Draft talk:Female (gender)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: An article already exists so I have redirected your stub.

Bruxton (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Please don't add a redirect before reading the ^^above discussion. This article is meant as a stub that will be improved upon over time. The article you redirected to is Female, which is a biology article. This article does not already exist. The void century (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@The void century: I've just added the {{in creation}} template to the article, which hopefully may result in this not occurring again. Otherwise moving this to the draft namespace may be a more feasible solution while content is added. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I have no problem with moving it to a draft, but I don't want to see a bunch of hard work reverted if a reviewer decides the completed page (post-draft) is still not worthy. I'd rather confirm that it's acceptable to make this page first. The void century (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
The discussion at Talk:Woman, where editors with widely varying perspectives on the GENSEX topic expressed broad support for creating thus article, is quite adequate confirmation that it's acceptable to make this page. WP:NOTBURO applies, and nominating this article in progress for deletion after the creation template was added, a couple hours after the article itself was created, strikes me as grossly incompetent patrolling. Any chance we could see that nomination withdrawn? If the article isn't more substantial in a few days, there would be no problem with re-nomination at a more appropriate time. Newimpartial (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Please refer to discussions on talk:woman and talk:female that led to the creation of this page

Here is a small selection from the multitude of discussions over many years that have led to the creation of this page.

On Talk:Female:

  • Most recently:

On Talk:Woman:

  • Most recently:
  • In archives (only a small representation of the years of discussions on this topic):

Here is a small selection I compiled from the multitude of reliable sources on this topic: Talk:Woman/Gender source list The void century (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: An article already exists so I have redirected your stub.

Bruxton (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Please don't add a redirect before reading the ^^above discussion. This article is meant as a stub that will be improved upon over time. The article you redirected to is Female, which is a biology article. This article does not already exist. The void century (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@The void century: I've just added the {{in creation}} template to the article, which hopefully may result in this not occurring again. Otherwise moving this to the draft namespace may be a more feasible solution while content is added. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I have no problem with moving it to a draft, but I don't want to see a bunch of hard work reverted if a reviewer decides the completed page (post-draft) is still not worthy. I'd rather confirm that it's acceptable to make this page first. The void century (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
The discussion at Talk:Woman, where editors with widely varying perspectives on the GENSEX topic expressed broad support for creating thus article, is quite adequate confirmation that it's acceptable to make this page. WP:NOTBURO applies, and nominating this article in progress for deletion after the creation template was added, a couple hours after the article itself was created, strikes me as grossly incompetent patrolling. Any chance we could see that nomination withdrawn? If the article isn't more substantial in a few days, there would be no problem with re-nomination at a more appropriate time. Newimpartial (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 23 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator while a related AfD is in progress. (non-admin closure) Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


Female (gender) → Female (gender identity) – The article addresses gender identity, not gender entirely, as gender is more open/broad than gender identity, which is restricted — Tazuco ✉️ 18:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I invite @Clicriffhard: since you started the discussion here — Tazuco ✉️ 18:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I can see your point (certainly "female gender" implies gender identity, since other aspects of gender would properly be described as "feminine"), but I tend to agree with Sideswipe9th that it's overcomplicating things to have this separate discussion while an AFD is ongoing. I'd suggest waiting for that to resolve and then revisiting this. Clicriffhard (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment - while feminine gender expression is certainly in-scope here, other aspects of female gender, such as gender roles and gendered norms, are also in scope, and these don't necessarily deploy the concept "feminine" (for example, the more structural aspects of gender). Newimpartial (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - as discussed in the linked discussion, the intended scope of this article is female gender, and is not limited to female gender identity. Newimpartial (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Note I don't think you can do an RM while an article is currently also subject to an ongoing and unclosed AfD. I suggest withdrawal of it without prejudice to revisit later after the AfD completes. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
    How can I temporarily cancel this move? — Tazuco ✉️ 18:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
    If you're happy for me to do so, I can close procedurally close this discussion as "withdrawn while a related AfD is in progress." Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
    Please do :) — Tazuco ✉️ 19:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Female gender metaphysics

I am thinking of composing a section on gender metaphysics and various theoretical concepts of female gender. Some of that content is already covered in Women's Studies and some other pages, but i think it could have a narrower scope on this page focusing on female gender and what that means.

Does that sound on topic for this page? The void century (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm just a silly man, but I think this sounds like a job for Feminist metaphysics (my source is our search bar). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I would keep the gender metaphysics elsewhere; this is the page for (female) gender ontology, for the most part. Newimpartial (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Would this not be more accurately described simply as 'gender metaphysics', and hence belong at an article about gender? I can't imagine sources treating female gender without also discussing or contrasting male gender, and hence the real topic is gender in general. Crossroads -talk- 00:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I suspect that most of the sources on Positions also discuss Electrons, Photons and/or Neutrinos, but lookee: we have articles for each. Being "discussed without reference to a contrasting topic" isn't a criterion for having an article, nor is this discussion germane for the Talk page of an article currently at AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Are you saying I should wait till AfD is closed to open discussions like this? Sorry I didn't realize that's the policy. The void century (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
No, my response on that was indented to Crossroads, whose argument wasn't limited to metaphysics but related to gender in general. Newimpartial (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I was planning to use this and this as a jumping off point for finding sources. It might be worthwhile for me to do it in feminist metaphysics since that's currently a short article, but it could still have some discussion here linking to the main article. The void century (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Feminist metaphysics would be the appropriate location, IMO. And I have expressed my view elsewhere that that Stanford source has poor editorial control and is essentially user-generated. Newimpartial (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Ah good to know. I'll keep that in mind. The void century (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

"being"

InedibleHulk, you removed what appears to be a key word [1], "being" from the lead, which seems needed to help clearly introduce the topiv. I would appreciate it being restored. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, InedibleHulk, this [2] edit is contrary to the sources - this is a complex topic, and simplification is not supported by the sources. Beccaynr (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

If you think it adds anything beyond another word, go for it. Or "be going for it". No big deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I encourage you to revert those two edits, thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I just said you could. That's what "go for it" means. Ditto for the other part. I just feel it's silly to define something on such uncertain terms. Maybe I'm silly. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
You are not silly at all. I spent awhile with the sources and have tried to reflect the concepts as presented, which is complicated. And I ask you to revert because I am trying to avoid further reverts, so I would very much appreciate it if you would, as silly as that may otherwise sound. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
What are you afraid of? If I revert myself, I look wishy-washy, like a turncoat. If you do it, I look like I lost to an expert, cleanly and decisively. I'm not staunch enough to fight back, no worries. Just feel strongly enough to not become the kind of editor I normally counteract on filler like this. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
You could say "per Talk discussion". I am concerned about edit-warring, and outside of our interaction, this has been a challenging article to edit and distinctly different from what I usually have experienced, even in this general topic area. I cannot claim to be an expert, only that I spent a lot of time reviewing sources and related articles, and working on this article, and chose words with care, based on that research. Beccaynr (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Don't think of it as war. Think of it as professional wrestling. We agree you need to "go over" more than I do, so I "do the job", as is "best for business". Trust me. I've now been "thankpung" for both edits, so I certainly can't let "the fans" down, can I? Hit me with your "best shot", seriously. "Fire away"! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
It most certainly is not a war, and my preference is to think of article development as more like a salon inspired by the article topic. I offered my explanation to support what I wrote because I think it is best for the article and I think my approach to resolving this seems best for the encyclopedia, because it avoids edit-warring. Beccaynr (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Let's compromise, then. For one night only, the WMF's first ever No Rope Lights Out Electrified Hollywood Salon Match! The rules are simple: The first editor to have it their way wins all the marbles (in other words, word choice). On your mark? Go! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I am just trying to help build an article that is currently under scrutiny in a deletion discussion. There were complaints that it was not being built, so I tried to build it, but had some of my work deleted while I was in the midst of trying to work on it, and now instead of collaborative discussion about how to further develop the article, there is a lot of what feels like unproductive discussion that is not helpful to the creative process. Beccaynr (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk Please be civil. We're all trying to make a better wikipedia, and this is a very sensitive, complex topic. WP:Assume good faith The void century (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
And I'm wasting my time having to explain how giving my express consent to be reverted by anyone but me nullifies any element of perceived conflict imaginable. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Simple, straightforward question. @InedibleHulk: will you self revert the two edits mentioned at the start of this section? Yes or no? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
No. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for answering. @Beccaynr: I've now reverted the two changes linked at the beginning of this subsection. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
And it only took an hour and 57 minutes. The system works! Goodbye. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

spectrums

Hi the void century, I noticed your edit [3] that seems to try to make the text more 'female gender'-focused, but this was written to broadly introduce the topic (i.e. as scaffolding, noted elsewhere by Newimpartial). The edit seems to be a mismatch with the source because it now seems as if it is only referring to female gender. There are plenty of scholarly sources that focus on female gender that can be incorporated into the article - I attempted to introduce and broadly sketch further subtopics for development, based on the many related articles noted in the AfD and the sources I reviewed, and per the parts of the AfD discussion questioning the scope of this article. I encourage you to revert this edit, and please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Beccaynr (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Reverted. It may be helpful to find a source that is more female gender identity focused so there's no question that the content belongs here. The void century (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
For a subsection, yes indeed - even with additional sources, I still think there is encyclopedic value in introducing the concept broadly before moving on to female gender identity specifically. From my view, the inclusion of the content is already well-supported by multiple sources, and there are more in the List of gender identities article and elsewhere that could potentially be incorporated. Beccaynr (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good The void century (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Explanation for outsiders

