person is talking to an American person, it would facilitate communication to disambiguate the word "football". If you don't think the same principle applies to Trans woman, I'm wondering who and what you think the article is for. H Remster (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

First of all, Remster, the etymology of your "gender_bio" is precisely as a circumlocution for sex - prior to people feeling the need for this circumlocution, gender was a grammatical and/or social science concept, but never a "biological" one. You didn't have to be thinking of it as a circumlocution for it to actually be one.

The context of the current article is to discuss the concept and reality of Trans woman, which is primarily a gender identity, and so it is going to use for the most part a set of meanings associated with gender, and when it deals with anatomy etc. it is going to use terms arising from its own field, e.g., Sex assignment. The article American football is only tangentially engaged in any form of disambiguation, and I don't see why this article is any different in its relationship to its audience than American football is. Trans woman is a term referring to a rather limited set of phenomena, and is not notably ambiguous IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

And yet the first line of the article, in fact the first six words say "A Trans woman is a woman ..." -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

WDYM? "Woman" is, in everyday language, the term for the female gender. Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

What else is it a word for? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

That depends on the context, doesn't it? The current article concerns a gender identity. In another context, a "woman" could be a female dwarf or Vulcan, I suppose. Newimpartial (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Is a female human a woman? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yup. And in most contexts, a "female human" is defined by gender although, occasionally, as in "women's health", the concept has traditionally been defined by "biology" in some sense or other. Newimpartial (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

This is why I don't edit in this area normally. The logic of reality doesn't work. I'm going to stop climbing the Reichstag, put my Spider Man outfit back into the cupboard with the mothballs, check the pronouns on the Rachel Ivy article, and invite Martina and J.K. to lunch. bye. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: You may well be right about the etymology of "gender_bio". It seems doubtful to me that the use of "gender" as a circumlocution for biological sex is predated by social science, but I'm willing to take your word for it. However, I'm talking about meaning and not etymology, so, while interesting, the point is hardly relevant. On American football, have a look at how much argument there has been about whether American football is football; compare that with how much argument there has been here about whether trans women are women; and then consider whether that might be relevant in any way to the need for disambiguation here but not there. H Remster (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

American football is clearly not football, so I don't see why disambiguation would have been needed. Newimpartial (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It wouldn't. That's my point. (Ironically, though, there turn out to be a couple of pages dedicated to untangling "American football" and "Football in America".) H Remster (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

What puzzles me is that you know that Wikipedia offers guidance on WP:Ambiguity, you know that both the "..._soc" and the "..._bio" terms exist in modern English, you know that the first sentence of the article is open to misinterpretation, and you know that there have been dozens of arguments about that sentence, and yet you see no benefit to the article in a spot of light disambiguation. (I'm not, let me emphasise, proposing a re-wording of the sentence. WP:STICK and all that.) H Remster (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

And how, pray tell, would you propose to disambiguate that sentence without rewording either it or another article? Newimpartial (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

In the way that I actually did propose it in my first contribution to this section. Because I know you'll misrepresent me otherwise, whether accidentally or deliberately, let me make it clear that the contents of the square brackets in my first contribution to this section relate to the words immediately proceeding them, and not to the words immediately following them. H Remster (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Removing the link to Woman would add to, rather than reduce, ambiguity. Surely some mistake? Newimpartial (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It would indeed, which is one reason why I haven't proposed it in this section. Another is that the idea was already discussed and rejected in a different section over a week ago. H Remster (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

---

In my experience, when a discussion stops being about the article and what the sources say, and starts being about directly trying to convince other editors about what is actually true, it is no longer useful and we should stop. So, let's stop now. SBO had a very clear and direct question, we gave a clear and direct answer, and now there is no more use to this discussion. Loki (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's any disagreement here about what's actually true. The disagreement seems to be about whether there's a disagreement about what's actually true. H Remster (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Even worse. Please stop. Loki (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I think that the discussion here is central to improving the article, a million miles from notforum territory. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 19:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: Way to miss the point. I want to discuss the article but am having to convince my interlocutor first that I don't dispute the facts. If I wasn't being challenged to do that, I'd willingly stop. H Remster (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Remster, that you "want to discuss the article" is, ahem, unproven. So far you have established that you want to discuss other articles, the ocean of language, and virtually everything else except this article. Roxy the dog, on the other hand, wants this article to be about something other than its actual topic, which I suppose is "about the article", just isn't really about improving the article as such. Newimpartial (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Eh, where have I tried to discuss (a) other articles or (b) the ocean of language in this section? I very much want to discuss whether the article would be improved by disambiguating "woman" in the first sentence. H Remster (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Jumping in to aggree with Newimpartial about this devolving into WP:FORUM and WP:STICK territory a long time ago. The section before this and this one are overloaded with personal opinions and arguments not based in RS. Highly suggest all editors take a step back and for new editors to take time working on less controversial areas to get a handle for how Wikipedia works. Rab V (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a personal opinion that you've spotted? I understand the need to steer clear of them. H Remster (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Remster, you are discussing other articles here, here, here, etc., ad infinitum. You are discussing the oceanic quality of language, or related aspects in this foray into private language, this observation about semantic and metaphysical disputes, and this metaphor about the meaning of "football", among other interventions. Perhaps you are still engaged in satire? Newimpartial (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The first three links are to comments made in a different section over a week ago. I've been educated about that in the interim. The other links are to comments aimed solely at getting you to stop misrepresenting me, except for the "observation about semantic and metaphysical disputes", which is an explanation of why I think clarification could improve the article and mitigate the WP:STICK problem. H Remster (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the requested edit would worsen rather than improve the article, as it involved WP:SYNTH and runs afoul of how RS typically ("proportionally", in the language of WP:WEIGHT) cover the subject, as well as past RfCs and discussions. (It is also not clear to me that some editors WP:NOTGETTINGIT or WP:FORUM-posting requires other editors to keep responding...?) -sche (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with that. I thought that was settled, both by this discussion and by the prior RfC(s). Anyone who wants to make an edit of this kind needs some damn good evidence that is substantially more convincing than anything prior RfCs and discussions have seen in support of this position. Loki (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Can someone please point me to the RfC where this has been discussed previously? I've found a lot of stuff about whether the clause "A trans woman is a woman" expresses a true proposition (the consensus is that it does) and a lot of stuff about whether the first sentence of the article needs to be rewritten (the consensus is that it doesn't), but nothing so far about the issue I've raised here. Obviously I'll leave this alone if I can see that it's already been put to bed. H Remster (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I tell a lie. I did find this, which makes a start, in the archives, but it was ignored in the subsequent responses: "... The point about words having multiple meanings would be insightful if the narrow meaning this word referred to was made more obvious. As was pointed out below by DIYeditor, anyone who is more familiar with the term woman referring to a female human will not understand that it is being used here to mean feminine gender identity. Since being a female human and having a feminine gender identity are not linked, these terms must be disambiguated. ..." Userwoman (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC) H Remster (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Userwoman's perspective, ahem, did not achieve consensus, perhaps because they did not recognize that having a female (not "feminine", which was a hilarious conceit of theirs) gender identity is one definition of "being a female human", as discussed above. Dredging the Talk page archives for previous FRINGE positions is not a policy-compliant use, Remster. Newimpartial (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

