Talk:Woman

Ada Lovelace should be added to the science section of the article

How is possible that Ada Lovelace is not mentioned in the science section of this article?

Ada Lovelace was the creator one of the first algorithms for modern computers, she had the intention to develop software for multipurpose tasks, not just the first woman, but one of the first humans if not the first in doing that.

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ada_Lovelace#First_published_computer_program

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Note_G

Thanks.--Zchemic (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The section Women § Science, literature and art is meant to be a summary of the articles Women in science, Women in literature, and Women in art. To avoid becoming overly long and cluttered (it already contains 6 paras and 2 images), it cannot hope to include every notable woman in these fields, regardless of her contributions. The Countess of Lovelace is mentioned in Women in science § Early nineteenth century and her portrait appears in an imagebox alongside Curie later in that article.

It is for the best that the text of this summary section mostly avoids mentioning women by name, as this begets lots of why does X get included, and not Y, which eventually expands into a WP:BLUESEA of links. For a particularly egregious example of the useless and unreadable text this kind of editing produces, see old revisions of the article Gay icon. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

On "wermann"

The page in its current form mentions without sources the supposed existence of the Old English word wermann. This word is, unless I'm gravely mistaken, completely unattested (try finding it on Wiktionary, for example) and possibly fabricated. Unless a good source can be found for the existence of wermann as an OE word (and a cursory internet search reveals only discussions pondering where on earth it supposedly came from), its mention ought to be removed. AutisticCatnip (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

You appear to be correct. For those interested, here are some such discussions [1][2][3]. I've gone and made an edit (Special:Diff/1216741813) which replaces the specious wermann with wer (apparently the most common OE word for male/man) and wǣpnedmann, which is attested occasionally as the analogue to wifmann. I hope this looks acceptable.

I think the Dictionary.com link is rotten, as it no longer contains the information we're citing it for. If anyone has access to the OED or another source which verifies this etymology, please verify this text if possible. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Why does this page use extended confirmed protection even though Man uses semi-protection only?

... Usersnipedname (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

GENSEX enforcement vs. generic vandalism. Dronebogus (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Also because trolls and bigots perseverate more on people assigned male at birth who are either gay/bi/pan or trans. Transwomen are targeted more than transmen and thus this article gets more trolls. Here's an article: [4] EvergreenFir (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The page has had ECP since July 2023. At that time the article and talk had some targeted vandalism from sockpuppets that had gamed autoconfirmation. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 04:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

A new departure required for this article (and others)

Following the Tickle v Giggle judgement should this article be reframed in its entirety?

The Guardian points out:

The Australian Human Rights Commission acted as a friend of the court. Barrister Zelie Heger told the court that sex was no longer defined in the Sex Discrimination Act but that “importantly the act recognises that a person’s sex is not limited to [being a man or a woman]”.

This doesn’t just have repercussions in the jurisdiction of the court that made the judgement

The Beeb draws attention to the significance of this judgement:

“So today’s ruling in favour of Tickle will be significant for all the 189 countries where CEDAW has been ratified - from Brazil to India to South Africa.

When it comes to interpreting international treaties, national courts often look at how other countries have done it.

Australia’s interpretation of the law in a case that got this level of media attention is likely to have global repercussions.

If over time a growing number of courts rule in favour of gender identity claims - it is more likely that other countries will follow suit.”

Is the term ‘Woman’ as has been widely understood and as reflected in this article (possibly even as a distinct definition) becoming anachronistic?

Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The judgment is from a single Australian court and legal definitions don't necessarily override biological, social, or historical understandings of womanhood. The article currently presents multiple viewpoints, including both traditional and evolving definitions of womanhood. Legal definitions serve specific purposes and may not encompass the full complexity of biological, social, and cultural understandings of womanhood. The concept of woman has deep cultural, historical, and biological roots that extend beyond legal definitions.

Wikipedia should aim to present mainstream knowledge and established facts. A single court case does not warrant an immediate overhaul of a fundamental concept. The article should reflect various perspectives, including traditional definitions alongside emerging views. Drastically changing the article based on one legal decision is overreactive.

Major changes should be based on broad scholarly and societal consensus, not single events. The current article already includes information on gender identity and the evolving understanding of sex and gender in the opening section. Adding information about this court case and its implications could be done without completely reframing the entire article. The implications of this ruling might be better covered in a separate article or section, rather than reframing the entire concept of woman. ViolanteMD (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a great response. Thanks for taking the time. I'm broadly very with you but I think, given the 'lean' that what we consider to be RS have it's a discussion we need to have.

