Talk:Woman/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Proposed first paragraph again

@A Socialist Trans Girl proposed above that we consider a new paragraph for the lead:

Definitions of woman vary over time, between cultures, and within cultures, mostly stemming from whether or not Sex (Such as Female) and Gender (such as Woman) are distinct (i.e, inherently deterministic of gender). Most contemporary social scientists, behavioral scientists and biologists, many legal systems and government bodies, and intergovernmental agencies such as the WHO make a distinction between gender and sex, the distinction first being introduced in 1955. Prior to this, the two terms have historically been used synonymously. A viewpoint that does not distinguish between sex and gender and holds sex as inherently deterministic of gender continues to exist as a minority perspective today.

I don't think it's quite as clear as you intended. First,

• "Definitions of woman vary over time, between cultures, and within cultures, mostly stemming from whether or not Sex (Such as Female) and Gender (such as Woman) are distinct (i.e, inherently deterministic of gender)."

may not technically be true. Definitions vary over time, but the concept of the SGD has existed for less than a century, so that wouldn't really explain variations that predate the concept. For example, was Hatshepsut still "a woman", even though she wore a ceremonial false beard as monarch of Egypt? They didn't think of her behavior as gender, and they wouldn't have called the king's mother trans. (Also, the "i.e." is probably wrong and is probably a misplaced modifier or something, since it's not clear from the grammar what it is that is inherently deterministic of gender.)

The sources you cite say things like "roles of women and men are culturally determined, and differ in time and place" and "Gender roles are learned, may change over time, and vary within and between cultures", but women's roles ≠ women. Consequently, it will be trivial for any objector to get the first half of that sentence removed as a case of {{failed verification}}, and the second half (the part making the potentially contentious claim that it is "mostly" about whether they are distinct, as opposed to which one matters more) isn't sourced, so it can be immediately WP:CHALLENGED and removed.

• Most contemporary social scientists, behavioral scientists and biologists, many legal systems and government bodies, and intergovernmental agencies such as the WHO make a distinction between gender and sex, the distinction first being introduced in 1955.

The second sentence might be okay, but the 2011 archived copy of http://www.socialsciencedictionary.com/GENDER doesn't WP:Directly support the claim, and this makes me wonder if the others do (I didn't check any of the others).

The third sentence:

• Prior to this, the two terms have historically been used synonymously.

is a bit dubious. Assuming our article at Gender is reasonably accurate, then relative to the history of the English language, there was only a brief, recent blip during which the word gender was commonly used, mostly so that S-E-X didn't have to be mentioned in polite company and/or around impressionable young children and/or those who might ask embarrassing questions (like "What's sex, Great Aunt Matilda? Mommy, why did Great Aunt Matilda just faint?"). Also, that sentence is all about the wording, which may present a Wikipedia:REFERS problem, since the article is about Woman and not about Language used to talk about women. It might be better off in a separate section.

The last, unsourced sentence:

• A viewpoint that does not distinguish between sex and gender and holds sex as inherently deterministic of gender...

is mostly missing the point. The "anti-trans" POV isn't that sex and gender aren't distinct; the POV is that biology is destiny.

Consider this imperfect but perhaps illustrative (and hopefully funny) analogy:

A department store typically sells a variety of merchandise that is suitable for wearing on human bodies. We're going to call that "apparel". Within the category of "apparel", there is a major distinction made between "clothing" and "shoes". Everyone agrees that "clothing" and "shoes" are both apparel. None of the sales staff or customers have any trouble communicating which kind of apparel they want to buy. The people who are seeking new shoes are shown shoes to buy, and the ones seeking new clothes are shown clothes. Nobody says "Oh? You want shoes? Well, it's all apparel; there's no distinction between clothes and shoes. Here, have a shirt. You can wrap it around your foot."

However, one group says that shoes are more important, and that all outfits should be designed around the shoes. The other group says that clothes are more important, and shoes should be chosen to match the clothes. If a customer wearing a mismatched outfit comes into the department store and asks for help, the first group says "Let me help you find some clothes that will go with your wonderful shoes." The second group says "Let me help you find some shoes that will go with your wonderful clothes."

The two groups are not disagreeing over whether shoes and clothes (or sex and gender identity) are distinct. They're disagreeing about which is the more important category.

Thus it is with the POVs here: none of them are saying that there's no difference between getting pregnant and feeling like you belong to the group that has historically been associated with childbirth. One side is saying that the emotional side is more important than the physical side, and the other side is saying that the physical side is more important than emotions, and – this is where that spectrum that we talked about earlier comes in – a lot of people fall in the middle. A lot of people think that the physical side is more important in some contexts (e.g., childbirth) but the emotional side is more important in other contexts (e.g., what you should do if a complete stranger says her name is Jennifer). See https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2022/07/20/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights for one example of the complex and nuanced approach that many people hold. "Very few Britons took a blanket view of trans issues across our survey", they write, noting that only 5 out of 1751 (0.3%) survey respondents took the extreme position (identity-only or sex-only) on every question.