What have those observations to do with the very specific passage I quoted, or my reasons for quoting it, which can be gleaned from my preceding comment? This is the tactic you've employed throughout: misrepresent what I've said, bloat the thread, and encourage other editors to pile in with links to policies that are relevant to what you've said I said but not to what I actually said. H Remster (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The 2018 RFC found consensus for "assigned", the issue raised at the beginning of this section. There was no consensus on any other aspect, leaving the status quo in place. The above discussion strongly suggests nothing has changed since then.--Trystan (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Remster, "the very specific passage you quoted" used the concept/conceit "feminine gender identity" and suggested disambiguation here because this conceit "is not linked" with being a female human, although our previous discussion has shown that female gender identity is in fact one important meaning of "being a female human". That isn't "misrepresentation" - that is straightforward parsing of the "very specific passage" to show that its argument fails because its premises are false.

And as far as I know, I haven't linked any policies that are not relevant to precisely what you have said - that sounds like an unfounded accusation, and also a violation of the principle of "commenting on the contribution, not the contributor", which I have quite strictly followed in this discussion, even as your contributions, Remster, have veered into "civil" POV pushing territory. Newimpartial (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Your first paragraph. No, the very specific passage I quoted didn't do that. It used the hilarious phrase "feminine gender identity" as a synonym for "woman" in the sociological sense, and the phrase "female human" as a synonym for "woman" in the biological sense (which you accept exists, even though you don't like it), in an attempt to explain why someone who isn't already familiar with Transgender Theory might be confused by the first sentence of the article. What the writer didn't see coming is the response that "female human" isn't itself unambiguously biological.

Your second paragraph. It would indeed be an unfounded accusation if I'd made it. But I didn't, so I don't need to comment further. H Remster (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

So, Remster, you didn't make the accusation that I misrepresent what I've said, bloat the thread, and encourage other editors to pile in with links to policies that are relevant to what you've said I said but not to what I actually said (which clearly includes an accusation that, in my paraphrase, I linked policies that are not relevant to precisely what you have said) - oh, wait, you did.

And my suggestion would be, if you need to specify what Userwoman meant by "feminine gender identity" and also what they meant by "female human" and also invoke such additional concepts as "Transgender Theory" to provide context for the two - maybe you aren't actually better off dredging up old contributions so that you can rework them to make your argument for you. And for the record, I have nothing against "'woman' in the biological sense", so I hope mind reading is not a talent you are counting on for professional purposes. Newimpartial (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You're now misrepresenting what I've said immediately after quoting my exact words, and you'll get away with it, probably with thanks and congratulations. That's come achievement.

To save space, I'll just emphasise the relevant words: "... encourage other editors to pile in with links to policies that are relevant to what you've said I said but not to what I actually said".

"... so that you can rework them to make your argument for you". Nope, still not the reason why I dredged up the old contribution, which can still be gleaned from the comment that preceded the comment in which I did the dredging.

"And for the record, I have nothing against "'woman' in the biological sense". Thanks. It's helpful to have it in black and white, and I apologise for the mistake. H Remster (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Returning to the point, since you accept that "woman, "male" and "gender" all have biological as well as sociological uses in everyday English, why do you think the article wouldn't be improved by a clarificatory footnote? My reference points here are MOS:FIRST and WP:NOTES. H Remster (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Remster, given your acknowledgement of and respect for the ambiguity of language, you will presumably recognize when it is pointed out to you that your original quote is unclear whether the "links to policies" that are irrelevant to what you "actually said" are part of my encouragement of other editors to "pile in" or a result of said encouragement (in either case, an accusation that I deny). Your ambiguity in writing can scarcely be parsed correctly as my "misrepresenting" you, although it perhaps explains your use of that loaded term earlier in the discussion, if every time you have been unclear you feel that it is me "misrepresenting" you.

