Draft talk:Female (gender)/Archive 2

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

Title and first sentence

My main problem with this article is that I've never understood what it is about based on the title and the lead sentence. Here are the titles and lead sentences of four other articles, in the same general topic area, none less controversial than this one, whose titles I understand, and whose WP:LEADSENTENCE (or WP:LEADPARAGRAPH, if it's short) I also understand. (This doesn't mean that I agree with them; just that I understand them):

From each of these four titles and the lead sentence or paragraph that accompanies it, I have a good idea what the article is about. In addition, the WP:LEADSENTENCE is declarative, and defines the term unequivocally using the term is a :

In contrast, here at Female (gender) we have this (in rev. 1101073362):

  • Female gender pertains to characteristics that emerge from the ...

Say, whaaa? You've already lost me.

What is Female (gender) about? If the article survives the Afd, it is is imperative that this very basic question be answered in plain English in a way that people can understand; preferably in a way that can be defined using an is-a declarative. Mathglot (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The lead for Gender begins Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to femininity and masculinity and differentiating between them. Depending on the context, this may include sex-based social structures (i.e. gender roles) and gender identity. This article is a WP:SPINOFF. Beccaynr (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
That does raise an interesting question though, doesn't it? If this article's lede took the same form as that of Gender, it would begin:
"Female gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to femininity."
Why then should it have a separate article from Femininity? Clicriffhard (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Because the femininity article is one of the articles that seems to be in need of an update. Female gender is broader than stereotypical femininity, and the sources already added to this article seem to support this. Beccaynr (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Then is the opening sentence of Gender wrong? Presumably if "female gender" is broader than femininity then, by analogy, "male gender" must be broader than masculinity and "gender" must be broader than masculinity and femininity combined and differentiated. So what actually is the meaning of "gender"/"female gender" in this very broad sense that we're trying to pin down? Clicriffhard (talk) 05:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Then update that article. That female gender (a.k.a. womanhood) is broader than femininity can be covered at... woman. Crossroads -talk- 05:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
We should probably have a discussion about the scope of this article in one place on this Talk page - I replied above about how this article might be able to fit within other articles [1], [2]. I am trying to consider how to organize concepts effectively for the reader, and based on the sources, female (gender) appears to be a broader topic than femininity, and broader than how woman (a.k.a womanhood) is currently defined in the woman article.
And I would like to first work on developing this article before making any suggestions about updating the gender article, but sources may support an update. Beccaynr (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I updated the lead to Female gender is a range of characteristics that pertain to feminity per this discussion and the lead at Gender.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Agreed that we can leave Gender for another day, but the problem we do need to solve here is how to define "female gender" in a way that is broader, that is genuinely meaningful, and that doesn't suggest a POVFORK (or a combination of POVFORKs) of any other article(s).
Happy to discuss in one place, by the way - just say where you'd prefer. Clicriffhard (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
My guess is that the lead of the gender article may benefit from an expansion that clearly states it relates to humans, then links to female (gender) and male (gender), and indicates that stereotypical traits of femininity and masculinity are aspects. For example, the WHO source linked after the first sentence in the lead of gender states, "Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women. I think that after a female (gender) article is developed, it will not be difficult to develop a similar article for male (gender), using a similar organizational framework. I have understood the POVFORK concerns to be more of a concern about what is DUE in other articles, and from my view, this may be related to the larger concept that gender is when compared to the articles we currently have - from my view, an article like this could serve as an umbrella that helps resolve disputes about what can and cannot be included in subtopic articles. Beccaynr (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Whatever the possible benefits of this article may be (if it survives AfD), helping to resolve disputes will not be one of them.  Tewdar  14:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd be fine with the WHO's "Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women as applied to women specifically, but that excludes parts of this article and suggests to me that they simply don't belong on the same page. For instance, female gender identity in the current sense is not "what a given society considers appropriate for women" but what label the individual considers appropriate to apply to their own self-image. The OED also describes a separation between the concepts of "gender" and "gender identity" in its notes on the meaning of "gender-affirming": "In later use, often distinguishing between gender (as something culturally or biologically defined) and gender identity (considered an innate individual sense)". N.B. They are distinguished, not viewed as one being a subset of the other. Clicriffhard (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Instead of home-brewing our own definitions of 'female gender', has anybody found any reasonable definitions in something approximating a relevant, reliable source?  Tewdar  08:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
    Sort of. This is the OED's most relevant definition of "gender":
    Psychology and Sociology (originally U.S.). The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones; the collective attributes or traits associated with a particular sex, or determined as a result of one's sex. Also: a (male or female) group characterized in this way.
    The tricky thing is citing a definition for "gender" to define "female gender" specifically, but if it isn't bad practice then we could derive something like this from that source:
    In the fields of psychology and sociology, female gender is the state of being female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones. It relates to the attributes associated with or determined by female sex.