.

Finally, there's the main problem: This proposal does not say what a woman is. Per MOS:FIRST, "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English." This does not tell any readers what the subject of this article is. It tells them that definitions of the subject are disputed, but does not tell them what the subject is.

I would love to have this article say that there are multiple (valid) definitions of woman. I think that is probably better suited for a ==Definitions== section than for the first paragraph, but I'd love to see that content added. However, using this paragraph as the first one would IMO be a step backwards, because we'd go from (IMO) over-focusing on one definition to having zero definitions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to say that I really appreciate all of the discussion and feedback on the lede paragraph proposal. I'll go over each part.

• That's true, the phrasing is mainly focused on the modern variance. I think it would be more accurate to say "..., with variance in the modern era mostly stemming from whether.." instead.
• I did notice the i.e being ambiguous after publishing the edit with it, so trying to addressing those I got "Definitions of woman vary over time, between cultures, and within cultures, with variance in the modern era mostly stemming from whether or not Sex (Such as Female) is distinct (i.e, inherently deterministic of) Gender (such as Woman)."
• With the issue of it not saying what the article (Woman) is about, with it still being a varied definition, I think the solution is to use the incredibly useful tactic of using it as a proper noun to refer to the idea of the gender itself, and the broad scope of that. So, I've came up with "Woman is a Socially constructed gender, i.e, a set of social expectations, characteristics, and behavior that is typically associated with certain sex traits. Those social roles vary over time, between cultures, and within cultures. There is disagreement over whether Sex (Such as Female) is distinct (i.e, inherently deterministic of) Gender (such as Woman)..." to solve that issue, which I believe addresses that issue well.
• The socialsciencedictionary one was excerpt from Sex-gender distinction, so if it doesn't say that it can be removed.
• With having the several definitions in a separate section, we could do that, after all, my initial proposal of this included 'that we can either have the definitions be in the lede paragraph, or the first section'. So we do we just move "There is disagreement over whether Sex (such as..." and onward into a new section?
• "is mostly missing the point. The "anti-trans" POV isn't that sex and gender aren't distinct; the POV is that biology is destiny." Well, the position moreso is that sex is inherently deterministic of one's gender, (still within the purview of the SGD) so we could just say that, and have "A viewpoint that holds sex as inherently deterministic of gender continues to exist as a minority perspective today." however, there's the thing with it not having a citation; what should we do with that? Should we not have it unless we find a DUE RS? Or something else?
• Also, I think it's not really which is more important, but rather if sex is deterministic of gender. Also, keep in mind that the relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered, so polling should not be used to establish DUE weight.

Thoughts? A Socialist Trans Girl 07:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC) A Socialist Trans Girl 07:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

MOS:REFERS and MOS:FIRST are compelling reasons to not go with such a change, I'd add WP:STICKTOSOURCE (i.e. reliable sources which are actually defining woman). The relevance of sources about the sex-gender distinction to the definition (let alone the second sentence of a completely different article) is not trivially shown here and feels WP:synthy and WP:undue. We absolutely should not begin an encyclopedia article with "no one fully agrees on what exactly the subject of this article is" unless authoritative sources also feel obliged to asterisk that subject with the same caveat (for example, articles about nebulous buzzwords like web3 and dogwhistles like gender ideology with no agreed-upon meaning). In addition to being poor style it reads like teaching the controversy. All dictionary definitions are inherently non-exact, so we have the remainder of the article to expound on necessary terminological and lexicographical nuances, something I think Woman § Terminology does admirably.

If we're gonna discuss changing "adult female human" for the fifty-thousandth time, I'd personally prefer amending it with a footnote following the first sentence, solidifying the (currently only transitive across articles) implication that:

Female can refer to either a woman's biological sex or social gender (gender identity, gender role, etc.), as the two may diverge (in the case of transgender and intersex people) or be treated as distinct concepts.

I recall some-such such a proposal coming up in a previous discussion (maybe on Man?) but not gaining much traction. I'm also not deadset on this particular language. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 07:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC) –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 07:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree, oppose change. These are useful comments, as are the comments from WhatamIdoing. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I feel like most of those concerns I have addressed, with the rephrasing, added sentence(s), and moving of some to a new first section, would you agree?

Also, with I'd add WP:STICKTOSOURCE (i.e. reliable sources which are actually defining woman), the issue is that reliable source's aren't defining woman, because there's no real (non-ID) definition of woman that is accurate, and you bring up that All dictionary definitions are inherently non-exact, though woman is uniquely so in that it's a social category which is present in many different time periods and culture with different meanings in many, so there's really not any accurate single definition.

With your proposed footnote, the main issue with that is it doesn't specify which meaning 'female' has in the definition, and it also begs the question; what is the definition of the gender of 'female'? And also, with the interpretation there left open, it also allows for trans-exclusionary interpretations.