@The void century I feel you probably have a lot on your plate right now with the deletion discussion and such, but can you explain what is going on with all the page debate? People are saying this is a POV fork, but what is the POV dispute they are accusing you of? Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 11:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Immanuelle, sure. I'll try to cover it all. I think there are multiple articles the POV might refer to:
  1. female - an article exclusively about biological sex across all species. There is one line about gender at the end of the lead section that's equivalent to a hatnote. Some editors think that line indicates the article is about both sex and gender (it's not).
  2. woman - an article with both biology and gender-related content. However, the scope of that article is narrowed to adult female humans; it's not exclusively focused on the concept of female gender. Some editors think that woman and girl together should cover everything that female gender covers.
  3. gender - this is not really a POV fork accusation, but some editors think female gender should redirect to gender instead of having its own article.
Backstory (sorry it's a lot):
Talk:Woman discussions:
  • Typically: A little over a week ago, I proposed adding the word "typically" to the lede sentence of woman so it would read A woman is typically an adult female human. At the time, I didn't realize there was a long history of similar proposals (I'm new to gender-topics on wikipedia). The main argument against it was typically would add too much ambiguity in the lede and possibly add WP:UNDUE.
  • Unlink from female: The reason for my proposal was woman lede links to female, which is about biological sex. Me (and many editors over the years) view the link in that lede as misinforming readers about the meaning of female. Other editors think the one line about gender in the female article clears up any confusion. Others suggested delinking female from the lede of woman.
  • Work on body Some editors suggested WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. The idea is we should add more gender-related content to woman body and then revisit the lede. The POV accusation for woman seems to stem partly from that, as some view female gender article as WP:ACTIVIST to give gender more attention than it would have if it was in the woman article.
  • Fix in female Some editors on talk:woman thought that female article should be fixed instead of the lede of woman, leading to the discussions on talk:female.
Talk:Female discussions:
  • Disambiguate: I opened a section on talk:female to discuss whether the main article should be a disambiguation, since the Female (disambiguation) article has a section on gender linking to woman and girl. There was mixed feedback about disambiguation in that discussion and the following one. The main argument to reject it was Female predominately refers to biological sex in the sources, so it would be WP:UNDUE to make the main page a disambiguation. I'm not sure if that is accurate though.
  • Add line on gender to the lede: Another editor added a line about gender to the lede of female (without asking), which led to some edit-warring.
  • Discuss gender in the lede: A new section on Talk:Female was opened to discuss the edit and whether we should give gender more prominence in the lede. There was actually significant support for keeping it but:
  • Create a female (gender) article: During that discussion, multiple editors agreed that instead of giving gender more prominence in female we could/should create a Female (gender) article. Gender is really out of scope in female and a Female (gender) article would give us the opportunity to expand on the concept of female gender without potential acts of WP:UNDUE in female.
  • That's when I created the Female (gender) stub article.
  • Reviewer redirected the article: The first reviewer redirected the stub article to Gender but explicitly gave me the option of reverting their edit. I reverted the edit and told that reviewer why. They seemed fine with that.
  • I added the first talk section above to give more context on creation of this article
  • Second redirect @Bruxton reviewed and added a redirect again (this time to femininity), apparently not seeing the context I added in the talk page or the previous review. I reverted that edit as well, and told them why.
  • Creation template: Another editor also added a "currently being created template" to this page.
  • AfD opened: @Bruxton opened the AfD almost immediately after I reverted their edit. That brings us to the current situation. The void century (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@The void century that is a good explanation. So would you consider adding content discussing the term "female" being used to refer to trans women to be appropriate to this article. Is this primarily about the linguistic phenomenon of using female to refer to AMABs or in other ways that are not referencing biological sex such as to gynoids? Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 13:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Immanuelle, I removed what appears to be WP:OR/WP:NPOV/WP:FRINGE content from non-RS that you had added on this contentious subject. I had previously added a source and content that was removed from the lead that may be able to become part of a subsection somewhat related to this issue with further development, because it is a scholarly work. However, this subject matter needs to be handled with care and with the WP:BESTSOURCES. Please discuss questions about content and sources on this Talk page. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@Newimpartial understands this better than me. I think a discussion of female gender identity would be appropriate, as long as it doesn't imply that female gender is only about trans women. This article is meant to cover all female gender, which includes both cis and trans female. I could be wrong, but I don't think it's primarily about the linguistic phenomenon. More-so the socio-cultural phenomenon which is related to the linguistics. The void century (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
My sense of the RS is that this article is not primarily about terminology and syntax, though of course it can include terminology and syntax. In particular, one thing I would like to see is a sourced discussion of the usage of "female" as a social rather than biological marker prior to the mergence of a clear Sex and gender distinction, which does include legal determinations of gender in case of ambiguity (potentially proto-trans people) but also determinations of the legal status of female-gendered people, the legal status of "female persons" and so on, which is by no means limited to (or centered around) trans people.
There will also be some necessary overlap between Female (gender) and Femininity as a form of gender expression - I'm not sure whether a summary of Femininity in this arricle is the best way to treat this - maybe? - partly because I'm not sure that other article is very careful to define its domain, and the intersection between two fuzzy shapes can be hard to delineate.
In any event, I don't believe that this content is usable in this article. This isn't a discussion of nomenclature of gender; it seems to be mostly a discussion of whether to use gender terminology or not. I'm sure there are places in article space where (the best sources on) this could be used, but I don't think this article is among them. Newimpartial (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Re: one thing I would like to see is a sourced discussion of the usage of "female" as a social rather than biological marker prior to the mergence of a clear Sex and gender distinction, which does include legal determinations of gender in case of ambiguity (potentially proto-trans people) but also determinations of the legal status of female-gendered people, the legal status of "female persons" and so on - I have been thinking that eventually, this article may be a good addition to the See Also section: Female Husbands: A Trans History. There are also related articles that may become relevant as this article develops. Beccaynr (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Question: "and sociocultural constructs related to biological characteristics."

@Beccaynr I haven't read that source, but I'm a bit confused by this text in the lead. Does it mean that sociocultural constructs related to biological characteristics are aspects of female sex (as well as gender)? Do you think we should reword that, remove it, or move to another spot in the lead? The void century (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It is intended to be part of a broad overview that situates the article topic in the midst of other topics. The source refers to the work of Judith Butler, e.g. "sex" can also be considered to be socially constructed. Based on the sources, referring to "sex" as only subject to biological definitions does not appear complete, and this can be further elaborated somewhat in the social construction subsection and perhaps elsewhere as the article develops, because some additional attention to Judith Butler appears warranted. Sex and gender tend to be discussed in the sources so it does not appear possible to completely firewall the concepts, nor necessary for the article. Beccaynr (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I think sociocultural constructs related to biological characteristics is infelicitous prose. There is certainly a challenge to be met by this passage - on the one hand, we can't simply state in wikivoice that "biological sex" is a social construct à la Butler but nor can we in wikivoice just assume it as given and external to culture, because that isn't a view general to the sources either. There is probably a formulation that files the serial numbers off and represents the bulk of the sources that is better than constructs related to - the phrase I find especially clunky - but I'm not inclined to contribute much to wordsmithing here until after the AfD closes. Newimpartial (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I think what's causing the confusion for me is the preceding text which can be defined. It seems like it intends to say gender goes beyond both of those topics as separate concepts, but I could also interpret it as those two things -- biology and social constructs related to biology -- being part of the same category of female sex. The void century (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Whoops, I thought my comment would post below your most recent comment. I think what may have happened is that the lead is now different than what I originally wrote - the sentences have been changed, and that may be impacting the meaning. Beccaynr (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry about that! And never mind. Based on what you're saying about the Butler Source^^^, I think it actually makes sense to me and I just learned something new. FYI I was the one who broke up the sentence, because it was a bit hard to read before. The void century (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I do appreciate your feedback, and I am sorry about my terrible habit of extremely long sentences. But it is essentially a placeholder, that developed after I digested a lot of sources and related articles. My assumption is that as this article develops, the lead will also continue to develop. I am just not planning to work on the article at this time, but look forward to it after the AfD concludes. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Makes sense, thank you The void century (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Conflation of female (gender) with femininity

there is of course an intersectional axis, but jumping from "construct of the female gender" to "construction of femininity" in the same section is conceptually problematic, it needs to be contextualised explicitly rather than conflating two without proper explanation. Paragraph starts out talking about 'Social construction of female gender' and before we know it we are delving into 'constructions of femininity'. It reads:

  • Social constructions of gender may vary by society and over time.[1]
  • The social construct of the female gender can include expectations and norms of femininity.[2]: 100–101 
  • Traditional constructions of femininity can include culturally-defined ideals of beauty, passivity, and the gender roles of mother and/or wife.[3]: xii, xvi, 1  Acousmana 18:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment There does not appear to be any conflation, due to the construction of the sentences, the sources, and the language used to indicate the connection between the concepts. Beccaynr (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  • the title of the section is social construction of female gender, but no elaboration of what this means is offered to readers other than it can include both expectations and norms of femininity & traditional constructions of femininity. This tells the reader very little, if anything, about social construction of female gender other than suggesting it's equivalent to traditional constructions of femininity. Was this your intention? Acousmana 19:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
    Considering the available links and how the article clearly does not suggest it is only the equivalent to traditional constructions of femininity, as well as the potential for more content to be added, I am not sure what you are suggesting as options for how to improve the article. Beccaynr (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
options include not constructing such a potentially conceptually dense article in main space - might be preferable to draft something first, rather than chucking anything that will stick at it. Acousmana 19:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Acousmana, I removed what seems to be already covered in the text - the source clearly refers to biological genitalia, and it is not clear why it seems necessary to complicate this with an unrelated, excess concept. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
author is referencing Kessler and McKenna (1978:153), context of the material you are citing is 'cultural genitalia', that is the frame, it's unwise to remove it. Acousmana 22:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
What you added does not appear to make any sense, though. The content added does not reflect the source. Beccaynr (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't say anything about "biological characteristics" other than genitalia, and has nothing to do with female gender specifically. It is off-topic and a POV fork of other articles, like the entire concept of this article. Crossroads -talk- 22:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Which is why I made a slight edit to help clarify the sentence. It is not off-topic because it is the lead, introducing the topic generally, so then the specifics can be further discussed. Beccaynr (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
All you did was add the word "some", which implies other biological characteristics were mentioned, but they weren't. And "introducing the topic" or not, this has no specific relevance to female gender. Crossroads -talk- 22:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
The lead introduces the specific topic broadly, and identifying specific features that can further developed as they relate to female gender. And adding the word "some" was an attempt to clarify the sentence. Beccaynr (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
"the source clearly refers to biological genitalia": Let's look at the text you are citing:

"Together, these rules enforce a system of “bigenderism” a gender system that “does not permit or allow for variations, exceptions, and/or deviations from the norm” (Gilbert 2009:95). In many cultures, such norms are often presumed to be “natural” whereby persons who are assigned “male” at birth (typically based on the visual appearance of their genitalia) are to behave in masculine ways and persons who are assigned “female” at birth are to behave in feminine ways. However, in the majority of social circumstances, presumptions are made about both gender and genitalia. For example, for the most part, genitalia are hidden from public view yet we continue to see and do gender (even without seeing and exposing our genitals). In this way, gender attribution is based on cultural genitals whereby an individual’s masculine or feminine performances and displays dictate gender and it is only a presumption that such behaviors “match” an individual’s sex assigned at birth (Kessler and McKenna 1978:153). This presumption is built on cisnormativity, or the assumption that it is “normal” to be cisgender, a label for individuals who have a match between the sex they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal gender identity (Schilt and Westbrook 2009; Worthen 2013). Cultural genitalia, then, is key to understanding gender norms and, conversely, gender deviance. In a normative performance of gender, for example, an individual’s cultural genitalia “matches” his or her sex assigned at birth. A deviant performance of gender, then, could occur if an individual’s cultural genitalia does not “match” his or her sex assigned at birth; however, this might only be recognized if we are made aware of a person’s sex assigned at birth or genitals."

[2]Acousmana 22:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Crossroads: while this article is, indeed, specific to female gender, a certain degree of scaffolding will have to be included about how gender is produced. So long as the sources are then provided specific to female gender, I'm not seeing a problem. Newimpartial (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
We already have much better and more balanced articles on that, which makes this - yup - a POV fork. Crossroads -talk- 23:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
If your idea of more balanced amounts to "biological sex exists and gender - well, maybe" - which would be a reasonable precis of Female and Woman - that is not a BALANCEd account of what the high-quality available sources actually say. I think the POV fork might be up your eye in this one.
N.B.: content that isn't covered in depth elsewhere can't be a "POV fork" so long as it is viable ENCyclopaedic content. Female gender - like male gender, and like Nonbinary gender for that matter - are unmistakably encyclopaedic topics. And if you don't think it's an encyclopaedic topic, WTAF are you editing this article? Newimpartial (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Neither of those articles places the existence of gender in the slightest bit of doubt. While female's treatment we would expect to be WP:Summary style since it naturally has a lot to say about non-humans, woman has lots of gender stuff like "Culture and gender roles", "Clothing, fashion and dress codes", "Religion", etc. And editors can always attempt to fill perceived gaps. Plus, we have even more articles like gender, social construction of gender, sociology of gender, doing gender, gender role, etc.
Your interpretation of WP:POVFORK is not supported by the guideline. Dividing a single topic by POV is the problem regardless of content. And bringing up non-binary gender reminds me - this situation here is like if we somehow had that article and a separate article at non-binary. It's WP:CFORK at best. Crossroads -talk- 00:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
(This isn't really the "right place" for this discussion, but whatevs. I'll have the diffs for posterity.)
Crossroads, Female, Female (gender) and Woman are not in any meaningful sense the same topic, and your argument that they are (or that overlapping Female and Woman articles cover Female gender) strikes me as an incredibly POV assertion.
Woman grudgingly asserts (thanks in part to what SMcCandlish and the late Flyer have mistakenly called my activist editing) that Trans women have a gender identity that does not align with their male sex assignment at birth and that "violence against women" includes "gender-based violence". But Flyer22 insisted until her death - and other editors[4] [5] continue to insist - that Woman is, and should be, largely devoid of content that is specific to Female gender. Your own formulation of this argument was, The overlap between female gender and female sex is immense (>99%),[6] with the implication that inclusion of additional content specific to female gender - beyond the current marginalia - would be UNDUE. I find it, well, quite laughable that you are now proposing that the place for sourced material specific to gender is in Woman, when literally last week you were promoting its exclusion from that article. And the even more marginal position of gender within Female tells essentially the same story with different characters.
You are apparently insisting that the sourced content specific to Female (gender) - that is, the aspect of Female and Woman that is specific to gender - is negligible, apparently because most female (gender) people are ciswomen. This is a category error and a nonsense argument; in the real Wikipedia world, we distinguish aspects that are distinguished conceptually in the sources, so we have Economic liberalism and Liberalism (and Classical liberalism and Libertarianism) in spite of the evident overlaps. We have Person of color and Colored and Black people and African americans. But when it comes to female (and male) gender? You make up bullshit rules that have nothing to do with CFORK - gender is not a POV fork of biological sex, ffs, not for any category.
Your comparison with Non-binary gender is unintentionally hilarious, IMO, since one defining characteristic of nonbinary identities is that they do not have a corresponding sex assignment. Female and male gender do relate to Binary gender, though, in a complex way, and it is this situation that makes it appropriate to have a bio article for each (corresponding essentially to sex assignment in humans), a gender article for each, and an article for each that is based in the broad (but partial) literature that doesn't distinguish between sex and gender. Newimpartial (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
To prevent redundancy I'll focus on this: your three diffs come from only two editors and are all about a discussion about the first sentence of woman. In that same discussion several editors invited the OP to add material to the body instead. The only thing I was "implying" with my quote is that we should not remove biological material as was suggested. So, no, there is no cabal preventing gender-related material from being added - and even if there were, the answer would be an RfC, not a POVFORK. Crossroads -talk- 05:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It isn't a POVFORK if it is a different topic. And many editors have made clear - through their edits and Talk page arguments - that, in their view, the scope of Woman does not include content that is about gender to the exclusion of biological sex. Nothing cabalistic about it. Newimpartial (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Exactly, which is why the sentence I wrote appears to reflect the source, but the part you added seems not reflected by the source. Beccaynr (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Not exactly, you have written:
  • Cultural expectations are more commonly used to perceive gender
  • because some biological characteristics
  • such as genitalia
  • are not typically displayed in public.
your "cultural expectations" - in the context of what the source is detailing, and which you are citing - equals "cultural genitalia," not sure how you are claiming otherwise. Acousmana 22:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Because the broader discussion is about cultural expectations, and the way humans do not typically display genitalia empasizes this point. A focus on the term 'cultural genitalia' is not what is conveyed by the text nor the point of the content in the article as it relates to introducing female gender. I hope that you can remove this unnecessary excess language because it seems to muddle the point made by the source. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
so you accept you are editorializing and ignoring the frame employed in the source you are citing? The source is specific, not broad, so you really are just cherry picking unfortunately. Acousmana 00:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if we could talk about the sources and the article content. It feels as if you are proceeding with an accusatory tone that does not feel helpful for collaboration, and also uncalled for based on the sources, the article topic, and content. I think it is clear from the source that a broader cultural aspect is being discussed, and focusing on one small quote is not helpful for resolving the issue. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
all i know is that what you wrote, in the context of 'female (gender)' is not what the source is dealing with, that is a problem. You are citing a single sentence, taken out of context, from a chapter entitled 'Gender and Deviance,' (in a book about 'Sexual Deviance and Society.') The broader discussion, dealt with in this book, pertains to the sociology of deviance, not the topic of our article: female (gender). Acousmana 00:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I have read a fair amount of the book, and I encourage you to not overly focus on the title of work and chapter as a way to exclude relevant content that helps introduce the complex topic (which includes deviance, so it is also unclear to me why this term would be disqualifying). If all you know is what I wrote and a limited review of one source, I encourage you to further review the sources and the related articles. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
That's a fudge if ever there was one. There is no intention to "exclude relevant content" it's a matter of encouraging you to cite sources that deal explicitly with the topic at hand, namely 'female (gender)'. Citing a single sentence (incorrectly), from a book that deals with the sociology of sexual deviance - because it fits your frame - is no way to go about constructing an article on a "complex topic." It's self-evident that there is a disconnect between what you believe is relevant, what you wrote, and what is stated in the citation (p.101). If the book does indeed discuss 'female (gender), and in a fashion that would be useful for our readers, probably better to cite the relevant page number(s) than cherry picking for yet another hodge-podge Wikipedia article. Acousmana 09:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Acousmana, the value of introducing the overall topic generally has been discussed several times on this Talk page - scaffolding can help the reader understand the specific topic in the context of the related topics. I also did not cite a single sentence, and I have no frame beyond the encyclopedia policies and guidelines. From my view, this article has the potential to enhance the encyclopedic coverage of a complex topic, but it does not seem possible to do that if broader related topics are excluded. The content I attempted to add seems clearly relevent and related to the discussion of female gender, athough it may be better to further develop in a subsection and with additional sources. I also noticed that you expressed a concern in the AfD about my statement disclaiming a status as an expert. Please note that this is my attempt to avoid argument from authority despite my familiarity with social science literature. I volunteered to help develop this article because I am comfortable with lit reviews and familiar with this complex topic. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
"Please note that this is my attempt to avoid argument from authority," yet you are here using this as an excuse to avoid addressing very specific inconsistencies in both your use of a source and the manner in which you cite it. When addressing a complex topic, you start with foundational aspects, without those your "scaffolding" has nothing to ground itself on, and that's the real issue here: the extraction and use of decontextualized material in building a "structure" (in scaffolding terms, a few ledgers here, a bunch of standards there, and all haphazardly braced together). Another clusterfuck of concepts associated with some topic, masquerading as an encyclopedic entry. Wikipedia as a stooge in an info war. Acousmana 19:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
masquerading as an encyclopedic entry
  • WP:Encyclopedia defines encyclopedia as a written compendium of knowledge.
  • If it's citing reliable sources accurately, then it's verifiable knowledge that deserves to be on wikipedia. The foundational sources are important to cite in a topic, but those citations are not necessarily a requirement as long as the sources that are cited are reliable. And if you feel so strongly about the apparent missing scaffolding, then CONTRIBUTE TO THE PAGE and stop patronizing one of the few people who is actively trying to improve it.
  • There is an argument to be made that the title Female (gender) fails WP:CRITERIA, because the Precision might not sufficiently distinguish it from other topics, but that would be an extremely strict interpretation of the policy. There is tons of overlap and cross-linking on wikipedia. That doesn't make any one topic vague or un-encyclopedic. It just means someone could search for Life and find their way to Biology, which is a good thing. Even the CRITERIA policy says These should be seen as goals, not as rules. The void century (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Just to add some food for thought since you seem so convinced this isn't a topic. (this info has no bearing on whether it should be included in wikipedia, but it is interesting)
Here's a comparison of female sex and female gender on google trends.
If you look at the "related queries" for female gender, most of them are clearly referencing gender-issues, not using gender as a substitute for woman, femininity, or female sex. Even some of the related queries for female sex are about gender issues.
And if you use google keyword tool to check for the exact search term (instead of just related searches on google trends):
  • female gender : 1k-10k / month
  • female sex: doesn't even register
I think it would be a shame for those searching female gender to find female as the top search result. The void century (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
"you seem so convinced this isn't a topic," nowhere has this been stated in anything written above, it's quite the contrary, this is a topic, that's the whole point, it's a complex topic that deserves to be treated carefully, and sourced properly. Right now this "literature review" appears to be nothing more than a key word/term search in Google Books, with material cited, at random, in whatever order it gets thrown up; but ignoring core, fundamental, foundational considerations salient to any discussion of the concept 'female (gender)' - and I'm not going to spell out what they are, more interesting to watch this hodge-podge unfold. Acousmana 22:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
(in reply to this post) I'm a big believer in scaffolding, which I often add in the form of #Overview, #Introduction, or #Background sections (or #Terminology, depending on topic), and then at the other end, #Aftermath, #Impact, and the like. As in Liberation of France, for example, which has a #Background section to set the stage and introduce the topic to readers unfamiliar with it, and then two sections at the back end to summarize the dramatic immediate aftermath and the long-term impact. Each is around 10% of the total size. But that still leaves about 70% of the article devoted to the Liberation of France itself. The problem with this article, is that it is all scaffolding, and no meat. Which is to be expected, pretty much, when there isn't agreement about what the topic is. Mathglot (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
The topic is female gender. The AfD has identified multiple Wikipedia articles that cover aspects or sound similar, but no article that actually addresses this topic specifically and in-depth as a whole concept. And there appears to be a potentially substantial article that can be developed, and brings these various related articles together. I doubt it will look like the woman or female articles, because of the depth and breadth of the social science literature that is available about female gender, as well as the various related topics. Maybe that is what has not been clearly communicated, although I tried to signal the potential with my attempt to begin work on the article, which I have unfortunately not felt comfortable continuing until after the AfD concludes. However, I think there is a notable topic, and if there are chronic or intractable issues that interfere with article development, there are other forums to address those types of issues. Beccaynr (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I think there's agreement here. It's female gender-- the gender (all its aspects) of women and girls. If you know what woman and girls are, and you know what gender is, then you can figure out what female gender is.
  • Woman/girls -- female humans (both cis and trans).
  • Gender -- range of characteristics pertaining to femininity and masculinity and differentiating between them, including sex-based social structures (i.e. gender roles) and gender identity.
  • Under a gender binary, female is one end of the spectrum of gender (the opposite of male), and female gender deals with all aspects of gender that pertain to that end of the spectrum. It's not just gender identity, it's all aspects of gender specifically pertaining to females.
That's straightforward in my mind. @Beccaynr, @Newimpartial did I get any of that wrong? @Mathglot does any of that not make sense to you? The void century (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
That is very straightforward, and the frameworks of existing articles seems like a useful starting point for this article. Given the volume of sources available that discuss female gender, I am surprised that this article has only recently been created. Beccaynr (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