    YMMV but I don't think the last part excludes trans women, whose identity does relate to the attributes/traits associated with/determined by female sex, irrespective of their own sex. Incidentally, I think "attributes or traits" can be simplified to "attributes" or even "characteristics", as in the current lede, but interested to know if people think that changes the meaning from the source's "attributes or traits". Clicriffhard (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
    "Attributes or traits" > "characteristics" is quite reasonable, but if we have to rely on a definition of 'gender', to define 'female gender', I think we're on very unsteady ground here.  Tewdar  16:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
    I get what you're saying. I think the problem is that truly neutral sources don't seem to define "female gender" separately from their definitions of "gender" (which cover male and female), so we're just going to end up with another fight over which of the opinionated sources more editors want to pretend represents the NPOV... Clicriffhard (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
    I do not think we are looking to define The Truth or for a 'truly neutral source', but instead to create a WP:BALANCED and WP:IMPARTIAL presentation of encyclopedic content, which includes a variety of scholarly perspectives on the topic. That's how we maintain WP:NPOV and avoid WP:OR. This is a collaboaration, not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Beccaynr (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    I think we have to be looking for neutrality for anything that's said in Wikipedia's voice, don't we? But I think you probably don't share Tewdar's concerns anyway, as the sources for the lede actually describe "gender" rather than "female gender". That makes it a whole lot easier to find reliable sources for a NPOV lede. Clicriffhard (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    I do share Tewdar's concerns, that is why I addressed WP:NPOV and WP:OR, as well as how to develop encyclopedic content without a battleground mentality premised on a goal of finding "The Truth". As I said elsewhere in this discussion, some of the language I used was to accommodate differences in sources, which can be further expanded, quoted, and attributed in subsections. The lead would be more clear after the article is developed. And the sources have changed since I have worked on it, so I'm not sure what you are referring to at this point. Beccaynr (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    I'm talking about Tewdar's concerns about deriving a definition of "female gender" from a source's more general definition of "gender". And I'm talking about the sources you added in from which the article text derives a definition of "female gender" from the source's more general definition of "gender", such as this one, this one, and this one. I do understand, though, that you were making incremental improvements to an article that was a bit of a mess at the time, and that we can make more. Clicriffhard (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think it is helpful to continue repeating what has already been said about scaffolding an introduction to the concept of female gender, especially when a basic search of the term on GScholar should allay any doubts about whether there are sufficient sources to support this article. But I also find it very strange that the cited sources that discuss female gender are characterized as not doing so, and I am done with this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    That's obviously your prerogative, but you're mistaken about the sources you added in. Tewdar was concerned about relying on a definition of 'gender' to define 'female gender'. This is the definition of "gender" that they were concerned about relying on, which is not a definition of "female gender" but does refer to it:
    • Psychology and Sociology (originally U.S.). The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones; the collective attributes or traits associated with a particular sex, or determined as a result of one's sex. Also: a (male or female) group characterized in this way.
    And again, this is the text of the sources that you added in to help define "female gender" in the lede, which actually define "gender"; they are not definitions of "female gender" although, exactly as above, they do refer to it:
    Your third source, which I typed up in full on this page since you could no longer see it, also relates to "gender" in general rather than "female gender" specifically. It includes the word "female" only in paired references to both male and female sex, and specifies what it calls "man and woman" genders only in paired references to both.
    If you're still happy relying on those sources to define "female gender", I hope you'll understand that you don't appear to share Tewdar's concerns. Clicriffhard (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    Please focus on the content, stop cherrypicking quotes, and please do not engage in mindreading. I am tired of the repeated suggestion that sources obviously supportive of the content of the article, and specifically, its introduction, are somehow wrong? justifying deletion of this article? At this point, I am only interested in collaboration about improving this article, not defending against repetitive efforts to undermine it. Thanks, Beccaynr (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    Becca, it's not massively satisfying to me either that you keep making inaccurate statements like "I also find it very strange that the cited sources that discuss female gender are characterized as not doing so" and I have to go around the houses restating the point that was actually made and repeatedly spoon-feeding you the grounds for making it. If you can just stop saying things that are contradicted by even the very recent content of our discussions and the sources that we're discussing then I'm sure we'll both find the conversation more productive. In the meantime, please don't put the blame on me or anyone else. Clicriffhard (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    I apologize, and I should have dipped out of this discussion awhile ago. Beccaynr (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    No need to apologise, and in all probability, so should I. Have a good night - no hard feelings on my side. Clicriffhard (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah, about those Google Scholar results... what would you say would be the top two or three results on there that relate to this article?  Tewdar  09:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    I mean... something like this might be useful, even if it mainly sets out to challenge binary conceptions of gender...  Tewdar  10:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • "Female gender is a range of characteristics that pertain to feminity" that assertion, is, if you'll excuse my French, absolute bollocks. Acousmana 13:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
    I don't disagree and don't think the intention of this discussion was really that it should be changed to that. The problem we have is that the lede currently just gives a list of things that female gender may or may not relate to, and fails to say what it actually is. Clicriffhard (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Lead sentence as of 19:07, 30 July 2022