Also, where do you believe that it is 'teaching the controversy'? I want to avoid any UNDUE weight. A Socialist Trans Girl 08:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it really true that reliable source's aren't defining woman, because there's no real (non-ID) definition of woman that is accurate, or would it be more accurate to say that reliable sources define woman, but you/some people don't accept any of the non-(self-)identity-based definitions as being accurate?

When I look in a dictionary and find an entry that begins with "woman, n.", followed by some text about what that noun means, I generally think that they're "defining woman". Don't you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing No, I'd say the former is more accurate, and I'm not arguing for a definitive prescriptive definition of woman with it merely being the self ID one; but rather acknowledging the true nature of language as that which is descriptive, and there being no universal definition; the reason that those prescriptive deterministic definitions are not accurate is because they exclude people who are women (such as intersex women, postmenopausal women, GNC women, etc) and can include people who are not.

Dictionaries in this circumstance are not WP:RS and what is RS in this instance rather is academic/IO sources, of which do not provide a definition, because of several reasons which I believe have already been explained. Do you have further feedback on my new one which I believe addresses your concerns? A Socialist Trans Girl 04:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

"There's no universal definition" is not at all the same thing as "No reliable source in the entire world provide even one definition for the word woman".

Dictionaries are reliable sources in this circumstance. Modern dictionaries provide definitions based on how people actually use the world. This means that the dictionary definitions are descriptive.

• Here is an example of a prescriptive definition: "You are a woman if you personally hold that self-identity. There is no other proper use of the word woman."
• Here is an example of a descriptive definition: "A lot of people use woman to describe an adult whose gender expression is typical for the half of humanity who are at risk of becoming pregnant at some point during their lives. Of course, your guess about whether their gender expression is typical might not align with other people's, especially when you're describing people from a different culture, but that's one of the common ways people use this word."

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing That's one of the main reasons why dictionaries aren't RS here, because, once again, The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered. Also, what I mean be 'descriptive' and 'prescriptive' here is in reference to RS, not the general population. A Socialist Trans Girl 03:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Dictionaries are neither "Wikipedia editors" nor "the general public". When the question is "What does this word mean?", then the relative prominence of meanings as reported in published, reliable sources, including (but not limited to) dictionaries is absolutely a factor we should consider.

You appear to be arguing that we should reject all reliable sources that take a descriptive approach to the definition (e.g., modern dictionaries) and accept only reliable sources that take a prescriptive approach (e.g., a scholarly book that says something like "for the purpose of this discussion, a woman is defined as..."). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I recommend you read WP:SCIRS. Dictionaries aren't really RS here, and certainly do not override the sources provided.

I'm arguing for it being descriptive of the RS with due weight; we're meant to be descriptive of the RS, not RS descriptive of the general population. A Socialist Trans Girl 13:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I think I'd support just the first line of that in a footnote on the first sentence, to keep things short and simple; extended discussion is more for the article itself. The first line is more just for what a dictionary would say, i.e.:

A woman is an adult female human.^[a]

a.^ Female can refer to either a woman's biological sex or social gender. The plural women is sometimes used in certain phrases such as "women's rights" to denote female humans regardless of age.

That women are adult humans is the obvious, easy part -- "adult female human" is perfectly good and correct, but kicks the can down the road to the word "female", which I think we probably need to explain. Endwise (talk) 08:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The main issue with that is it doesn't specify which meaning 'female' has in the definition, and it also begs the question; what is the definition of the gender of 'female'? And also, with the interpretation there left open, it also allows for trans-exclusionary interpretations. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Correct, there was an RfC on Man on the footnote idea that was never formally closed but pretty clearly did not have a consensus for the change: [1] Crossroads ^-talk- 05:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Thanks to the feedback, I've been able to make several improvements. Here is the new version, which I believe addresses the feedback:

Woman is a Socially constructed gender, i.e, a set of social expectations, characteristics, and behavior that is typically associated with certain sex traits. Those social roles vary over time, between cultures, and within cultures.

[First section] Relationship to Sex

There is disagreement over whether Sex (Such as Female) is distinct (i.e, inherently deterministic of) Gender (such as Woman). Most contemporary social scientists, behavioral scientists and biologists, many legal systems and government bodies, and intergovernmental agencies such as the WHO make a distinction between gender and sex, the distinction first being introduced in 1955. Prior to this, the two terms have historically been used synonymously. A viewpoint that holds sex as inherently deterministic of gender continues to exist as a minority perspective today.

With this, we could do a different title of the first section, and also however, there's the thing with the last sentence not having a citation; what should we do with that? Should we not have it unless we find a DUE RS? Or something else?