You might want to specify what you actually mean, then, instead of constantly referring back to what you said earlier and then accusing others of "misrepresenting" you. But marine mammals will be what they are. Newimpartial (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe unclear only to someone who's insensitive to the difference between "encourage other editors to pile in with links to policies" and "encourage other editors to pile in, with links to policies". I don't know. Either way, I accept the apology and would like to move on. The section on misrepresentation in WP:BULLY (don't take the title of the page to express how I feel) and the Wikipedia article on the principle of charity might help you in any future exchanges. H Remster (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You might want to consider the "principle of charity" the next time you are tempted to accuse another editor of "misrepresentation". This is also covered under the pillar of WP:AGF, BTW. Newimpartial (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Then you have my profuse apologies. I completely missed the assumption of good faith here and here, and I'll be careful to assume it from others in future. H Remster (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Sarcasm doesn't become you, Remster. If you can't see the difference between argumentation and "misrepresentation" or between apology and snark, then CIVIL has failed in this instance. Newimpartial (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

So returning to the point, since you accept that "woman, "male" and "gender" all have biological as well as sociological uses in everyday English – and commenters have repeatedly cited biology in explaining their confusion about the first sentence – why do you think the article wouldn't be improved by a clarificatory footnote? My reference points here are MOS:FIRST and WP:NOTES. (Question asked in good faith, naturally.) H Remster (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I simply haven't seen any explanatory note proposed that would actually improve the clarity of the article for most readers. And given the poor quality of discussion of "biology" on this talk page, I am skeptical about seeing one. But I would be happy to be disillusioned on this point. Newimpartial (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

An explanatory note wouldn't have to go into biology: we're not talking about "woman" in a technical sense used by biologists (I've no idea whether there is such a sense); we're talking about "woman" in a biological sense used by ordinary people. Recall the case of "water" and H₂O, where ordinary people were using "water" to refer to H₂O long before anyone knew the chemical composition of water (I don't mean to suggest that "woman" could ever be as sharply defined as that). So an explanatory note would just have to state plainly that "woman" was being used in a sociological sense rather than a biological sense. You never know, it might even discourage people from coming here and attempting to argue from biology that the first sentence of the article should be rewritten (again). H Remster (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Watch Newimpartial get lured into the rabbit warren of reception analysis!