References (conflation)

  1. ^ "Gender and health". World Health Organization. Retrieved 2022-07-22.
  2. ^ a b Worthen, Meredith G. F. (2021). Sexual Deviance and Society: A Sociological Examination. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781000421064. Retrieved 24 July 2022.
  3. ^ Pompper, Donnalyn (2016). Rhetoric of Femininity: Female Body Image, Media, and Gender Role Stress/Conflict. Lexington Books. ISBN 9781498519366. Retrieved 24 July 2022.

Added NPR source with Female categorization

Hi all, I added a citation to the NPR Guide because it clearly indicates female as a gender category.

Gender is often defined as a social construct of norms, behaviors and roles that varies between societies and over time. Gender is often categorized as male, female or nonbinary. The void century (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Accessabilty of sources

Most of the sources are inaccessible to the average reader. Maybe Jimbo Wales WP:WEIGHT might give you some ideas. I couldn't find any source specifically on the female gender all I found either treat majorly feminity or women.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Do we exclude senescence simply because its sources are inaccessible to the average reader, when we also have aging which is more common terminology and more well known? No, we don't. We're an encyclopedia, not just a colloquial guide. The void century (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
This discussion is meant to enhance the reader experience, see also WP:verifiability. Not that a reader who finally accesses the sources, discovers the vast majority treat women and feminity.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
This article is female gender, which is the gender of women and girls. We could retitle it to that phrasing if that's more in line with the sources, but female (gender) is more WP:CONCISE. So your reader experience argument is only one of multiple reader experience arguments. Still, the sources I've seen categorize gender into male/female/nonbinary. "Woman" and "female" are sometimes used interchangeably, but this is still not the woman article. It's female gender -- a WP:SPINOFF of gender. Not finding sources doesn't mean they don't exist. This is a meta topic, intended to expand on the meaning of female/woman/girl in the context of sociology/psychology/culture/philosophy. Woman is a broader colloquial article. This article will do similar work to other articles that broadly introduce a reader to multiple related topics under the umbrella of a conceptual framework, but it will also cover new ground on gender, namely a focused discussion on what gender means on the female end of the gender binary. One aspect of that is femininity but that's not the whole picture. There's also female gender expression that doesn't always align with traditional femininity, gender identity which is the personal sense of gender, the history of female gender as a concept, etc. I don't see the issue with crossover with other articles in this context. Obviously woman article and female gender article will touch on some related subjects, but it doesn't mean they're the same overall topic. The void century (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
You drift off, the discussion is on accessibility and verifiability of the sources. This is why I opened a new discussion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
No I don't drift off. I'm fully aware of what I'm talking about, thank you very much. If you say something like I couldn't find any source specifically on the female gender, then I can in turn say why it's inaccurate or a red herring. That's how debate works. The void century (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The WP:SOURCEACCESS section of the verifiability policy discourages us from rejecting sources just because they are difficult or costly to access, and the WP:OFFLINE explanatory essay discusses this issue in more detail. Due to the pending AfD, I focused on GScholar and GBooks because these tend to be more accessible, but if this article clears AfD, I plan to use the Wikipedia Library to conduct more research. Beccaynr (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    I am not demanding to exclude sources but encourage accessible and verifiable ones to be added. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Circular definition?

Discussion continued from above.

As of this writing,[7] in this article we have "female gender" defined based on "women" and "girls", while Woman and Girl are defined as female humans. I feel that these are circular definitions. The question remains: what is female gender? Based on the sources I found at #Lead_sentence_as_of_19:07,_30_July_2022, it looks like female gender is the traits that a culture typically associates with the female sex or a personal sense of having those traits (gender identity). Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Psychological aspects

I have gone a bit through the psychological aspects and see the female gender is only associated with terms of a negative connotation (stress and conflict) and which are experienced by anyone who visits a psychologist, I guess. Then the next phrase includes racism concerning the female gender? How does that work? I found nothing on it in the racism nor the race article, nor in a quick google search. I guess the racism and race articles could use a phrase or two if you have the source already present. I'd remove the whole psychological section but was reverted, so I open a discussion. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