Female gender is the behavioral and psychological traits that a culture typically associates with the female sex.[1][2]

The above version which I had added[3] was reverted by Beccaynr with the edit summary: "Rm mis-cited dictionary definition; source cited does not state this; restore status quo pending further discussion on Talk re: dictionaries, WP:NPOV, etc".[4]

The sources state:

  • The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines gender as “the behavioral, cultural, and psychological traits typically associated with one’s sex.”[1]
  • Gender refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person's biological sex.[2]

Can you elaborate why you feel I mis-cited the sources and why this violates NPOV? Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Kolya Butternut, I reverted in part because the Encyclopedia of Women's Health source appears broader than the dictionary definition it includes, (e.g. it includes "The definition of gender emphasizes psychological and cultural traits" - according to Merriam Webster's dictionary), and it begins with "controversy over how gender is defined". This may be a useful source for the article generally if further access can be obtained, but as a source for an introductory overview, it did not appear to support the text. Also, on this Talk page, there has been discussion about how Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY, and the development of encyclopedic content. I was also thinking about WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, so the narrowing of the lead to remove the broader topic areas and sources seemed like a NPOV WP:STRUCTURE issue that would be better to first discuss on the Talk page, and perhaps preferably after it is determined whether this article clears AfD. Currently, there is discussion about the article scope in the AfD and on this Talk page, so a bold narrowing the introduction and removal of sourced content that supports a broader scope [5] seemed like something better to revert and continue to discuss. I also did not think a US legal definition pulled from a statute without context supports the removal of scholarly sources and narrowing the lead. I think it is challenging right now to develop the article, particularly due to the context of the pending AfD, but if additional sections are developed, this will likely help further develop the lead. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Ok, there is a lot to discuss here. Maybe I could have left the "gender identity" and "gender role" line in. But I'll start by discussing the Encyclopedia of Women's Health source. You wrote that it includes "The definition of gender emphasizes psychological and cultural traits". That sounds like just a reiteration of what the cited definition states, so I'm not sure I see how I mis-cited this source. While it says there is controversy over the definition, they state that this is what the definition is. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I think the source helps show that this broad concept is better presented without an attempt to definitively define female gender as if this is a dictionary. As an encyclopedia, we have an opportunity to describe disputes, which is what the initial language attempts to do as a sketch of potential subtopic areas that can be further developed in this article. Female gender has multiple facets, according to various sources and perspectives, and this can be articulated more specifically in sections of the article, to create an encyclopedic presentation of the subject matter. The elimination of the cultural traits part of this particular definition both seemed to not fully reflect the source, but also relies on one dictionary, without specifically acknowledging this or the context in which it is presented, making it appear as if the Encyclopedia of Women's Health source adopts this definition uncritically, even though it does not appear to do this, so it seems better addressed in greater depth in a more developed section of the article. Beccaynr (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The entry for Gender in the Encyclopedia of Women's Health is available on Google Books here. They go on to describe the controversy where some experts believe gender is solely about biology and others believe it is unrelated to biology. The Merriam-Webster definition is noteworthy due to their citation and I believe it helps to summarize the popular meaning of gender. The current version of the lead provides a circular definition: Female gender pertains to ... being a woman or girl, such as gender roles and/or gender identity. This begs the question, what is a woman, girl, gender role, and gender identity? The lead sentence I wrote I believe starts to answer these questions. A similar definition is below:
  • Gender refers to “the array of socially constructed roles and relationships, personality traits, attitudes, behaviours, values, relative power and influence that society ascribes to the two sexes on a differential basis.[6] from Health Canada. I feel that the sentence I wrote is superior because it stated "typically". Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I think scholarly sources discussing different perspectives on female gender can be valuable for the development of this article, and our difference in perspective may be more related to how to proceed with article development. I think some of the research you have identified could help develop a summary-style Biology section that describes different scholarly perspectives, including the The Encyclopedia of Women's Health, which covers a lot of ground at pp. 274-276. For the lead, we have sources with broad overviews of the topic modeled somewhat on the gender lead, that could help with organizing a variety of related facets and related articles in this meta-article, per WP:SPINOFF, and I expect that the lead will develop further as the article continues to develop, per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. I think you have found some solid sources, and look forward to working with you after the AfD concludes and we hopefully have an article to develop. Beccaynr (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Another definition of "gender" to add to the pile, this time from Unicef:
"A social and cultural construct, which distinguishes differences in the attributes of men and women, girls and boys, and accordingly refers to the roles and responsibilities of men and women. Gender-based roles and other attributes, therefore, change over time and vary with different cultural contexts. The concept of gender includes the expectations held about the characteristics, aptitudes and likely behaviours of both women and men (femininity and masculinity). This concept is useful in analyzing how commonly shared practices legitimize discrepancies between sexes."
Again though, not a definition of "female gender", which appears to be quite a niche term in any meaning other than "gender of/relating to members of the female sex". Similarly, the inclusion of biology seems to be niche from a broad overview of the reliable sources; those almost always define gender specifically in sociocultural terms, so I can't see that the reference to biology should be unduly prominent.
An aside: an overt WP:SPINOFF of Gender called "Gender in women and girls" might have been easier to support, and it certainly would have been easier to say what it was about. Clicriffhard (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Abbey, Antonia; Saenz, Christopher; Parkhill, Michele; Hayman, Lenwood W. (2004). "Gender". Encyclopedia of Women’s Health: 517–519. doi:10.1007/978-0-306-48113-0_173.
  2. ^ a b "45 CFR § 411.5 - General definitions". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 30 July 2022.