My impression is that vague hand-waves to "biology" might cater to the prejudices of some of WP's readers but are unlikely to provide them with relevant information. I am under the further impression that WP exists to reflect the consensus of reliable sources on a topic, not to cater to its readers' prejudices, but of course I may be proved wrong on that point as well. Newimpartial (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Two questions. 1. Why would this be catering to prejudices, rather than simply clarifying for the nonspecialist reader what the subject is? 2. What sort of thing would you (or WP) consider to be a reliable source on the matter of how the nonspecialist reader tends to understand the word "woman"? H Remster (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Is there a policy-relevant reason to care about (2)? Reception analysis is not generally something we do in the WP community AFAIK. As far as (1) is concerned, I am basing my interpretation on every single proposal I have seen on this issue - if you imagine a Cartesian conceptual space, all of them are much farther from the origin along the "catering to prejudice" axis than they are in the "clarifying" dimension, again, AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC) 1. Unlike WP:AGF, AFAICT doesn't feature in any Wikipedia principles, AFAICT. Besides, I'm not proposing adding a footnote to appease those who've had proposals for the first sentence rejected; I'm proposing adding a footnote to remove the confusion that (WP:AGF) has given rise to the proposals in the first place. 2. I don't know, but there is a section in the manual of style: MOS:FIRST. Have you in mind a policy that takes precedence over this guideline? H Remster (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC) By the way, Wiktionary does a decent job with this, via Woman > Female > Gender. H Remster (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC) If there is a MOS:FIRST justification for a footnote to the first sentence, I haven't seen it provided here. Newimpartial (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC) No problem, it's not very complicated. 1. People keep raising biological objections to the first sentence. 2. Therefore, either they have in mind a biological sense of "woman", or they believe that biology determines social role (etc.). 3. We know that "woman" has a biological sense, but we agree that the notion that biology determines social role is preposterous. 4. Therefore, the charitable interpretation is that people have in mind a biological sense of "woman" when they raise biological objections to the first sentence. 5. Therefore, one way of discouraging biological objections to the first sentence would be to explain that "woman" isn't being used in a biological sense. H Remster (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC) I don't see how that relates to MOS:FIRST in any way. Sorry. Newimpartial (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC) That's OK, help is at hand: the fact that people repeatedly misunderstand that "woman" is being used in a non-bio sense indicates that the first sentence is failing to tell the nonspecialist reader what the subject is. H Remster (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC) I don't think that's what's happening, though. I think some of our readers are disagreeing with the definition provided. I don't see evidence that they have misunderstood it. Newimpartial (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC) If a definition is provided and some readers disagree with it, then I'm on your side. But where is a definition provided? (I'll save the follow-up question for when I have an answer to that.) H Remster (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC) The definition is the first sentence of the lede. SMH. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC) There's a definition of "woman" in the first sentence of the lead? RME. H Remster (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC) People (present company excepted) are coming to this page to dispute the definition of "Trans woman", not the definition of "Woman". The reliable sources on Trans women do not generally define Woman, nor is it their job to do so. For us to do so on behalf of these sources as editors of this article would be original research and WP:SYNTH, and against policy. Newimpartial (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying that you were referring to the definition of "trans woman" and not the definition of "woman". The rest of your reply is addressed to a straw man, so I'll let it pass without comment. Assuming you're right that "some of our readers are disagreeing with the definition [of 'trans woman'] provided" – and I believe you are right about that – which word or phrase from "A trans woman is a woman" do you think readers who disagree with that part of the definition have a problem with? We can eliminate "A trans woman", since that's the definiendum. That leaves us with a choice of "is", "a" and "woman". H Remster (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC) "is" Newimpartial (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC) What, as opposed to "isn't"? H Remster (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC) No, I answered your question (there were three choices). Newimpartial (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC) Well, whatever your reason, you can't be right. Even the most prejudiced reader would expect a Wikipedia definition of "trans woman" to start "A trans woman is". Have another go. H Remster (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC) No, I'm serious. What "is" means in that context, per policy, is "is defined by the reliable sources as". But people come to this page to say, essentially, "no, it isn't", which means they haven't accepted the premise of what we mean by "is". Newimpartial (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC) Ah, I get it. Can you point me to the relevant policy, please? There's a whiff of a use-mention confusion here, but I'd like to see how the policy is worded before I comment further. H Remster (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC) No, I'm not going to do that, sorry. The goalposts have moved far enough. Newimpartial (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC) No, they haven't. They haven't moved at all. I started by claiming that there's a semantic ambiguity that could easily be resolved by a footnote, and that's still my position. However, the immediate question – which is entirely relevant to my original claim – is whether the language of the definiens in the first sentence of a Wikipedia article is supposed to be (a) the technical language of the reliable sources on the subject, or (b) the ordinary language of the nonspecialist reader. In support of b, I've offered MOS:FIRST, and I'm challenging you to produce something that trumps this. H Remster (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC) If you have a proposal that does not run afoul of WP:NOR, I am all ears, but NOR definitely takes priority over MOS:FIRST. Newimpartial (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC) Good. What, in what I've already proposed, do you regard as original research? H Remster (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC) You have proposed "the addition of a footnote". You would have to propose specific text before I could answer that question. Newimpartial (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC) Good again. What kind of publication do you (does Wikipedia) regard as a reliable source on the nonspecialist reader's understanding of words? H Remster (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC) As I have said before, WP does not really use such sources or structure its articles based on reception analysis. However, if this really seems urgent to you, it would be policy-compliant to create an "Introduction to" article for readers lacking relevant background; the first draft of that might start from something like the current article in Simple English Wikipedia, but it would rapidly evolve, I'm sure. Newimpartial (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC) Sorry, I'm not talking at this point about the nonspecialist reader's response to reading "woman" in the first sentence of the article. I'm talking about their normal understanding of the word, which is what they'll be employing when they read the sentence for the first time. What kind of publication do you (does Wikipedia) regard as a reliable source for that? H Remster (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC) None. Wikipedia does not examine the question of what readers understand words to mean before said readers read WP articles. More generally, I would say that WP expects words to be understood in context - Contract bridge for example, provides no scaffolding to pull readers away from their normal understanding of Bridge. Newimpartial (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC) But what Wikipedia actually says is that the first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what the subject is. And a definitional first sentence can do that only if the definiens contains words used in nonspecialist senses, or with specialist senses explained. That's why I'm asking what kind of publication you, or Wikipedia, would regard as a reliable source on nonspecialist senses of words. Contract bridge. I'm glad you're seeing the value of analogies, but the disanalogies here are too strong. First, Contract bridge doesn't begin "Contract bridge is a bridge", or even "Contract bridge is a kind of bridge". Second, "bridge", referring to the card game, is part of nonspecialist English, whereas "woman", in the sense used by the reliable sources on Transgender Studies, isn't (I've participated in the pretence for long enough). H Remster (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Just so that we are clear, are you suggesting that this nonspecialist source for pediatricians, this one in The New Statesman, or this one from gov.uk are somehow "confusing" to nonspecialist readers because of the way they use "woman"? (Newimpartial (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Which sentences have you in mind? (I'm not sure I can take the New Statesman seriously as a point of reference, but I'm willing to give the others a crack.) H Remster (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC) The ones using "woman". Newimpartial (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC) 4 shiz, but which do you think use "woman" to mean something other than "adult human female"? If the answer is "All of them", give me your five favourites. I'm not suggesting you can't; I just want something concrete to respond to. H Remster (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC) I have not suggested that "woman" means something at odds with "adult human female". I have suggested that "woman"/"adult human female" means different things depending on context. In these three non-specialist sources - chosen essentially at random - I think it is obvious that "woman" is used in ways that do not fit your normal understanding of the word, and yet I do not think they are confusing to nonspecialist readers. Certainly none require a Transgender Studies degree to understand, which is good because none of their readers can be assumed to have that background. Newimpartial (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC) I think you've illustrated the relevance of the definitions of "female" that I added to the definitions page. I'll ask the question in a different way. Which sentences do you think use "woman" to mean something other than "adult human belonging to the sex that can lay eggs or give birth to babies". If the answer is "All of them", give me your five favourites. I'm not suggesting you can't; I just want something concrete to respond to. H