As a short answer, intersectionality is discussed in sources and the literature generally. There is text in the article that generally introduces the issue of psychological aspects as it relates to female gender, based on this source: Pompper, Donnalyn (2016). Rhetoric of Femininity: Female Body Image, Media, and Gender Role Stress/Conflict. Lexington Books. ISBN 9781498519366. Retrieved 24 July 2022., and further discussion about intersectionality in the next source after the text discussing factors such as poverty, class, racism and education: Bosson, Jennifer K.; Vandello, Joseph A.; Buckner, Camille E. (17 January 2018). The Psychology of Sex and Gender. SAGE Publications. ISBN 978-1-5063-3134-8. OCLC 1045400244. Retrieved 24 July 2022.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) Also, instead of (or in addition to) adding hidden text in the article, I encourage you to ask questions on the Talk page, so there can be discussion about your concerns. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
That doesn't answer the question. How is stress and conflict uniquely experienced in the female gender? And then if the opposite of the female is the male gender, are they all calm and peaceful? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
The sources discuss how stress and conflict is experienced in the female gender; for example, there is a book about female body image, media, and gender role stress/conflict. There is also a book about the psychology of sex and gender that discusses female gender specifically. There is no implied comment on male gender to develop content based on sources that discuss psychological aspects related to female gender. Beccaynr (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@Beccaynr I agree with you that it's sourced well enough to be included, but I also agree with @Paradise Chronicle that it would be good to specify how the experience of stress/conflict is unique with the female gender. Since you're familiar with the source, would you be able to add a sentence or two about that? The void century (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I think it is already stated in the current text, i.e. what is being discussed is specific to female gender, as well as the sources. However, I plan to continue working on this article after the AfD concludes, including on this section. Beccaynr (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd add my voice to those suggesting you rework it. As it stands, I have absolute no idea what "Female gender roles may be associated with psychological stress and conflict" is supposed to mean - it's just too vague to communicate anything at all. Clicriffhard (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
The sentence was added to introduce the topic and to wave at the AfD about how there is a book written about the topic that can be reviewed to help develop further content, in addition to another source that also can help develop content. These are examples of scholarly sources, and I hope to help develop this section after the AfD concludes. I have not yet searched the Wikipedia Library, but expect more sources are available there, in addition to GScholar. Beccaynr (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
All I'll add is it blows my mind how a sentence can full-on associate female gender roles with psychological stress and conflict while simultaneously throwing out "may be". It is, ergo they are. It hulks me up! But I'll be fine. Just need to Irish whip something soft. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Expand the article accordingly while the AfD runs, not after. If the keep camp invested only half the energy in expanding the article they invest in taking part in the discussions concerning the female gender, we'd very likely not have an AfD anymore but many keep votes. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Female gender roles that may be associated with psychological stress and conflict: Child rearing, running a household, sexual harassment in the workplace... Of course these are not exclusively associated female gender roles. Perhaps is it helpful to point some of those issues out to readers who struggle to imagine what those stressors that affect the female gender might be, and how they affect members of the different genders differently. It saddens me that this would be necessary, but apparently it is. Vexations (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
There're those mixed messages again! The stresses of child rearing, running a household and sexual harassment are associated with female gender roles. You just proved it, as did whoever (probably repeatedly) associated those things to the point you could easily reassemble them for your opening sentence in the first place. I'd rather know what that those stressors that affect the female gender are than imagine what they might be. Or "can be", "may be", "are often called", "should be considered as being", "allegedly are", reportedly are" or "apparently are". Such an easy way to teach people the way things are, I sadly insist, telling it like it is. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I think I get your point about the phrasing, InedibleHulk, and agree that further wordsmithing and development generally will benefit this article. From my view, how to describe correlation and causation is an art, not a science. Beccaynr (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
And I think I see what you mean about those kinds of causes. Thanks for listening. You get this thing built up as far as it should go, I'll come by later to chip away what I can and we'll talk more about importance of lingo then, OK? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Collaboration is best for the business of writing the encyclopedia, and I look forward to it. This feels a bit similar to writing about legal topics - we're not writing for lawyers, nor sociologists, but need to find a way to clearly communicate. I used the hedging form of language because I was initially thinking of this as a 'can be, but not always' type of concept, but your perspective helps expand mine. Beccaynr (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I was responding to the statement that "Female gender roles may be associated with psychological stress and conflict", on account of one reader's apparent difficulty coming up with specific examples, finding it too vague. I provided a few. I left out many. I think most people, including those who are not female, but have met and spoken to one, would not have any difficulty naming several more. But for the especially obtuse reader, we might want to make it explicit. Vexations (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
As a short response, I can't complain, your three examples were perfect. There are ways to get the same general idea across in the form of a concrete assertion. That's all I meant, more in addition than refutation. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Nothing of what Vexations argue is sourced, those are mere assumptions and Vexations POV. Sure life is tough at times, but it also holds many notable, mentionable and wonderful aspects which are ignored for now. And I can't add the wonderful things because they are not sourcible for the female gender but for the woman for which an article already exists. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Here are some sources:
Perhaps is it helpful to point some of those issues out to readers who struggle to imagine what those stressors that affect the female gender might be - seriously? Forgive me but I thought the point of an encyclopaedia was to share well sourced information, not to waft at a barely articulated concept that readers can flesh out by imagining their own facts. Clicriffhard (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Clicriffhard, I have only been trying to show that the article can be further developed, per WP:NEXIST. While I have previously developed articles during pending AfDs, I have never encountered an AfD like this, so I will not continue trying to develop this article while the AfD is pending. Sources exist, some are linked in the article, and there is plenty more, e.g. The Psychology of Gender; Developmental Social Psychology of Gender: An Integrative Framework; PSYCHOLOGY RECONSTRUCTS THE FEMALE 1968–1988, etc. Beccaynr (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Understandable and I agree that you should, as I said. The comment you're responding to now wasn't directed at you. Clicriffhard (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I meant more that my efforts were directed toward what seems like a bare minimum for supporting the article at AfD, and that I would have tried to do more under different circumstances. Along the lines of our sidebar discussion in the AfD, it does not seem necessary to develop an entire article (and review every possible source and word used) to survive AfD, because the determination is ultimately based on whether or not sources can support a standalone article. Beccaynr (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I know. The comment of yours that I originally replied to said that I plan to continue working on this article after the AfD concludes. Please assume that I read the comment I was replying to and interpret my replies accordingly. Thanks. Clicriffhard (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, is it clearer to you now that it has been explained to you and source were provided above? Vexations (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter either way, does it? Is the article improved by you missing the point on a talk page? If you have well sourced and relevant material, just put it in the article. Clicriffhard (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I did. Is it clearer now? Have your concerns been addressed? Vexations (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
For me you attempt to write an article on woman under the term Female gender. The info you added concerns women per your phrase and many more would look for such info under feminine psychology. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Based on the tags currently placed on the Feminine psychology article, it may be in need of WP:TNT, and this article can have a summary-style overview and then link to the main article (assuming it is not deleted). From my view, one of the benefits an article like this can bring to the encyclopedia is its ability to connect the various related and similar concepts that are currently scattered across a variety of articles, and make it easier for readers to access information about the concept for female gender, regardless of the particular aspect they may be looking for. The various related articles identified in the AfD have been helpful for demonstrating the need for this article as a way to help readers navigate the encyclopedia and this concept. Beccaynr (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
The info you added concerns women per your phrase What does that mean? What phrase? Can you please make an attempt to write in intelligible English? Vexations (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Presumably the info you added that refers to "women". You don't need to be quite so rude and defensive when people are trying to help give the article a better chance of surviving, and perhaps reading people's comments a bit more carefully would help to make them more intelligible. Clicriffhard (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm rude AND defensive AND careless all at the same time. You, on the other hand are perfectly civil and a joy to collaborate with. Vexations (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, you called me an "especially obtuse reader" who may never have met or spoken to a woman for thinking that an encyclopedic article should clearly state what it sources say rather than assuming that anyone reading it will already know. You said that it saddened you that I would "need" to be told what the sources said rather than simply imagining what they might say. You said that a polite and easily understood comment from Paradise Chronicle was not "intelligible English". Your other replies are tinged with haughty sarcasm. Meanwhile, Beccaynr, whose sentence was the one under discussion, has been perfectly gracious about it.
We can agree to disagree about whether you've made any useful points here or just angrily misconstrued some simply worded comments, but if you don't think you've been rude and defensive then please tell me what you thought that was. Don't get me wrong - it's not like I've never been rude on Wikipedia myself, but I don't think I'd quite have the gall to call someone uncivil for noticing. Think I'll leave it there. Clicriffhard (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Somewhat clearer, thank you, but in any event I was talking about the changes that Beccaynr hopes to make once the AfD is completed, so they may well want to flesh it out or clarify further at that point. Some things that I think could be clearer:
(i) What aspects of female gender roles bring about psychological stress and conflict according to the sources? Is it the performance of the roles, failure to perform the roles, the expectation of performance/fear of failing to perform the roles, witnessing others performing the roles, or something else?
(ii) Who has associated aspects of female gender roles with psychological stress and conflict?
(iii) Why "may be associated" and not "are associated"? What do the sources say about the basis for the link that makes it speculative rather than demonstrable?
(iv) Is "psychological stress and conflict" meant to be read as "psychological stress" and "conflict", or as "psychological stress" and "psychological conflict"?
And so on. Fairly basic stuff but some context and a bit of rephrasing would make the content more meaningful to readers who don't want to delve into the sources themselves. Clicriffhard (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Such material belongs at gender role. Crossroads -talk- 00:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I think I agree. You could possibly justify a WP:SPINOFF article of Gender role that expanded on women's gender roles specifically, but it's hard to see the need when the main article is largely focused on covering the two major gender role categories, while "exceptions and variations" are covered elsewhere. In any event, that might justify an article about women's gender roles specifically, but not this clunky assembly of scattered concepts that are sort of "woman-y" in any sense as long as it isn't biological.
I know you've argued that the whole article is a WP:POVFORK. To me, there are parts of it that might not be if they were split off into their own separate articles, but I'm really struggling to see how sections like this one will ever transcend the fact that the page was explicitly created to bypass consensus elsewhere. I can't see that it serves any other purpose. Clicriffhard (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I keep thinking that it is difficult to determine what might be better placed in various articles until this article is more fully developed, and that trying to pick it apart at such an early stage does not necessarily support its deletion. Female gender is a broad concept, and the research and development that can be done for this article could ultimately benefit multiple articles on various facets of the broader concept, many of which have been discussed as needing updates and additional work. Beccaynr (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
You could be right and I'm ok with waiting it out. Just not sure that I can see from this vantage point how parts of the article will ever justify themselves. Clicriffhard (talk) 04:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I think this article could become the wikilink for the word "female" currently in the woman article, and the female (biological sex) article could become a wikilink in this article, because it is an aspect of the broader concept as it relates to humans. It may make sense to merge relevant content from related articles where it may not otherwise be WP:DUE, and collect links to related articles in this article. Beccaynr (talk) 05:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Clicriffhard, if you're coming around, you may want to update your "keep" vote at the AfD :). Yes, the very premise of this article circumvents the normal process of WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:Summary style. Its intended scope was basically "women, minus biology", which is not a proper topic. Crossroads -talk- 05:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Crossroads, I don't think "women, minus biology" is how this broad topic is best described. This article is about female gender, which according to the sources, is more than biology. Beccaynr (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings, but if I did update my "keep (for now)" vote then it would only be to suggest we send the article to drafts to be worked on. I'm not certain that it can turned into a proper article, but nor am I certain that it can't, and, although I question some editors' motives, there are others including Beccaynr who (I am quite certain) sincerely think that they can improve and validate it and are willing to have a go. I'd like to see them have a chance to do that - which is difficult with the AfD ongoing - and I've said all along that I'll "switch sides" if the article still looks like a fudge when it's had every chance not to be. Clicriffhard (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Biology