Let's see if any other editors have a view. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not even clear what would need to be changed, but regardless, I agree with ViolanteMD that it is not warranted to reframe anything at this time. The content in the article is based on reliable sources on the topic, of which there are extremely many; a court case isn't going to impact that much. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not exactly a revolutionary position either. For many legal purposes, gender/sex is defined as something that can be reassigned, rather than what you were born as. Anywikiuser (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Usage of phrasing from the article of trans woman in this article

@Crossroads

The phrasing of Transgender women are women who were assigned male at birth and have a female gender identity is the phrasing used on the article for trans woman and is the result of a longstanding consensus and discussion. Attempts to that definition should be made on the article trans woman, not this article. A Socialist Trans Girl 03:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

There's no rule that says we have to copy the exact wording from another article. The point to be made in this paragraph is that gender assignment doesn't necessarily align with gender identity. "Trans women have a gender identity that does not align with their sex assignment" is true, verifiable, concise, and relevant to the specific point. If the point of the paragraph were to insist that trans women really are True™ women, despite the contrary POV held by some people, then we might want to reconsider that, but I think this is enough for the actual point of the paragraph. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Given the multiple 200KB RfCs related to this phrase (newcomers, see Talk:Trans woman/Archive 4, Talk:Trans woman/Archive 10, Talk:Trans woman/Definitions and bring a snack) it seems prudent for this article to reflect the consensus—rather, the status-quo in the absence of consensus—at Trans woman. The validity of trans womanhood within Wikivoice is, if not a shut case, then something I'm very tired of reading centralized discussions about. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 04:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

An RFC about what to say in the MOS:FIRST sentence of a different article has no bearing on what to say elsewhere in a different article.

Your comment has reminded me of a discussion earlier this year (probably related to WP:LOCALCON) about whether editors have an RFC on one page and then assert that the decision at Article A applies to all articles. I was skeptical that editors actually tried that, but you have just proven that they do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This sentence is summarizing a sub-topic, (and could be WP:SYNCed using an Excerpt) if we weren't also pluralizing and combining it with a definition of Intersex), I think the phrasing at the target article is definitely relevant (if not binding). I think those past discussions are relevant here, if not binding. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 14:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This (half) sentence in the lead connects to (most of) a single paragraph in the body, which does not really feel like a WP:SUMMARY situation to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing That's true that there's no rule for it having to do that, however I see no reason for it not to mirror the phrasing from its own article.

The thing with that sentence is that it doesn't establish the relationship to the topic, and can leave readers confused about the relation to the article. Establishing the relationship to the article of a category of woman is far more clear than the current version.

Additionally, I don't see much underlying reasoning for removing it other than the belief that they AREN'T. Which, The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered. (from WP:UNDUE). The point of the paragraph is to highlight the existence of two specific types of women and provide a definition for them.

Your sentence proposal of "Trans women have a gender identity that does not align with their sex assignment" doesn't work as a definition, because the definition form would therefore be "(someone) who has a gender identity that doesn't align with their sex assignment" which is too broad.

Also for RoxySaunders' reasoning that it 'makes it semantically clear that we are defining a term, not merely making an observation.'. A Socialist Trans Girl 10:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this article needs to define trans women. I think it needs to provide information about trans women.

BTW, what you have called "my sentence proposal" is what the article said before your recent efforts to change it. 10 years ago, trans women were barely name-checked in the lead as an example of women who could not give birth. Five years ago, this article said "Some women are trans (those who have a male sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity), or intersex (those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female)." For a while, it said "Trans women are those who...". The "have" language appeared soon after that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Well there's not much point in providing information about trans women to the readers if we dont even say what trans women are, definitionally speaking. A Socialist Trans Girl 23:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I prefer the explicit [Trans/intersex] women are women who... forms. Given the apparent challenge these identities present toward more simplistic models of sex and gender, their respective womanhood does bear repeating. The perceived redundancy in Transgender women are women who... makes it semantically clear that we are defining a term, not merely making an observation. This is helpful for orienting lay readers who may initially misunderstand "transgender women" as "AFAB transgender people". –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 04:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I stand by what I said in my edit summary, which is that "women are women" is redundant/poor writing. The lead sentence of trans woman and the sentences here on trans women serve different purposes; one defines the topic of that article, while the other describes a subset of the people described in this article. It is already established in this article that women are being talked about.

It is not the case that it doesn't establish the relationship to the topic; the term 'trans women' contains the word 'women' already. Nor will readers possibly be confused by thinking of AFAB transgender people, as it immediately defines the term with Transgender women were assigned male at birth and have a female gender identity.

My edit also slimmed down "intersex women are women who...", for the same reason. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Crossroads How is it poor writing?