Remster (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC) It depends on the context within each article. You should be able to read for yourself: just let me know if you find anything unclear. Newimpartial (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC) I haven't found any sentences in which "woman" isn't being used to mean "adult human belonging to the sex that can lay eggs or give birth to babies". Help me out. H Remster (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC) When the first article says A person’s gender identity may be man, woman, boy, girl, non-binary, etc., they are clearly *not* indicating that one's gender identity, “who you know yourself to be” which exists in a spectrum, determines or is determined by "belonging to the sex that can lay eggs or give birth to babies". A moderately literate non-specialist reader will understand this. Newimpartial (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC) I totally agree with every aspect of your last comment. But what has that to do with whether "woman" here means "adult human belonging to the sex that can lay eggs or give birth to babies" (or, by extension, whether it's confusing for the nonspecialist reader if it doesn't)? H Remster (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Try as I might, I can't parse that comment into a logically-consistent statement in English. Try again? Newimpartial (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC) You suggested that the "nonspecialist reader" of the Trans woman article here would not understand what was meant by "woman". So I posted links to three articles that use the term "woman" in the same sense as we do in this article, and that are intended for "nonspecialist readers". If you agree that "a moderately literate non-specialist reader" understands that "woman" does not mean "adult human belonging to the sex that can lay eggs or give birth to babies" when they read those articles, why is this article different? But honestly, that is my stab at the dark at responding to a comment that I don't really understand. My apologies if I have misunderstood. Newimpartial (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC) No need to apologise. But I don't agree that a moderately literate non-specialist reader understands that "woman" doesn't mean "adult human belonging to the sex that can lay eggs or give birth to babies" when they read those articles. What I agree with is that the first article isn't stating that the gender category that a person identifies with, or self-identifies as belonging to, determines or is determined by their biological sex. H Remster (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Well, then, you aren't doing as well as our paradigmatic "non-specialist reader". The sentence in question says A person’s gender identity may be man, woman, boy, girl, non-binary, etc. If we substitute in "adult human belonging to the sex that can lay eggs or give birth to babies" for woman, we would get the following: A person's gender identity may be man, adult human belonging to the sex that can lay eggs or give birth to babies, boy, immature human belonging to the sex that may one day lay eggs or give birth to babies, non-binary, etc. That sentence is nonsensical on the face of it, and particularly so given the specification earlier in the paragraph that gender identity is “who you know yourself to be”, which exists in a spectrum. Given then that the non-specialist reader is able to make sense of this paragraph, which I thought we had agreed (when I said A moderately literate non-specialist reader will understand this and you replied with I totally agree with every aspect of your last comment), then I don't see how you can now dispute that, to this reader, "woman" must have been understood in a sense relevant to gender identity, and not in a sense relevant to laying eggs or giving birth. Newimpartial (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Whether it's nonsensical rather depends on how the moderately literate non-specialist reader understands expressions like "identifies as a woman" and "knows herself to be a woman". They might take these expressions to mean, respectively, "describes herself as a woman" and "feels certain that she's a woman", while concluding that the person is deluded. Or they might, more generously, take the expressions to be about profound affinity rather than literal group membership. Either way, it makes sense for "woman" to mean "adult human belonging to blah blah blah". H Remster (talk) Nope. A person's gender identity may be man, woman, boy, girl, non-binary, etc. is clearly a literal statement about identity, not an "affinity", nor does the text I cited allow for the possibility that such statements could be deluded. Since you are not able to read simple, non-specialist texts in terms of their plain meaning, this discussion about what moderately literate non-experts can be expected to understand clearly serves no purpose. I will wait for someone to make a relevant proposal before commenting further. Newimpartial (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC) That's your prerogative. However, I can't leave this without setting you straight on a few points. First, "affinity" is a perfectly respectable synonym of "identity", so your constrasting "affinity" with "identity" is misplaced: the contrast, if there is one, is between "affinity" and <Insert NewImpartial's favoured definition of "identity">. Second, "nor does the text I cited allow for the possibility that such statements could be deluded" is aimed at yet another straw man: I didn't say anything about the statements in the text being deluded (whatever that means); I said that the moderately literate non-specialist reader (MLNSR) might conclude that men who identify as women, or vice versa, are deluded. Third, the reliable sources on the MLNSR's understanding of words (a.k.a. "dictionaries") provide definitions that are consistent with my suggestions (e.g. 7 and 3), but they don't provide definitions that are consistent with your suggestions about "woman" (and it's telling that you've made no effort to cite one in this discussion). Fourth and finally, although I've humoured you by following you down this sidetrack, this discussion is about the first clause of the first sentence of Trans woman and not three randomly selected texts on gender identity, so any speculations we make about the latter are very much beside the point. See you on the other side. H Remster (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC) I will observe at this juncture that no evidence of any kind has been presented here that any people who were assigned male at birth but who affirm a female gender identity are "deluded" about it, or are believed to be deluded about it (added by Newimpartial (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC) ) so this seems to be both OR on Remster's part and also a red herring; kind of BOGO, I suppose. Newimpartial (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Another straw man. Keep walking! H Remster (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC) They might take these expressions to mean, respectively, "describes herself as a woman" and "feels certain that she's a woman", while concluding that the person is deluded - I love to stroll among the fields, hoping for a strong whiff of OR reception analysis. Newimpartial (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Merely a deduction from what the reliable sources on the MLNSR's understanding of words say about the words in question. But I'll willingly withdraw it rather than let it get in the way of the more important point, which is that you've cited no reliable sources to support your contention that the MLNSR understands the word "woman" in any way other than the biological or the metaphorical. The thing is, here at WP, we follow what reliable sources say, not what individual editors personally believe to be true. H Remster (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC) If ordinary, plain-language nonspecialist sources use woman in the quite literal sense of a gender identity, as I have demonstrated, then the claim that their readers - and ours - insist on a "biological" or "metaphorical" sense of "woman" is an EXTRAORDINARY claim for which extraordinary evidence - at least evidence beyond the idiosyncratic insistence of one extraordinarily persistent editor - would be required. (I have "demonstrated" this in the sense of providing three examples of nonspecialist sources, in mainstream publication, which use "woman" to denote a gender identity and which the moderately literate non-specialist reader - though not the reclusive SEALION - has no apparent difficulty in understanding. The idea that mainstream sources publish articles that readers cannot understand, apparently due to readers' stubborn prejudices Motivated reasoning, represents the fringiest of FRINGE thinking.) Parenthetical comment added by Newimpartial (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Newimpartial (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC) You haven't demonstrated anything of the sort. You've asserted it. The thing is, here at WP, we follow what reliable sources say, not what individual editors personally believe to be true, and you are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer. (By the way, let's not get lured into the rabbit warren of reception analysis. While it would be a better way to settle our disagreement than consulting the reliable sources on the MLNSR's understanding of words, reception analysis is not generally something we do in the WP community.) H Remster (talk) And reliable sources state that "woman" is a gender identity. Q.E.D. Newimpartial (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC) The reliable sources state that the word "woman" is a gender identity? I hardly know where to start. Are you familiar with the concept of a category mistake? I suppose it's conceivable that the reliable sources state that the word "woman" is understood by the MLNRS as referring to or signifying a gender identity. Is that what you meant? H Remster (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC) As has happened earlier, your is is giving you trouble. "Is" for us, in this context = "is defined by reliable sources as", as I have told you before. I was trying to help you by using quotation marks, but that effort clearly ran aground. So to be pedantic for a moment: the word "woman" denotes a gender identity. "Woman" is a gender identity. Not "the concept of a gender identity", but a certain, specifically female gender identity. That is the meaning employed by the RS. Capisce? Newimpartial (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Is this going anywhere? It appears to be a couple weeks of "discussion" with zero results. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Good point. It is not. Newimpartial (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Please stop, both of you. The chance the line would be changed was low in the beginning and is now in my estimation zero. Neither of you have any real reason to keep responding to each other. Climb down from the Reichstag and take off the Spiderman costumes. Loki (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Would the addition of a footnote really count as the line being changed? I thought the previous disagreements had been about the wording of the sentence. I'm more than happy to be corrected and to stop if so. H Remster (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to place the Spiderman reference (other than in the policy page). Where does it come from? H Remster (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@H Remster: WP:SPIDERMAN EvergreenFir (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Fathers 4 Justice. --Equivamp - talk 00:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments for heretofore uninvolved editors