If it's "more than biology" then does it include biology? Not sure that's quite the right direction to go in either - that would actually be the same article as Female in its current form with a different balance of sex/gender. Sorry that this is turning into the same discussion in two separate sections. Feel free to ignore one or both... Clicriffhard (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Correcting myself:
that would actually be the same article as Female in its current form with a different balance of sex/gender. - or it could be a combined POVFORK of Woman and Girl, which was already covered by this version of Female (disambiguation) without the POVFORK issue. Clicriffhard (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I do not think it woud be the same article as female, because that article is much broader than humans so it does not seem DUE to try to add the socio/cultural and psychological aspects of humans to that article. In humans, according to the sources, there is a different balance than what is presented broadly for all species. This also does not seem to be a POV fork of woman, because the topic of female gender is broader than the often numerical approach of the woman article (e.g. life expectancy, mortality, rates of violence), and the currently thinly-sourced culture and gender roles section in woman could be moved, or reworked to take a more straightforward and better-sourced historical view, that perhaps e.g. mentions the impacts of world wars on women. The woman article links out to broader main articles, and I think this article can do something similar, but with a focus on main articles that are relevant to this topic. I still do not see how this article creates a POV fork - this article seems more like an attempt to resolve an organizational issue about how to help readers effectively access in-depth coverage of complex topics. This article appears capable of becoming a WP:SPINOFF, because it appears to be within the categories of 1. Articles where the expanding volume of an individual section creates an undue weight problem and 2. Large summary style overview meta-articles which are composed of many summary sections, which are permissible. Beccaynr (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
the currently thinly-sourced culture and gender roles section in woman - ok, but why is it currently thinly sourced? Is it not because consensus has rejected gender-related content on the basis that either (i) the content belongs instead on Gender or some other page, or (ii) it doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all? Either way, that would make this a POVFORK of one or more articles to bypass the consensus there. Clicriffhard (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I cannot discern from the woman Talk page why there is so much unsourced content in the culture and gender roles section, which also seems to focus more on the Western history of women in the labor market and education. I think honing this section to become more focused and supported by sources does not create a POVFORK, because these are distinct aspects of larger topics. It is not clear to me that this article is an attempt to bypass consenusus, because based on what could potentially be done with this article and the apparent content gaps in subtopic and related articles, the creation of this article appears to be a good faith attempt to implement consensus from discussions at subtopic and related articles. Beccaynr (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm honestly trying to see your point but I'm struggling at this stage. We have Woman and Girl. We have Gender. We have Femininity. We have Female and we have Female (disambiguation), which previously directed people looking for "female gender" content to Gender and Woman and Girl and Femininity. We have Gender identity. We have Gender roles. We have Legal gender and Women's rights and Sexism, which in practice covers discrimination on the basis of sex and/or gender. We have a million articles on the specifics of sex and gender distinctions in different areas and a million more on women's experience and treatment in different areas. All of the above are capable of dealing with their subjects as applied to women, and are linked to one another as consensus has deemed appropriate.
What content can this article cover that would be UNDUE in any of the existing articles? If the answer is "none", then what is it for, if not to bypass rejections by consensus in the articles where the content is DUE? Is it supposed to be a summary page to collect together some loosely related subjects and redirect people to the existing articles on those subjects? That might be ok, but it isn't that, and nobody quite seems to know what it is.
Sorry, I think I have to change my vote in the AfD to "draftify" or whatever the word is. We need clarity about what the article's meaning, purpose, and proper form is before it gets knitted into other articles and starts to undermine WP:NPOV irreparably.
Very grateful to you for the discussion though, as it's helped to clarify some of my thoughts. Clicriffhard (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Cheers, and I also appreciate the discussion. I think further discussion about how to create an appropriate WP:SPINOFF is worthwhile, and if draftication helps accomplish this, then it will be good for the encyclopedia. My perspective is somewhat related to experience with curriculum development around social science topics generally, which is probably why I keep coming back to organizational issues, but ultimately I am thinking about how to harmonize the various articles. Beccaynr (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I meant to leave it there, but I had a bit of a think about organisation/harmonisation, as I agree that it's quite important to have all of these articles arranged in a way that covers topics coherently and directs readers effectively. So, a quick post-script:
If and when references to "female gender" are sufficiently commonplace that "female sex" can no longer be said to be the clear primary use/meaning of "female", then I would support moving the current Female article to "Female (sex)" and moving the current Female (disambiguation) to Female, so that anyone looking the word up would have quick and easy access to the main articles covering female sex AND gender (the latter currently being Gender, Woman, Girl, and Femininity according to the disambig. page). However, on the basis that all major mainstream descriptive dictionaries either (i) reference female gender in a minor definition subordinate to the main definition referencing female sex or (ii) exclude it entirely, I don't think we can say that we've reached that point. The right solution for now seems to be to include a clear indication at the top of Female that that article is about the sex, and that articles relating to other meanings of "female" can be found at the disambiguation page, which is pretty much what we had.
Obviously both of those solutions are predicated on this article not existing, but I think they're neater solutions than anything I can envisage that does include this article. What I do think is that people trying to submit female-gender-related content to existing articles (including Woman, Girl, Gender, and Femininity) have every right to reference the AfD arguments made for deleting this article in support of that content being within the scope of one or more of the existing articles. The content might still be rejected for other reasons, but if the argument is that female gender is already covered by existing articles, then we have to make good on that by admitting somewhere any content that would have been legitimately admissible here.
And now I really will leave it there until the AfD is done.
Clicriffhard (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and we already have substantial sourcing that offers encyclopedic content related to female gender as distinct from biological sex, and no citations appear to have been produced to support the assertion all major mainstream descriptive dictionaries either (i) reference female gender in a minor definition subordinate to the main definition referencing female sex or (ii) exclude it entirely. For example, the OED cited below specifically relates to humans, e.g. "The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones". Beccaynr (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
That was my OED citation, and it was from the entry for "gender". The entry for "female" doesn't say that "female" is the name of a gender or gender identity. It's difficult to read any definition in the OED as the primary definition as I think they're ordered by first recorded usage, but for what it's worth, the first definitions listed for "female" as noun and adjective are, respectively:
  • (n.) A person of the sex that can bear offspring; a woman or a girl.
  • (adj.) That belongs to the sex which can bear offspring (contrasted with male); characteristic of or relating to this sex.
And I'm not proposing that any Wikipedia entry should be ONLY a dictionary definition; just that major mainstream descriptive dictionaries are excellent sources for common meanings of words. You might prefer Lexico for Oxford's take on current usage, and that references female gender in a definition subordinate to the definition referencing female sex. If I'm wrong about other major mainstream descriptive dictionaries then I'm happy to be corrected! Clicriffhard (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The point is that we have scholarly sources to use to build encyclopedic content, and this article is about female gender, so dictionary definitions of female species (i.e, ‘a herd of female deer’, per Lexico) do not appear relevant or capable of outweighing all of the in-depth scholarly sources available that could help develop the topic of human female gender. Beccaynr (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood why I mentioned dictionaries in relation to whether references to "female gender" are sufficiently commonplace that "female sex" can no longer be said to be the clear primary use/meaning of "female", or perhaps misunderstood why I think the clear primary use/meaning is relevant to how we organise the articles. Let me know if it's any clearer on re-reading or whether I should try to phrase it better.
The reference to female deer is an example usage of "female" meaning the sex class, not a definition, so I'm not sure I've understood your point there?
Incidentally, have a look at the synonyms given for the subordinate definition "Relating to women or the female gender":
  • "feminine, women's, of women, womanly, womanlike, she-"
We're back to those POVFORKs... Clicriffhard (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Even with the dictionaries, a primary use for humans is female gender. What I don't understand is how dictionaries, that acknowledge the primacy of female gender in the definition of female as it relates to humans could be used to justify excluding decades of scholarly work on female gender from the encyclopedia. Maybe my attempts to reformat this page to add outdenting etc without getting edit conflicted is interfering with my understanding, but dictionaries do not appear to help disavow the validity of a standalone article on the topic of female gender. Beccaynr (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
dictionaries do not appear to help disavow the validity of a standalone article on the topic of female gender
That was not my point. Without asking you to trawl through all of my comments on this page for my complete perspective, this one gives you the main reason why I'm not convinced that this article should exist.
Dictionaries (and specifically major mainstream descriptivist ones) were referenced in relation to how I would suggest that we order and connect the articles to guide readers effectively to the information that they're most likely to be looking for, as those dictionaries are very good sources for what the most common usages of words are according to evidence-based methods. They can help to tell you where Female should logically point to, and at what point it should cease to send readers to one particular definition of "female" and instead send them straight to a disambiguation page. Clicriffhard (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTDICTIONARY states in part: 1. Definitions. Articles should begin with a good definition or description. The article as of this writing does not IMO begin with a good definition. This is not guidance against using dictionaries as sources for the lead. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Fully agreed. Clicriffhard (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
This is not guidance against using dictionaries It's not guidance requiring you to use dictionaries either. We could rename this article the gender of women and girls, but Female (gender) seems more WP:CONCISE. Either way, I agree the lede needs work. The void century (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion
I think you're mixing up talk sections. This conversation wasn't about that. Clicriffhard (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Huh? I'm responding to Kolya, who was talking about dictionary definitions in the lead. The void century (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I think Kolya was responding to Beccaynr's confusion about why I mentioned dictionaries, which had nothing to do with the lede. Your reply sounded like it related more to the conversation below which actually is about dictionary definitions and the lede. Anyway, not important. Clicriffhard (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Clicriffhard, I think it would be best for this discussion if you could also avoid the type of personalized negative statements you have previously admonished other editors to avoid. Just because I advocate for the WP:BESTSOURCES does not mean I am confused about the purpose of an encyclopedia. Attempts to infantilize and degrade other editors are not helpful for productive collaboration on this article. Thanks, Beccaynr (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think there were any personal comments there at all, were there? I just said that you'd misconstrued why I mentioned dictionaries a couple of times in this chain, which I thought you did. Reading back, it still looks to me like you did. Certainly I didn't say that you were confused about the purpose of an encyclopedia - as far as this chain goes, I can only see you suggesting that about me - but now I'm reluctant to say anything that might suggest that you've misconstrued another comment... Clicriffhard (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Personalized negative statements..? Infantilize and degrade..?! Sounds like a bit of an overreaction, don't you think?  Tewdar  19:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, I thought so. Clicriffhard (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Personally, I've had a hard time staying calm through all the criticism of this article, and it's both the AfD and talk page. It feels like double-duty. I know it's well-intentioned, but it does feel a bit disarming when you say something like I think you're mixing up talk sections. This conversation wasn't about that. The void century (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
If you think this is criticism, wait until the AfD closes (if the article survives in mainspace, that is...) 😁  Tewdar  21:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I think there have been ongoing ad hominem statements about editors, so I have continued to request a focus on the content, and I am also concerned that some of this section seems to be something other than discussion that is WP:HERE to build the encyclopedia. For a topic like this, it seems most helpful to stay focused on the article instead of jokes and off-topic discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I've not noticed much ad hominem in this discussion, or WP:NOTHERE contributions in the above section. I wasn't joking (if you mean me).  Tewdar  23:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
@Tewdar I appreciate you catching yourself. You've made clear your contempt for this article. I still don't understand what you meant by In principle, I'd support the creation of this article. Why aren't you editing the article itself, and instead making comments like Welcome to Butlerpedia, the post-structuralist encyclopedia that anyone can edit? I really don't get it. The void century (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
In principle, we can have an article on the topic 'female gender', if in practice (i) we can establish that this is a notable subject, (ii) we can find decent sources (i.e. not the Gale Handbook of Dangerous Cookery Recipes or whatever) and (iii) the people editing it have some grounding in gender studies or sociology (and not just Butlerism either). I'd add stuff myself, but collaborating in this topic area is an effing nightmare, and I'm a bit busy making articles that are actually enjoyable to write to contribute anything but sarcastic one-liners to talk pages anyway, at least for now. All the best,  Tewdar  08:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
That's a lovely article, by the way. Clicriffhard (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
It is slowly improving, but still not ready for mainspace yet. But thank you very much! 😁👍 Tewdar  08:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The only time, to my knowledge, that you've asked me to "focus on the content" was, somewhat perplexingly, in response to a comment that was entirely about the content of the article. I mean, I'd literally typed up by hand a full page of a source that you had added in yourself and then lost the ability to access, purely so that we could talk about its contents. How did you respond? By misrepresenting my point three times in a row and then accusing me of "cherrypicking quotes" and "mindreading" - and again, these were all quotes that you'd added in yourself and on which you'd based a prominent part of the lede. At that point I admittedly lost a bit of patience with you and decided to clear off for the night, but it felt to me like I'd held onto mine for longer than you had.
The other section that you've linked to went off on a tangent because you chose to respond to a side point and nothing else, and then kept responding to it. Which is, of course, absolutely fine by me, but whose responsibility is that if not yours?
And you might have to identify these "ad hominem statements about editors" because I can't figure out what you're referring to, unless you're literally Judith Butler, in which case I can only apologise - if I'd known you were in earshot, I'd have brought my airhorn. Assuming that you aren't, the only person making personal comments about other editors is you right now. I have no interest in a fight, but I will continue to point out any problems that I can see with the article and suggest ways to improve it, and you're perfectly welcome to ignore my contributions if you're not interested. Clicriffhard (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