Thoughts? A Socialist Trans Girl 03:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC) A Socialist Trans Girl 03:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

So, woman is no longer a human? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Do you think the new version addressed your original concerns? A Socialist Trans Girl 13:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Your version changes the topic from a group of humans (about half the world population, as it turns out) to a social construct. And in general it foregrounds the sex and gender distinction so heavily so as to give it hugely WP:UNDUE weight, basically making the article a retread of that tangential topic. This isn't how RS treat the topic of women. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@A Socialist Trans Girl, the current first sentence says that a woman is a human ("A woman is an adult female human"). Your proposed first says that a woman is a gender ("Woman is a Socially constructed gender"). I don't think that improves the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Woman as a proper noun refers to the concept of the gender, and refers to a person of that gender as an improper noun. I don't think having information on the former category (which being of is the defining characteristic of the ladder) is at all an unimprovement of the article.

Also, with "Your proposed first says that a woman is a gender", that's not correct, it says that Woman is a gender..., not a woman. A Socialist Trans Girl 08:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

"Woman" isn't a proper noun. Do you mean "Woman, when the word is used as discipline-specific jargon"? Capitalization is one approach used in written documents to indicate that the author is using a common noun to indicate an abnormal meaning. See, e.g., capitalization in some legal documents: "In this document, 'The Company' means the Blue Green Widget Company, Inc. of Smallville".

(The antonym of proper noun is common noun.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

While 'Woman' as a proper noun refers to the single concept/idea of the gender, rather than an individual of it, I don't want to do another 8000 word discussion on why you can make words a proper noun even when it's not typically used that wait, so how about this;

Women (/ˈwɪmən/ or /ˈwɪmɪn/; sg.: woman) are people who are members of the gender (a socially constructed set of social expectations, characteristics, and behavior that is typically associated with certain sex traits) typically associated with female sex traits. Those social roles vary over time, between cultures, and within cultures.

We could also do;

A woman (pl.: women; pronounced /ˈwɪmən/ or /ˈwɪmɪn/) is a person of the gender (a socially constructed set of social expectations, characteristics, and behavior that is typically associated with certain sex traits) typically associated with female sex traits. Those social roles vary over time, between cultures, and within cultures.

Thoughts? A Socialist Trans Girl 09:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

This represents a change to the article's existing scope. Do you think that you will be able to get consensus for that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing I don't think it does that? The vast majority of the article (i.e, the sections Etymology, Terminology, Intersex women, Health, Maternal mortality, Life expectancy, Reproductive rights and freedom, Culture and gender roles, Violence against women, History, Clothing, fashion and dress codes, Fertility and family life, Religion, Education, Literacy, Women in politics, Science, literature and art, Gender symbol, and Femininity) are within the scope set out by the proposed lede. Eitherway, are you okay with this proposal? If not, what concerns do you have with it? A Socialist Trans Girl 07:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

When you change the first sentence, you're signalling what should be in the article. So imagine that you make this change (and imagine that it sticks); the next step is someone else to come along and say "Huh, the subject of the article is "a person of the gender", but there's a thousand words here about biology. Well, that doesn't belong in this article. I'll go blank that." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeh, thats why I want to spinoff the biology section into Draft:Female human. With that, should we do the proposed paragraph? A Socialist Trans Girl 05:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

No. Defining womanhood as entirely socially constructed will be WP:EXTRAORDINARY to a huge number of lay readers. I'm not convinced that this reflects a proper balance of viewpoints in RS, let alone that we should be foregrounding discussions on the social construction of gender here at all (this is an article about human people, not the precise metaphysical boundaries of sex and gender identity). It's not apparent to me if the proposed text is source-based whatsoever. We absolutely should not restructure the article(s) around the POV (which seems to be a minority even among radfems and trans people) that womanhood is only tangentially related to women's bodies (or the socially constructed archetype of a "woman's body" as it exists in the popular consciousness, whatever). An encyclopedia article about women necessarily includes mention of sex characteristics, menstruation, and maternity, things most women experience and which inform the gender roles and societal attitudes that are put upon all of us. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

There is definitely plenty of very RS supporting gender being a social construct. Without DUE RS contradicting that provided, it cannot be concluded that it is an improper balance of viewpoints in RS.

The proposal includes 'typically associated with female sex traits.' The prominence of the opinion among radfems and trans people is irrelevant to this discussion.

A POV is not "representing not fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."— What significant views by RS is the proposal failing to represent in that way? (provide the links to the RS as well)

I'm not proposing to remove the maternal mortality section of the article (the section relating to maternity), and as has been stated in all my proposals of the article split; we can have a summary section on biology with the main article.

Here is the proposal with the citations:

A woman (pl.: women; pronounced /ˈwɪmən/ or /ˈwɪmɪn/) is a person of the gender (a socially constructed set of social expectations, characteristics, and behavior that is typically associated with certain sex traits) typically associated with female sex traits. Those social roles vary over time, between cultures, and within cultures.

If you have any further concerns, feel free to comment further.