The mostly two-editor impasse above seems to be a waste of time in having turned circular. However, if you ignore all the invective and stance-posing, the thread, in combination with #Proposal to use the definition of "Trans woman" used by leading institutions. above, especially, and also #Wikipedia in English imposes a definition out of sync with the one used by Wikipedia in other languages raises an interesting general point. This article clearly has a WP:ADVOCACY / WP:NPOV / WP:OR problem, and is not in-synch with either the rest of Wikipedia nor (more importantly) the most reliable medical sources, which are quite LGBTI+ friendly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You are aware, SMcCandlish, that the Harvard source included in the "Leading institutions" list also provided a definition for "Trans woman" essentially identical to that currently used in the article? Newimpartial (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

And the 5 others listed by Lenny230 do not. So how do you square that with WP:Due weight? Why do you seize on the one and declare it the One True Definition? Crossroads ^-talk- 00:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

No, but I also think WP can do better than all-US, all university sources. Newimpartial (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

"No" doesn't make sense as an answer to either question. What specifically is "better" (i.e. not just equally good) than US sources? And how could there possibly be better sources than university and academic sources? Crossroads ^-talk- 01:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I do not "seize on the one and declare it the One True Definition". That's what my negation was supposed to mean. Also, when I say "WP can do better", I mean better than sources limited to one country, not better countries. :)

And I have nothing against academic sources, but that's not what these are. Among institutional sources, there are many that are typically better than universities IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but in the absence of any other sources, why are editors ignoring the WP:WEIGHT of the sources we have, and choosing the one over the five? And which institutions are better than universities? Crossroads ^-talk- 01:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

To answer your second question, government and civil society sources are the institutional ones I was thinking about. And about WEIGHT, I'm not sure you understand where that list came from. It wasn't built to be representative: an editor cherry-picked those sources based on the way they wanted the LEDE to open, except they kind of blew it when one of their cherry-picked sources turned out to be worded the way the article currently is.

Anyway, do we really need to RfC this *yet*again*? Because I don't see any consensus for change emerging on this Talk page any time soon. Newimpartial (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't think of any good reason to put government and civil society sources ahead of universities. While I've made my points, it's certainly far too soon for an RfC. That would require looking for and comparing more sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Did you look at the sources you listed? It's not just that only 1 agrees with the definition used, another is a dead link, another is a glossary that doesn't include the term trans woman, another is random resources put together by an lgbt club ie not RS and also doesn't define trans women, and the APA source also discusses trans women as women. Without a compelling reason it is likely too soon for another RFC on the same topic again.Rab V (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, one source agreeing with you doesn't do anything about the fact that most of them do not. When the sources conflict with each other, it's our "job" as encyclopedists to document that discrepancy, not to choose a side and fight for it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

But if you look at the available RS on this topic as a whole, the high-quality, recent sources use formulations like that currently opening the article. Don't assume what the list you cited contains, without looking at the wider environment. Newimpartial (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"The mostly two-editor impasse above seems to be a waste of time in having turned circular." Thank you. On the basis of that lucid revelation, I shall now re-evaluate my whole life. H Remster (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Created new subpage to collect definitions

I've created a new subpage located at Talk:Trans woman/Definitions. Rather than arguing endlessly in circles with unsourced assertions, let's cut right to the heart of the matter. We go by the WP:Reliable sources with WP:Due weight. So, I suggest that both sides focus not on trying to convince their opponents (often a futile endeavor and this is not a forum) but instead on looking for sources that give a definition of "trans woman" and listing them in the subpage. No signatures or commentary, just the quote and source. I've added one to get started and show the format. After a while, when the subpage has accumulated many sources, we can look at that and go from there. Meanwhile, the WP:STATUSQUO must remain in place. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that any definition provided within the first sentence of the article must be consistent with the definitions given by the WP:Reliable sources on the subject, but this leaves open the question of whether the definition in the article should be expressed in the technical language of the WP:Reliable sources, or in the ordinary language of the nonspecialist reader. What's the policy on that? So far I've found only MOS:FIRST, which is clearly a style guide rather than a policy. H Remster (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

We need to follow reliable sources, and should also endeavour to use plain language that will be meaningful to the non-specialist reader. The two are not at odds, particularly when we have many reliable sources written for a general audience.--Trystan (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Once again I will point out that we use the very clear language of Sex assignment and link to the relevant (and unambiguous) article. I have seen no evidence that our readers do not understand this language; we simply have a subset of readers who reject the language of the reliable sources for their own reasons, some of whom insist on editing the article incorporating language reflecting their own POV. But this article must reflect the actual sources rather than engaging in OR to shoehorn in concepts that would appeal to these activist readers. Newimpartial (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Trystan Of course the two aren't at odds, but if a source is written for a general audience but the general audience repeatedly responds in ways that are consistent with its having failed to understand the use of language in the definiens, what's the court of appeal? The reliable sources on transgender issues aren't (necessarily) reliable sources on lexicology. H Remster (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Newimpartial WP:GoodFaith H Remster (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The editors in question do not report themselves as "misunderstanding" the lede, they report themselves as objecting to it. I am in fact taking them at their word. And the idea that editors should (or could) appeal to a separate body of "reliable sources on lexicology" is not supported by policy, AFAIK. Newimpartial (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The two are not at odds (objecting to a statement and misunderstanding it). The good-faith assumption is that misunderstanding is the cause of the objection. H Remster (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Having re-read the first comment in this section, I've deleted some material from my contribution to the definitions page. Here's the (now deleted) commentary:

Below are some dictionary definitions of "woman" and "female". With one exception, they're the first definitions provided for these words (the exception being the OALD definition of "female", which comes second). I'm adding these not to challenge the wording of the first sentence of the Wikipedia article, or to express any views on the subject-matter, but to provide support for my claim that "A trans woman is a woman" fails to tell the nonspecialist reader what the subject of the article is (see MOS:FIRST) and hence would benefit from a footnote explaining that the word "woman" is being used in a sense that might be unfamiliar or unexpected. You can judge for yourselves whether these or any other nonspecialist dictionaries also provide definitions that do justice to this potentially unfamiliar or unexpected sense of "woman".

I'm happy for the definitions to be moved here too if the OP deems them irrelevant to their intentions for the definitions page. H Remster (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Cruft

Okay, people need to re-read above why the subpage was started. Extra stuff like this does not belong and will be removed from now on. I said more in the edit summary. And Newimpartial, regarding this, who taught you research methods whereby you begin with a conclusion and fit any and all evidence to that conclusion? You need to re-read this comment by SMcCandlish. And also WP:Due weight. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

That isn't what I did, but anyway, characterizing my edits accurately has never been your area of great strength, has it, Crossroads? I am glad to see the crud gone, in any case. Newimpartial (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, upon closer inspection, it looks like H Remster originally added this, but then you did this and this. Would have been better to revert. To both of you, analyses belong on the talk page. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Be that as it may, there are many ways to carry on a discussion. In any case, I'm glad the cruft is gone, but I think you, Crossroads, were overzealous in stripping the initial list of secondary definitions that were helpful in informing the primary definition of "Trans woman" from certain sources. However, I carried on with a straw tally regardless. Newimpartial (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. Removing the other stuff is fine by me (which you'll know already, having the read the sentence immediately preceding this section). It does, however, render the definitions page irrelevant to the most recent discussions about the first sentence of the article, which have been not about its accuracy, but about its intelligibility (i.e. to the reader not already familiar with trans matters). H Remster (talk) 08:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe you offered a while back to post those definitions of other words here on this talk page instead of in the subpage. If you want to do that, that's fine with me. Keep in mind too that many of the definitions in the subpage already have to consider intelligibility to audiences unfamiliar with trans-related discourse. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that (about the definitions on the subpage). But is intelligibility the sole, or even the primary, concern of the authors? And have they sufficient expertise in non-specialist uses of words to qualify as reliable sources? Obviously they're speakers of English, but it's notorious that specialists in a discipline people who have studied a subject can lose their grasp of how words requisitioned by that discipline subject are used outside it. H Remster (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Straw tally

So to begin to move forward, I will do a straw tally (like a straw poll) of the first tranche of 30 definitions posted.

Of these, the current first sentence ("A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth" is directly supported by 8 of the 30 (1, 4, 13, 20, 22, 26, 28 and 30).

Five use the language of "gender identity" (2, 6, 19, 23 and 27).

Five use language invoking the concept of "transition" or "MtF" (3, 10, 23, 24 and 27).

Five - and this surprised me the most - use "lives as" or related language such as "portrays her gender as" (5, 9, 15, 24 and 29).

Two (7 and the entry "Trans feminine" which Crossroads removed from entry 30) refer to the "female spectrum".

Twelve of the entries use the phrase "identifies as" (8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 24 and 25).

So a plurality, though not a majority, of these sources use "identity as"; it is striking to me that almost half of these also make reference to "transition" language, "lives as" language, or both (9, 15, 23, 24 and 25).

Of course, this straw tally does not attempt to take into account the quality of the respective sources or any other factors, and only includes the tranche of definitions linked so far. Newimpartial (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Enlightening and thorough. Also completely beside the point. H Remster (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Gonna be a little more comprehensive here. Definitions break down as:

• "...a woman/women...": 6 (1, 4, 17, 26, 28, 30)
• "...a person/people...": 7 (2, 3, 8, 11, 16, 24, 25)
• "...someone...": 2 (7, 9)
• "...individuals...": 1 (18)
• "...a child or adult...": 1 (6)
• "...children...": 1 (12)
• "...an adult...": 1 (19)
• "...a male-to-female transsexual.": 1 (10)
• "...a transgender or transsexual woman.": 1 (20)
• "...a transgender person...": 1 (21, 27)
• Does not start "A trans woman is a..." or a grammatical equivalent such as "'Trans woman' refers to a...": 7 (5, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 29)

I would characterize these as there not really being a consensus on woman vs. person vs. something else among the sources. Nothing achieved a plurality, though "a woman" and "a person" were definitely the most common. Loki (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Isn't the rule of thumb to not use the word which is being defined in its own definition? "Woman" is part of the term "trans woman", so I would think it would be better to include "adult human female" within the definition for trans woman, or use the word "person". Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

If we're just describing what we like, rather than what is supported by the most (or the best) sources, I would prefer "A Trans woman is a person of the female gender who was assigned male at birth." It ducks the recursivity/referentiality problem, provides links that immediately help the reader, and does not undermine trans people's gender identity the way "people who identity as" language tends to do. But I suspect I am whistling in the wind. Newimpartial (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I've just found this exchange by chance while looking for the straw tally. NewImpartial and I agree with each other. Who'd have thought it? I'm about to have a good look at those sources. (For what it's worth, I've been taking "A trans woman is a woman who ..." to be a definition-in-use of "trans", so that the occurrence of "woman" in both the definiendum and the definiens is virtuous.) H Remster (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, here’s my own contribution to the analysis. There seem to me to be two relevant axes, which are:

• ‘Is’ v. ‘identifies as’ (incl. ‘has such-and-such an identity’, ‘lives as’, etc.)
• ‘Woman’ v. ‘female’

This is the breakdown:

	Is	Identifies as	Total
Woman	7	10	17
Female	2	10	12
Total	9	20	29

I’ve omitted the following three definitions on grounds of ambiguity or all-inclusiveness: 13 (those what?), 16 (what similar terms?), 24 (covers all the optiona).