"This may include but is also beyond female sex"

Full sentence in the article is:

This may include but is also beyond female sex, which can be defined by biology and sociocultural constructs related to biological characteristics.

There must be a clearer way to express that some (maybe most?) reliable sources specifically exclude biological sex from their definitions of "gender", while some include it. Illustration of the disagreement from the two sources cited after the word *biology":

The first seems to be presented as supporting the inclusion of biology in "gender" but actually contradicts it.

Side point: the citation given after "sociocultural constructs related to biological characteristics" makes statements so profoundly ignorant (ostensibly paraphrasing Judith Butler) that I have to wonder whether it's really a reliable source in any respect. Example from the page cited: "Every baby is born with somewhat ambiguous genitalia–no two genitals are alike–and it is up to medical professionals to dictate 'male' or 'female' designations based on socially constructed conceptualizations of 'sex' identity." Clicriffhard (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

As to the side point, the book is now limiting my ability to view the relevant pages online, so I am not able to directly address the context of the quote from p. 112 in Sexual Deviance and Society, but see Intersex, where there may be additional sources. My attempt at describing apparent socio-cultural elements that influence sex-based definitions in a sketch of an introduction is clumsy, but further development seems possible. As to the rest, my use of the term "may" was an attempt at noting the disagreement in the sources - as the article develops, these differences could be expanded, quoted, and attributed in a subsection. Beccaynr (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
The full context is below, but I don't think it makes a lot of difference. The whole reason why medical professionals usually discern the sex of a newborn by inspection of external genitalia is that newborn babies' genitals are generally not ambiguous at all, allowing an expert to quickly, cheaply, non-invasively, and accurately predict reproductive sex in at least 99.95% of cases. That's a widely available fact that would be found quickly by anyone doing the slightest bit of reading to check whether their speculative theory about medical practices held any water at all, but you don't even have to get that far to realise that sex discernment is very obviously grounded in biology. Whether the argument being put forward is Butler's, Kitzinger's, or Meredith Worthen's own, it is quite concerning to see Worthen present without challenge an assertion that's so manifestly untrue in a world where 15-year-old boys do not routinely find themselves unexpectedly pregnant.
Breaking the binaries through gender deviance
A great deal of scholarship demonstrates gender deviance as violations of binaries whereby there are two categories of gender (man or woman), two categories of sex (male or female), and two categories of gender performance (masculine or feminine). Therefore, “gender normals” are not only cisgender (Garfinkel 1967), but also, “gender normals” perform gender in ways that reflect their cisgender status. Thus, gender normals are masculine men with male genitals (and were assigned “male” at birth) and feminine women with female genitals (and were assigned "female" at birth). However, theorists caution against such binary divisions and promote the deconstruction of gender, sex, and gender performance (Butler 1990, 2004; Lorber 1996). If we deconstruct such binaries, both “gender deviants” and “gender normals” are revealed as a part of the same social fabric.
One such way to challenge gender binaries is to consider intersexuality. Judith Butler (born in 1956) situates her deconstruction of the sex and gender binary with the proclamation that the “sex = biological and gender = sociological” argument is inherently flawed (Butler 1990, 2004). In fact, Butler believes that what Western cultures have conceived of as “sex” has really been “gender all along” (Kitzinger 1999:498). Every baby is born with somewhat ambiguous genitalia––no two genitals are alike––and it is up to medical professionals to dictate “male” and “female” designations based on socially constructed conceptualizations of “sex” identity. Similarly the designation of “intersex identity” is also a reflection of social constructs (although Western medical culture would lead us to erroneously believe that “hermaphroditism” is an easily defined birth defect based on the visual appearance of the genitals as phallic––or not, Dreger 2000). In this way, our definitions of both sex and gender are socially constructed and, thus, the number of categories that comprise sex and gender is dependent on sociocultural beliefs.
{cont.)
Clicriffhard (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
This is a sociocultural deconstruction of gender binaries, e.g. "One such way to challenge gender binaries is to consider intersexuality." Similar to content I added to the sketch of an introduction that was removed but could perhaps be restored in a more thorough section, there is a wide variety of sources and scholarship discussing sociocultural constructs of gender, and specifically female gender. I think these sources can help us create a WP:BALANCED and WP:IMPARTIAL presentation of encyclopedic content. Beccaynr (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The problem for me is that Worthen clearly has no compunction about making or repeating assertions that are unambiguously untrue (as a matter of fact, not theory or perspective) without acknowledging that they're untrue. That's concerning when we're using her as a "reliable" source... Clicriffhard (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
This is a scholarly source engaging in deconstruction of the gender binary, using the existence of intersex people as one aspect of a discussion of how gender is socially constructed. This does not appear to impact the reliability of a scholarly work. Beccaynr (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
It's a source that makes or repeats factually false assertions without acknowledging them as such, making its assertions unreliable. I don't know how else to say it. Clicriffhard (talk) 03:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I think the source you cite ("The estimated frequency of genital ambiguity is reported to be in the range of 1:2000-1:4500") does not show that this source, using the existence of intersex people as an example of how gender can be socially deconstructed, is unreliable. Have you reviewed the intersex article? That may help expand your perspective about what the author may be referring to in their analysis. The 'people usually do not publicly display their genitalia' analysis supporting the concept of gender as a social construction may be more clear, but that was removed from the introduction, although hopefully can be restored in an expanded section. Beccaynr (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm talking about this assertion, which is factually false:
"Every baby is born with somewhat ambiguous genitalia–no two genitals are alike–and it is up to medical professionals to dictate 'male' or 'female' designations based on socially constructed conceptualizations of 'sex' identity."
In reality, studies have told us that only 0.02% to 0.05% of newborns have genitalia that are ambiguous to medical professionals for the purposes of accurate sex discernment. The assertion is false because "every baby" and "0.02% to 0.05% of newborns" do not mean the same thing. Are you really disputing that? Clicriffhard (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm reading the line in the context of the rest of the material and the concepts, as well as the word 'somewhat', but I also think a review of the intersex article could help clarify the point being made. Cherry-picking one line, finding support for the fact generally, and ignoring the word 'somewhat' does not render this source unreliable nor the concept of the social construct of gender unsound. Beccaynr (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Beccaynr, please help me out here... "Every baby is born with somewhat ambiguous genitalia" is asserted in order to support the idea that sex is discerned (or "designated") by medical professionals "based on socially constructed conceptualizations of 'sex' identity". That is presented as part of a counteragument to the notion that “sex = biological”. In fact, we know full well that >99.95% of newborns have genitalia that is sufficiently unambiguous for medical professionals to accurately and verifiably discern that individual's reproductive sex. That tells us that, in fact, medical professionals are making highly accurate discernments of sex that are verifiably grounded in biology - not "based on socially constructed conceptualizations of 'sex' identity" at all. If it weren't the case, we would of course be dealing with the aforementioned deluge of unexpectedly knocked-up 15-year-old boys.
This is not a matter of which disciplinary perspective you try to sneak up on the falsehood from. From any angle, Worthen's assertion about the basis of sex discernment is factually untrue - unmistakably and almost completely - which to my mind calls into question the reliability of her work. And it seems so blindingly obvious that it's untrue that quite honestly it's a bit disorienting that you keep disputing it. Clicriffhard (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The paragraph begins "One such way to challenge gender binaries is to consider intersexuality," and I think it is important to consider the context of the entire paragraph. But the idea that 'sex' identity can also be subject to social construction is a side point that may be able to be further developed with additional sources, in a different part of the article, if this article has an opportunity to develop. Beccaynr (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The paragraph begins "One such way to challenge gender binaries is to consider intersexuality," and I think it is important to consider the context of the entire paragraph.