Thanks, — A Socialist Trans Girl 10:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC) A Socialist Trans Girl 10:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I mean specifically reliable sources for the definition of "woman". These four sources define gender as the socially constructed aspects of being a man, woman, or other category, but it's not clear how they relate to the precise definition of those terms, or justify defining those categories themselves social constructs. They don't support narrowing female to mean strictly those sociological aspects, only referencing biological aspects by proxy, nor demonstrate the immediate relevance of the sex/gender semantics debate to this first sentence (which should be a plain English introduction). We cannot synthesize sources on the sex-gender distinction into a definition of man or woman, especially not in contrast to the umpteen available dictionaries which all offer the definition of woman as adult female human. To be clear I do not think Wikipedia should imply anything to the right either (woman as a biological essentialist, trans-exclusionary category, which seems to be your interpretation of the existing text), but the basis for saying anything bolder than just female human or maybe of the female gender is shaky at best. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 05:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Crossroads No, in my version it is a socially constructed category still comprising about ~48-50% of worlds population. Also, the SGD isn't in the lede in my proposal, but rather a separate section on the relationship between woman and female, and whether the ladder is deterministic of the former, which is included in the first sentence of the current version, so the logical conclusion of believing that it is undue weight is that of being more concerned with the current version then the proposal.

Oh, and also, the current article contains the sentence "The social sciences' views on what it means to be a women have changed significantly since the early 20th century as women gained more rights and greater representation in the workforce, with scholarship in the 70's moving toward a focus on the sex-gender distinction and social construction of gender.[15][16]" in the 1st section after etymology, so it can't really be said that having my proposed paragraph on the SGD and relationship of it to sex in the 1st or 2nd section would at all be UNDUE. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

That sentence is WP:Due coverage of the issue. It does not need more than that here. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Could you please explain how including information about a distinction which changes the definition of the word in the 1st or 2nd section is at all UNDUE weight? Other editors have proposed that it should be in the 1st/2nd section rather than the lede paragraph, which I'm okay with as it was an option I stated when first proposing it. You also said that "it foregrounds the sex and gender distinction so heavily so as to give it hugely WP:UNDUE weight, basically making the article a retread of that tangential topic"; I don't see how it does that at all, it's just a paragraph in the 1st/2nd section, that portrayal of it seems to just be extremely hyperbolic. A Socialist Trans Girl 08:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing So, Consensus is marked by addressing editors' legitimate concerns, and we want to achieve consensus. The proposal for the first paragraph is the following:

• A woman (pl.: women; pronounced /ˈwɪmən/ or /ˈwɪmɪn/) is a person of the gender (a socially constructed set of social expectations, characteristics, and behavior that is typically associated with certain sex traits) typically associated with female sex traits. Those social roles vary over time, between cultures, and within cultures.

I believe that there are no legitimate concerns posed to this proposal which have not been addressed; which would mean that we have achieved consensus and that it should be implemented. If there is any further legitimate concerns which have not been addressed, they should be put forth here. I believe that consensus is definitely within reach. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The reason that addressing editors' concerns matters for consensus is because the "other side" is unlikely to "consent" if you don't address their concerns.

Here is my concern: This proposal changes the definition in ways that will result in demands to change the content of the article. That will probably destabilize the sort of détente status here and result in edit warring and bitter disputes. I do not want edit warring and bitter disputes; I want a stable article.

I do not believe you have addressed by concern at all. Have you not addressed it because you do not think it is legitimate for me to worry about edit warring and bitter disputes, or have you not addressed it because you did not realize that I have this concern?

More generally, what evidence do you have that anyone has consented to your proposal? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@A Socialist Trans Girl: Your belief that there are no legitimate concerns posed to this proposal which have not been addressed is all well and good, but necessarily, the rest of us have to also actually agree with you that that is the case. It's not sufficient to be correct (see WP:THETRUTH), nor to have offered a rebuttal to every naysayer (see: WP:BLUDGEON). Consensus is agreement.

I concur with the unavoidable fact that because of this topic's radioactivity (What is a Woman?) any change to Wikipedia's definition on Woman and Man will inevitably provoke strong reactions on and off-wiki, and lots and lots of emotionally charged argumentation (often a heat-generating process). If you want people to volunteer their time to defending that consensus from backlash, in what is already a markedly contentious topic area, the text needs so extremely bolstered by WP:RS and policy that rebutting inevitable accusations of bias, wokeness, agenda, etc. only requires pointing to the sources and policies which clearly and unambiguously justify why the article should be like that. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 05:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@RoxySaunders Yeah, that's why I checked if there are more legitimate concerns rather than just implementing the change, and also why I phrased it as "I believe there are no legitimate..." and requested further legitimate concerns to be put forth. (also "Consensus isn't 'agreement' per se, see What is consensus?)

I myself have this article and the talk page on my watchlist, and I'm perfectly fine with defending that consensus myself if needed.

