Category talk:Women biologists

comment

Hi! I think this is a good list. If my opinion matters on the discussion of notability, I wanted to say I have used this list and many others like it to find female biologists to read about and present on for various purposes.

However, I can see how there are a few problems with all "women xyz" categories. The first is that there is a lacking corresponding "men xyz" set of categories in many cases. While I care about fairness and even just symmetry for symmetry's sake in information/encyclopedia organization, that is not my primary motive for making that statement.

Although it is counter-intuitive, I mean it as a feminist statement. When women are cordoned off and men are left in the "regular" categories, it makes male the default. Certainly give additional focus to the underrepresented by having a more in-depth article covering the history of our exclusion and struggle, but also treat the over-represented as just as much a subcategory, just as much a mere part of the whole, as us. Because they are. It's like how it would be weird if there were all sorts of nationality categories for scientist, but none for "regular" "citizen born" Americans. What would be the message of that? Who would be seen as default?

My other concern is the category is called "women biologists" and its supercategory is called "women scientists" on Wikipedia currently. Meanwhile, this one and many other places on wikipedia refer to categories of men as "male scientists" or "male" this or that. Which should it be? They shouldn't be different. Either it's "men scientists" and replacement of all "male" in categories and in-text language about human males with "men" and "man" in all the same cases you replace "female" with "women" or "woman", or somebody who knows how changes "woman scientists" to "female scientists".

Pick a standard that matches both and stick to it. For readability, for ease of guessing what the category will be called while searching or linking, and for fairness's sake. If we are now avoiding "female" as a word, we must too avoid "male". Meanwhile, if we recognize there are indeed female and male humans that those are also relevant categorizes, we can leave them.

If we wish to organize around some nebulous idea of "woman identity" or "man identity", that will be difficult, as these vary by culture, time, and individual experience. Are they even really usable categories at all? What do all the man identity have in common, without resorting to gender roles (sex based stereotypes and rules) or statements of "feeling" or faith in some incommunicable internal identity akin to a soul? I do not have the answers to all these questions. I appreciate discussion on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bytheroot (talk • contribs) 02:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

comment

Hi! I think this is a good list. If my opinion matters on the discussion of notability, I wanted to say I have used this list and many others like it to find female biologists to read about and present on for various purposes.

However, I can see how there are a few problems with all "women xyz" categories. The first is that there is a lacking corresponding "men xyz" set of categories in many cases. While I care about fairness and even just symmetry for symmetry's sake in information/encyclopedia organization, that is not my primary motive for making that statement.

Although it is counter-intuitive, I mean it as a feminist statement. When women are cordoned off and men are left in the "regular" categories, it makes male the default. Certainly give additional focus to the underrepresented by having a more in-depth article covering the history of our exclusion and struggle, but also treat the over-represented as just as much a subcategory, just as much a mere part of the whole, as us. Because they are. It's like how it would be weird if there were all sorts of nationality categories for scientist, but none for "regular" "citizen born" Americans. What would be the message of that? Who would be seen as default?

My other concern is the category is called "women biologists" and its supercategory is called "women scientists" on Wikipedia currently. Meanwhile, this one and many other places on wikipedia refer to categories of men as "male scientists" or "male" this or that. Which should it be? They shouldn't be different. Either it's "men scientists" and replacement of all "male" in categories and in-text language about human males with "men" and "man" in all the same cases you replace "female" with "women" or "woman", or somebody who knows how changes "woman scientists" to "female scientists".

Pick a standard that matches both and stick to it. For readability, for ease of guessing what the category will be called while searching or linking, and for fairness's sake. If we are now avoiding "female" as a word, we must too avoid "male". Meanwhile, if we recognize there are indeed female and male humans that those are also relevant categorizes, we can leave them.

If we wish to organize around some nebulous idea of "woman identity" or "man identity", that will be difficult, as these vary by culture, time, and individual experience. Are they even really usable categories at all? What do all the man identity have in common, without resorting to gender roles (sex based stereotypes and rules) or statements of "feeling" or faith in some incommunicable internal identity akin to a soul? I do not have the answers to all these questions. I appreciate discussion on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bytheroot (talk • contribs) 02:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)