And the purpose is to define a type of subset of woman. A Socialist Trans Girl 23:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I see where Crossroads is coming from, because it does feel a bit redundant. "The department of redundancy department is the department that..." I would usually agree that it's subpar writing. But I think I'm this case an exception is warranted given the context. I'm sure I've explained this train of thought before, and probably more eloquently, but I think there is actually a fair bit of semantic confusion around the term "trans woman" or "trans man" that doesn't occur with say the phrase "black woman." This is hardly scientific, but my observation has been that a lot of folks think trans woman means trans man and vice versa. So I think making the somewhat ungrammatical choice is actually the superior choice. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

TLDR: keep it the way it was :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@CaptainEek, I think you will have to specify when "the way it was". Until a few weeks ago, the lead said:

"Trans women have a gender identity that does not align with their male sex assignment at birth, while intersex women may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology."

A couple of years before that, it said:

"Trans women have a male sex assignment at birth that does not align with their gender identity, while intersex women may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology."

If we go back five years, it said:

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

The "women are women" language was introduced recently by A Socialist Trans Girl, and it was removed less than three hours later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess I misread the edits then. I'd have to go back and see what I said in the previous discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

As I'm sure most of us remember, and as A Socialist Trans Girl and others have alluded to above, this same question has been debated extensively over at Trans woman. The longstanding consensus attained there resulted in the following wording: Transgender women (often shortened to trans women) are women who were assigned male at birth. There is of course no requirement that different articles describe a term in the same way, but I think we would be wise to observe the previously-attained consensus. It is, as far as I can tell, exactly the same question being asked here as was there -- contrary to some assertions made by others here, I don't see any meaningful difference between the two articles that would invalidate the consensus achieved by the community there.

To lay things out explicitly, the only argument raised against inclusion of trans women are women who... seems to be that it's redundant. I think we're missing something, though -- in my reading, there are two important semantic differences between the following two sentences.

A: Trans women were assigned male at birth...

B: Trans women are women who were assigned male at birth...

Sentence A states only that trans women were assigned male at birth. Sentence B states three things:

1. Trans women were assigned male are birth.

2. (new) Women who were assigned male at birth are trans women.

3. (new) Trans women are women.

I think the second item is most important here: consider the difference between "Mome raths sleep at night" and "Mome raths are raths that sleep at night". The first merely tells us a fact about mome raths, while the second tells us that the category of mome raths is defined by the practice of sleeping at night. If you wanted a sentence that expressed items 1 and 2 but not 3 (as some did at the RfC), you could say trans women are people who were assigned male at birth... (to be clear, I would oppose this wording, because the tiptoeing around item 3 communicates to readers that it's false, which runs counter to what our reliable sources say). I anticipate that some will argue that item 3 above is tautological -- "of course trans women are women, it's in the name!". To those people, I would point you to the previous RfC, where, while the community did rightly conclude that it was proper to describe trans women as women, many editors hotly debated this categorization. (Of course, we write for our readers, not our editors, but I think the RfC is illustrative that many people out there are confused about this fact).

Now, the good news for us is that, backed by the Trans woman RfC, it seems we all agree that statements 1, 2 and 3 are supported by proportional usage in reliable sources. We have some slight disagreement about whether item 3 needs to be explicitly stated, or if it can be implied, but we're already on track for a nice consensus. So the question just becomes how best to express them. As I've said above, I think the current state of the article fails. I think there's a few good ways we could do this, though. I think ASTG's suggestion is a good one -- that would probably be my first choice. I also have no major issue with the previous state of this article as CaptainEek points to: Some women are trans (those who have a male sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity), or intersex (those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female) (though perhaps it's more accurate to put the sex assignment bit in past tense). Srey Sros^talk 00:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The "Some women are trans" language wasn't something CaptainEek mentioned, and I don't know whether they prefer it. That's just what the article said five years ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

That's correct - I don't know if Eek likes it or not either, but I credit them with pointing to it nonetheless. Srey Sros^talk 01:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The RfC you linked to says: On the whole, there is consensus that both option 1 and option 2 are superior to other presented options. There is no consensus as to whether option 1 or option 2 is preferable. In the absence of affirmative consensus, the status quo (which appears to be option 1) holds.; that RfC was from 6 years ago. The RfC from a year ago says There is no consensus between proposal 1 and proposal 2. So there really isn't a solid, "longstanding consensus attained", just no consensus defaulting to the status quo in both RfCs, which is the A trans woman is a woman wording at the Trans woman article.

Anyway, that aside, I'm fine with how the trans women sentence is currently worded on this article, but my preferred phrasing would be something along the lines of: Women who are transgender have a male sex assignment that does not align with their female gender identity... or Women who are transgender were assigned male at birth and have a female gender identity... Some1 (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)