I really don't think that those accusations of bias, wokeness, etc, from off-wiki sources and bad faith actors on-wiki, will be prevented by any amount of RS, since they're not really empirically motivated. I believe the proposal is already fully sourced and with policy in mind. A Socialist Trans Girl 14:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please, let's see Wikipedia:What is consensus?, and especially the very first sentence: Consensus is the community resolution when opposing parties...agree. I don't see anyone agreeing to your proposal. Do you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing The worry about edit warring and bitter disputes is a valid one, however it is not unsolvable. The article already has Extended Confirmed protection, and there of the disruptive edits and edit wars, the vast majority of edit warring and unconstructive edits are done by non-extended confirmed users. And as usual, we can impose sanctions on users doing edit warring. We should prioritize making the article better over making/keeping it stable. I don't really think that edit warring will be that big of an issue on an extended confirmed protected article.

Figuring out the concerns others have with the proposal was the purpose of the comment thing above. A Socialist Trans Girl 14:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I am doubtful that you will get consensus, because nobody is agreeing to it.

I do not agree that punishing people after the fact is a way to prevent edit warring and bitter disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Well if we address all the legitimate concerns, then we get consensus, and I don't have any reason to believe that we'll be unable to address all legitimate concerns.

It does prevent repeat offenses and potentially disincentivize doing it (due to there being sanctions for doing it), and I think that most editors which engage in edit warring and bitter disputes aren't extended confirmed, EC users are largely more experienced with the Wikipedia process. Also, I don't think that there being edit warring/bitter disputes is really a concern with the content being proposed itself, and I'm not sure what the policy is for that.

What is the reason that you (presumably) think that the regular method of dealing with and preventing edit warring/bitter disputes will not work if the proposal is implemented? A Socialist Trans Girl 02:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

This proposal would change the definition of woman from something that includes biological females regardless of gender to something that says female biology is irrelevant (though coincidentally appears in most cases). I am doubtful that you will get agreement (aka "consensus") for that change. Addressing all the legitimate concerns (who decides which ones are legitimate, by the way?) will not result in consensus when the legitimate concern is "changes the subject of the article in a way that editors object to". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

This proposal would change the definition of woman from something that includes biological females regardless of gender to something that says female biology is irrelevant (though coincidentally appears in most cases). That's not really accurate to the proposal; the proposal is that female biology is relevant but not inherently deterministic, and that it is assigned based on female sex traits.

Addressing all the legitimate concerns will not result in consensus when the legitimate concern is "changes the subject of the article in a way that editors object to". Well no, the thing with that is why those editors are objecting. If it's not through legitimate concerns, then it doesn't need to be counted, for example; if someone disagreed with something, and just responded with "no".

Who decides which ones are legitimate, by the way? I'm not actually sure, I think that it's like, not obviously bad faith concerns? It probably should be elaborated on in WP:CON. A Socialist Trans Girl 14:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

"A woman is a person of the gender...typically associated with female sex traits" does not communicate that female sex traits are "relevant"; it communicates that female sex traits are correlated. What it doesn't do is say "A woman is an adult human with female sex traits", which is one (at least grammatically legitimate) interpretation of the existing first sentence.

Generally, the community has been slow to say a concern is non-legitimate unless there are only one or two editors advocating for the concern, and their concerns are sufficiently far from other editors' views that the view feels like an outlier. I don't think you will be able to dismiss concerns about the scope of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

It appears that you're using relevant to mean deterministic in this case, which I believe is where the confusion stems from; I don't think this is the typical usage of relevant. It is correct that the proposal communicates that they are correlated, (correlate meaning "have a mutual relationship or connection, in which one thing affects or depends on another") however in the original sentence being discussed ...to something that says female biology is irrelevant (though coincidentally appears in most cases) it's not accurate to describe it as being coincidental, since there's several factors contributing to the correlation such as it being assigned at birth and subject to default bias, social stigma and social norms for deviation, etc, and for these reasons it is relevant, but not deterministic.

As for what is considered a legitimate concern, I don't believe that the number of editors is relevant at all, I believe that what a 'legitimate concern' means here is 'having basis in Wikipedia's policy and guidelines'. A Socialist Trans Girl 09:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing So would you say that your concern of edit warring has been addressed? If not what is the reason for the concern that the regular Wikipedia process will not work after it? A Socialist Trans Girl 05:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

No, and what you need to make me feel like this has been addressed is evidence that multiple editors (possibly even a majority) actually want to replace the existing ambiguous phrase (womanhood could be determined entirely through biology – or not! The meaning depends on how the reader chooses to interpret the word female) with your unambiguous phrase (definitely not determined by biology). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Wait I don't understand, what does that have to do with the concern of edit warring? A Socialist Trans Girl 06:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

If editors give consent to this change, understanding what this means, then we'll be able to manage the subsequent disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, glad we're on the same page with that.