Agreed, and the very next sentence after the one that we're actually discussing makes it clear that the sentence we're discussing was not about discernment/designation of intersex identity:
"Similarly the designation of “intersex identity” is also a reflection of social constructs..."
Incidentally, the rest of that sentence also flagrantly misrespresents the approach of Western medical culture to intersexuality, but that's a digression on top of a digression, and to be honest I think we'd both benefit from stepping away from the discussion for a bit at this point. Or, at least, I will say goodnight, and you do you. Clicriffhard (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Exactly; the source makes claims that are preposterous on their face, or in what Wikipedia terms we understand to be WP:EXTRAORDINARY or WP:FRINGE. This is the same source that ridiculously claimed that humans could only tell apart the sexes because of cultural factors when the genitals are obscured. This sort of extreme social constructionism occasionally pops up in other ways too, such as through "Indigenous Ways of Knowing" being given equal weight with "Western" medicine, which is allegedly a mere social construct. See also the Sokal affair.
I can't hold back: Every baby is born with somewhat ambiguous genitalia––no two genitals are alike––and it is up to medical professionals to dictate “male” and “female” designations based on socially constructed conceptualizations of “sex” identity. How do people publish logic this bad with a straight face? This is like saying that because every cat is slightly different, labeling a cat a cat is "dictating" a designation based on a 'socially constructed identity'. I can only guess there is a subset of people meant to be awed by the radical profundity of this sort of thing. the number of categories that comprise sex...is dependent on sociocultural beliefs. Bullcrap. The earth is round, not flat, even though historically many people believed the latter, and there are two sexes - two reproductive functions - no matter what any other pre-scientific culture believed. Also vaccines work and climate change is real.
Some academics publish bizarre, fringe things. However, the vast majority of sources are scientific and are grounded in the fact that we can actually know things about biological sex that are grounded in reality rather than being arbitrarily constructed by cultural norms. If one was truly social constructionist to that degree, we have no need of experiments or medical research; we can just examine social dynamics and say that everything commonly believed is actually just serving some power group. Thankfully, most sociologists are not that myopic. Crossroads -talk- 06:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion
  • Welcome to Butlerpedia, the post-structuralist encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  Tewdar  09:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry, could you rephrase that please? I'm in danger of understanding it. Maybe whack in something about "neo-Lacanian collectivities" or whatever and then say "scholar" a lot and never admit when you're wrong. Thanks. Clicriffhard (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure that what Tewdar means is that the move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power. 😁 Crossroads -talk- 02:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    And what a lovely suit it is, Emperor. Really shows off your cultural genitalia. Clicriffhard (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I think crossroads and others may be mischaracterizing the source. The idea is visual cues are not 100% equal to objective reality, not that objective reality doesnt exist. I view this in parallel to the progress in philosophy of science where we see the development from realism to instrumentalism to kuhnian paradigm shifts. Our eyes are instruments so to speak with which we make predictions (based on visual cues) about gender identity. That prediction is socially constructed, however abstract and unnecessary it may be to think of it that way in most cases. The paradigm shift, so to speak, is that sex and binary thinking are not 100% accurate systems for predicting someone's identity, and in some cases assuming someone's identity can even harm their mental health. One cannot tell someone's gender identity just from visual cues. I don't think that's a radical statement. The source is a little heady and hard to understand, but the overall insight is valuable. The void century (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    But medical professionals aren't inspecting the genitalia of newborns to predict their identities. How it is insightful or "valuable" to conflate reproductive sex and identity? Clicriffhard (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    It's not conflating the two. The determination of sex by medical professionals has consequences for a baby's future. Sex is often what appears on the birth certificate, establishes legal gender, and determines how the child will be gendered by their community. Gender theory questions the practice as part of a wider reframing of ethics and philosophy. The void century (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    No. The legal ramifications of sex and gender are socially constructed (of course). A society's gendered expectations are socially constructed (of course). None of that makes sex itself any less grounded in biology, because none of those things are sex. Again, how is useful to conflate them? Clicriffhard (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Clicriffhard Ahem, ambiguous genitalia is a fairly common term in sources on Disorders of Sex Development. I read the Butler quote as relating to the flaws of determining gender at birth. It's part of the gender binary, so it is socially constructed (at least in part). Many countries don't legally recognize intersex as a category. See legal recognition of intersex people. I don't think Butler is denying that biological sex exists; rather, she's saying that the current binary medical determination is limited. The void century (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
    Hi @The void century: I think I've made this point a few times above, but I'm fully aware that ambiguous genitalia exist (in the sense of being genitalia that don't clearly and accurately indicate the sex of a newborn to a medical professional). The issue with Worthen's statement is that, according to the current consensus among experts on DSDs, the estimated frequency of genital ambiguity is in the range of 1:2000-1:4500, or between 0.02% and 0.05%.
    Anyway, I'm going to clear out of this talk section while you guys work on the drafting as I think it would be an uphill struggle to actively influence its direction myself. I'm sorry that you've found the occasionally heated criticism stressful, and best of luck with the article - I'm not sure that it's the right approach, but I'm not remotely against its existence if you can tailor the content and positioning to avoid causing e.g. POVFORK issues with other articles. Look forward to seeing what you can come up with. Clicriffhard (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
    The void century, I think it is probably important to recognize that the Worthen quote uses the qualifier "somewhat" and does not appear to be referring to the concept identified in the source repeatedly cited in this discussion. I think the context matters, as previously noted, and now we fortunately have the opportunity to focus on the context and the development of this article. Beccaynr (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
    Except the medical fact is that the vast majority of babies have genitalia that is not ambiguous whatsoever. Not "somewhat". Crossroads -talk- 05:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

What sections should this article have?

Can editors chime in on what sections this article should have beyond Social Construction and Psychological Experience? Or if those sections should have subsections, what would those be? Knowing this might help focus editors who have limited time to contribute (like myself). The void century (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

context for usage within sociological research and how this is distinguished from prior exclusive usage in physiological and biological research etc., this trajectory needs to be traced, expecting readers to jump around to the various related articles won't suffice. Important to know how the term might be defined, by whom, for what purpose, and how meanings can differ depending on research context. Acousmana 16:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
As an extremely rough sketch, it may be helpful to start with organizing material as follows: characteristics related to the
  • social,
  • psychological,
  • cultural,
  • behavioral
experience of being a woman or girl. As a meta-article, one aspect of this article that could benefit Wikipedia is the creation of summary-style sections for material that is currently scattered across the encyclopedia. It seems we could research Wikipedia and organize existing articles within this article, and review scholarly literature to make determinations about whether, where, and how additional content can be incorporated. I think Acousmana has identified a way that a summary-style section could be particularly helpful for the reader. Beccaynr (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Ok I added a few sections and linked them out to what seemed like the logical main articles. The void century (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Male (gender) RfD

I opened this RfD on Male (gender) [a redirect created as a counterpart/based on this page/as a result of the AfD]. I'd like invite people here to comment there. — Tazuco ✉️ 23:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:Female_(gender)/Archive_1&oldid=1105888679"