Clearly ‘woman’ is more prevalent than ‘female’ overall, but unless it’s disputed that trans women are adult humans, I can’t see that it matters. What seems more important to me is the prevalence of ‘identifies as’ (etc.) over ‘is’. I get NewImpartial’s point, which I recall reading somewhere, that the exact phrase ‘identifies as’ is in danger of being interpreted as ‘identifies as but isn’t really’. For that reason, I favour ‘has such-and-such an identity’. The addition of ‘gender’ serves to distinguish between the female sex and the female gender, which I think is important for reasons that I’m not going to bloat the page by repeating. As I’ve said a couple of times, I like Kolya Butternut’s version ‘person of the female gender’, but ‘person with a female gender identity’ would be closer to the sources. H Remster (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

That was actually NewImpartial's version. I am also open to considering "person with a female gender identity". Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Prior to the straw tally, I was leaning towards "with a female gender identity". However, this descriptor was referred to less frequently by the RS than I expected, while other factors (notably "living as" a woman or "transitioning") were more prominent than I thought. My sense now is that "of the female gender" covers these aspects better than "with a female gender identity" and also might be less forbidding for new readers on the topic. The aspects of gender than are not narrowly about gender identity, such as societal norms about gender, do apply to the article and the lede so I don't think any clarity is lost by using this more general term. Indeed, the argument could be made that before "gender identity" was a concept, "people of the female gender who were assigned male at birth" provides a definition that applies more accurately to Trans women avant la lettre, and this is a feature rather than a bug in my view. Newimpartial (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to give that some thought, but just to confirm that we agree about the basic facts, I make it 3 x 'live-', 5 x 'identit-', and 18 x 'identif-'. Is that right? (I'm about to go to bed, so I might have missed something glaring.) H Remster (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to use the definition of "Trans woman" used by leading institutions.

I have done research and found that the following institutions (whose credibility, prestige and pro LGBT policies are widely known) use the following definitions of "trans woman":

1. HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL: Sexual and Gender Minority Health Equity Initiative

  "An individual assigned male at birth and identifies as a girl or woman"
   Source: https://lgbt.hms.harvard.edu/terminology

2. STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Vaden Health Services

  "Someone who was male assigned at birth who identifies as a woman or on the feminine spectrum"
   Source: https://vaden.stanford.edu/health-resources/lgbtqia-health/transgender-health/glossary-terms-related-transgender-communities

3. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: LGBT Center - The Language of Gender

  "A child or adult who was born anatomically male but has a female gender identity"
   Source: http://lgbt.princeton.edu/resources

4. JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, School of Medicine - Glossary of Transgender Terms

  "Someone assigned the male gender at birth who identifies on the female spectrum"
   Source: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/articles/glossary-of-terms-1

5. AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION - Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People

  "A person whose sex assigned at birth was male, but who identifies as a woman"
   Source:  https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/transgender.pdf

6. PLANNED PARENTHOOD - Transgender Identity Terms and Labels

  "A person whose sex assigned at birth was male but whose gender identity is female"
   Source: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/gender-identity/transgender/transgender-identity-terms-and-labels

In conclusion:

• As you can verify NONE of them use the phrase "A trans woman is a woman" which is the phrase used in the article (without any reference).

• ALL of the institutions indicated use the formula: "What the person is biologically + What the person identifies with". If we are to follow the principle of Wikipedia which is to use valid references and verifiable sources this is the definition formula that the article must use for the time being.

I propose to use the following phrase: "A trans woman is a person assigned male at birth who identifies as a woman or on the feminine spectrum" . The proposed definition is a summary of the definitions detailed lines above.

Lenny230 (talk) 5 July 2020, 16:47 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenny230 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC) 

In other words, do you really think trans women are not women?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lenny230: This has been discussed on multiple occasions before and no consensus to change the opening sentence has been achieved. Please see the box above this page's table of contents for links to previous discussions. --John B123 (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The definition should not be what person 1 or person 2 "thinks". If the definition is debatable then it should come from a verifiable consensus which is what I am proposing with valid sources and verifiable references. Can you show references from leading institutions using the phrase "a trans woman is a woman" as a formal definition? Lenny230 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Can one of the watchers of this page link us to the RfC mentioned recently here in the edsum, so that Lenny and I can see why we are writing the article in a way that Lenny objects to? It will help both of us. Thanks. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Talk:Trans woman/Archive 4#RfC on introduction --John B123 (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you John, I shall read it carefully. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hah, it's huge. Don't expect to hear from me for a while. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a no, for reasons that have been rehashed at length in previous discussions (linked above). Cheers, -sche (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable to have a definition without valid references or verifiable sources. Seems some editors are imposing their own agenda here on Wikipedia. The principle of neutral content is breached. --Lenny230 (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree. The lede into this article should be changed and is absolutely not backed up with any verifiable references. Vember94 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree as well, the lede is currently pushing a POV and the wording that is not supported and is highly controversial, which is why the issue doesn't go away despite it having been argued before. A more neutral definition from the reliable sources suggested above by Lenny230 would provide a clearer explanation to a person reading this article. If Transwomen are women then why does the term "trans woman" exist at all? Walterego (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

If cis women are women why does the term cis women exist?  Yes this is all very controversial but we're simply trying to be clear for readers about how this concept is best defined. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I doubt whether the above was written with our current proposal in mind. H Remster (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)