Do you have any concerns with the content of the proposed paragraph? A Socialist Trans Girl 09:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

My concern is that this represents a POV that I find no appetite in the community for. To repeat what I've been saying for weeks: You are proposing that we change the definition of woman so that the article contains significantly different information. I am looking for evidence that multiple editors (possibly even a majority) actually want to. You seem to be looking for ways to tweak the paragraph, but I am doubtful that you will get agreement at all.

I think the "tweak" that you need is one that says, in tone and fact, that it's normal and acceptable for people hold the POV that any adult in the egg-producing half of humanity is a woman and that any adult in the sperm-producing half is not.

But let's focus on the consensus part: There are 64 comments so far in this discussion; this one will be #65. Please look through those comments for the names of all the editors who have jumped at the opportunity to support your proposal. If you can't name even two, what (aside from the righteousness of your cause) makes you think that anyone except you actually wants to make this change? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm open to fixing any NPOV issue with the lede proposal.

I think the "tweak" that you need is one that says, in tone and fact, that it's normal and acceptable for people hold the POV that any adult in the egg-producing half of humanity is a woman and that any adult in the sperm-producing half is not. I don't think that we should do that for a few reasons. 1. Saying or communicating that a view is acceptable is a NPOV violation. 2. Saying that a view is normal is also a NPOV violation. 3. The view of people generally does not matter, instead RS does. However, if we were to have the prevalence of that view among DUE RS, then that's fine. What are the DUE academic/IO sources which have that view? If they're provided then they can be incorporated.

There are 64 comments so far in this discussion; this one will be #65. Please look through those comments for the names of all the editors who have jumped at the opportunity to support your proposal. The thing with that is that 1. There has been multiple proposed paragraphs throughout the discussion, and 2. The discussion isn't about whether or not we should do a single version of the proposal, but rather making changes/new proposals according to all the concerns and issues with each proposal; I myself am not fully set in stone with any single proposal, I want to fix any issues with it, not just bluntly support and defend a single proposal.

If you can't name even two, what (aside from the righteousness of your cause) makes you think that anyone except you actually wants to make this change? As mentioned, the discussion is about making changes/new proposals according to all the concerns and issues with each proposal. A Socialist Trans Girl 08:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

For one, defining gender within the first sentence would go against general practice. A Wikipedia definition does not generally have subdefinitions. If it contains words that need subdefinitions, well that's why we have wikilinks. Nothing against explaining gender further in the body, but it is inappropriate in a first sentence. Beyond that, I remain a firm supporter of the current definition, for reasons I have explained ad infinitum (i.e. female can refer to sex or gender, and sources still generally define a woman as an adult female human). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so now we have;

• A woman (pl.: women; pronounced /ˈwɪmən/ or /ˈwɪmɪn/) is a person of the gender typically associated with female sex traits. The social roles of said gender varies over time, between cultures, and within cultures.

As for the following two concerns, I have already addressed those concerns. A Socialist Trans Girl 15:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC) A Socialist Trans Girl 15:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with CaptainEek. A Socialist Trans Girl's suggestion isn't terrible, but I dislike how wordy it is. The current lead better reflects the sources, and also conveys more or less the same information, just more concisely. We don't have to explain the entire concept of gender in the first sentence of the article. That's what the rest of the article is for. Or they could click through to the provided links and read those articles. For example, the lead of female contains "In humans, the word female can also be used to refer to gender in the social sense of gender role or gender identity." Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Red Rock Canyon I believe most of that is addressed by the updated proposal I just provided to CaptainEek. As for it better reflecting the sources, I don't believe that is the case, what academic/IO RS is there which it better reflects? I don't believe that the view of sex being deterministic of womanhood is at all supported by RS, and if female is being used in the other less common sense referring to gender, why not just say that? A Socialist Trans Girl 15:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Restating this comment: None of these four sources define woman or support "Person of the Gender". The medical dictionaries currently being cited in the article say Adult Female Human, as do most other English dictionaries. Tertiary sources, including respected dictionaries like the OED and MW, are useful for developing balance. We're not required to match their exact phrasing but Adult Female is unambiguously the most commonly given definition of the term. I'm inclined to agree that some change is warranted, and your current version is my least unfavorite proposal in this thread. but I'd prefer more discreet clarification. As noted by others, wordiness and sub-definitions are problems. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I have already explained the issue with using dictionaries, and don't need to repeat myself in response.

Do you think we should have the paragraph be of how it is a construct encompassing aspects of gender identity, gender expression, and social and cultural expectations about status, characteristics, and behavior associated with certain sex traits?

I don't think that the proposal comprising 2 lines had an issue with wordiness at all, and I can't find the WP policy page which talks about sub-definitions, so I'm unsure about the policy on them. A Socialist Trans Girl 03:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Red Rock Canyon, I don't believe that The current lead...conveys more or less the same information. I believe that ASTG's goal is to make it convey significantly different information – that a woman is not an adult female human (an ambiguous phrase that includes, e.g., AFAB non-binary people), but is a human with a particular (social/psychological) gender (a more precise phrase that excludes all non-binary people). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

That is correct. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I guess I misunderstood what your suggested change is attempting to convey. In that case, I certainly oppose any change to the lead along those lines. The current lead is supported by the vast majority of sources, and your proposal is overly wordy and confusing. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Red Rock Canyon

1. The number of sources does not take precedence over the quality/reliability/authority of the source on the subject. What more or significant sources support the current lede? See my explanation for why dictionaries aren't for this.
2. How is it confusing or wordy?? It's only about 1 line (excluding the pronunciation). A Socialist Trans Girl 14:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@A Socialist Trans Girl I commend your effort to improve the lede. The main issue with your proposal is that the sources you cite don't actually define women in this way. They approach it from the opposite direction, i.e. gender is the social expectations typically associated with certain sex traits, rather than saying women are of the gender typically associated with female sex traits. Having read those sources, one might come to the same conclusion as your proposed wording, but in order to change the lede, you need sources that specifically state it like that. I know that's frustrating. I personally agree it's obvious that this is what these sources mean to say, but in order to convince the wikipedia community at large, you'll need more concrete sources. The void century 05:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, you are meant to paraphrase/summarize the general meaning in your own words, and this source quite clearly does communicate that, and in an example it gives, it uses female and woman as examples for what it means by sex and gender (text in reference being {{and may or may not correspond to a society’s cultural expectations based on their biological sex traits. For example, a person with typical female sex traits may or may not be a woman), so it's not like it's synth as it's pretty explicit. So I think that since you're meant to summarize the meaning in your own words, that the proposal does do that, correct me if I'm wrong though. A Socialist Trans Girl 06:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it communicates that, but it's not explicit. "a woman is" has a broader scope than "may or may not be a woman". I also agree that WP:CLOP allows for this type of summarization, but other editors disagree that your summarization is accurate. If this were an RfC, I'm guessing there would be cries of WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY just to name a few. And unfortunately, consensus means that different editors interpret policy differently. I'm guessing there would also be people upset that you are mentioning "female sex traits" at all, as this makes explicit what is implicit in "female human", changing it to be more exclusive of women who don't have female sex traits. The only way you have a chance of getting the first sentence changed is via a WP:RfC, and your lead will need to be more explicitly supported by the sources with more thought put into the multiple ways it can be interpreted. If anything, you might have a chance if you can convince the writers of your cited sources to change their wording to something more explicit. They probably have contact info somewhere. The void century 14:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I just realized that that source DOES provide a large RS that opposes female = woman, which is the current lede, so it does do that.

I don't think I've seen another editor say that the summarization is inaccurate, to which I don't think we should prematurely dismiss it based on a claim which I don't think has been made yet.

I have already addressed claims of UNDUE and SYNTH, I'm planning on changing the lede and body in the same edit so I don't think that's an issue either, and I don't think it constitutes EXCEPTIONAL either.

I'm guessing there would also be people upset that you are mentioning "female sex traits" at all, as this makes explicit what is implicit in "female human", changing it to be more exclusive of women who don't have female sex traits. well it says typically associated with, which doesn't exclude those who don't have them. And that's what the current lede means, as while "female" can be used to refer to gender, it's almost always in informal contexts, and even if it was used that way in this context, it leaves it unanswered what female means in that sense, and the common usage of female is to refer to sex; if a reader hovers the cursor over the hyperlink to female they'll see it referring to sex, and even with the footnote most readers will likely just assume it to mean the sex in this context, and it's absolutely the case that the definition 'adult human female' is used by trans-exclusionists. So, the proposal is definitely inclusive in juxtaposition with the exclusive current version.

I'm don't know whether or not an RfC would be the best option here as I'm not that knowledgeable in RfCs, but (correct me if I'm wrong) don't RfCs often result in no consensus? It also might potentially attract editors whom aren't really knowledgeable in the subject (I'm not sure though). If doing something else would be more likely to achieve consensus then it'd be preferable, do you know if an RfC would be more likely to achieve consensus than just continuing this; consensus definitely seems to me at least like it's within reach through the current discussion. A Socialist Trans Girl 08:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Most RFCs come to a conclusion.

Since the current version is "POV inclusive" (trans-exclusionary people can claim it represents their POV, because female is about biological sex; trans-inclusive people can claim it represents their POV because female is about feminine gender) and your proposal is "POV exclusive" (trans-exclusionary people will find their POV rejected), I think there is a chance that the conclusion would be both clear and against your proposal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh okay, thanks for the correction.

Is there any DUE RS supporting the trans exclusionary POV? If not, then we don’t need to have their POV represented. Also, the vast majority of readers likely do not understand female to be referring to gender in this context, and even if it is, there’s no definition for female when referring to gender, so that’s just confusing, and we should not leave it ambiguous as to what the subject of the article refers to, that’s just unencyclopedic. A Socialist Trans Girl 09:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

References