Lead sentence and sources as of 01:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Female gender pertains to characteristics related to the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral experience of being a woman or girl, such as gender roles and/or gender identity.

Sources:

  • Gender refers to the psychological, social, cultural, and behavioral characteristics associated with being female or male. Gender is defined by one’s gender identity and learned gender role.[7]
  • Gender encompasses biological sex but extends beyond it to the socially prescribed roles deemed appropriate for each sex by the culture in which we live.[8]
  • 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.[9]

The sources do not define gender in terms of "woman" or "girl". The first and third sources are vague because they do not explain the term "female". The second source does explain gender, but this information is not reflected in the lead sentence. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree the lede needs work. I think there are some editors who want to work on it, but they're waiting for the AfD to close or have devoted their available time to arguing the case in the AfD. So I think this will get resolved once the AfD is closed. The void century (talk) 03:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I think the lead is larger than the first sentence, but the introductory paragraph is also only intended to be a starting point to help sketch out broad areas for further potential development of this article, and it seems likely that it will continue to develop as the article develops, per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. However, the first source citation is to pp. 33-34 in the Sociology Reference Guide, which talks at length about women and girls, and discusses the term "female" in depth, including with references to gender vs. sex. The second source references culture and also supports information that was part of the longer sentence that was originally written but now appears later in the lead, and discusses experience, gender roles, and gender identity. The third source describes female as both a sex and gender category. Beccaynr (talk) 03:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Regardless of the rest of the lead and article, the first sentence lacks consensus and that's where I'd like to start. Can we agree on a first sentence which begins to explain what female gender is without using the words "woman", "girl", and "gender"? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Beccaynr? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I think it will likely be helpful to have a lead sentence that incorporates the terms "woman", "girl", and "gender", to help situate the article topic within the related concepts within the encyclopedia. It is not clear to me how it would help improve this article if links to related article are removed, or why the links to related articles should be removed. Also, as noted above, I think it would be helpful, after the AfD is resolved, to first focus on developing the body of the article, because the body of the article helps develop and refine the lead. Beccaynr (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Ok, ignoring where the text is located, how would we explain what female gender is without using those words (to avoid circular definitions)? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I do not think these are circular definitions, and if the body of the article is permitted to be further developed after the AfD closes, I think this can become more clear. Beccaynr (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Beccaynr, you reverted my edit with the edit summary: Per Talk - this is being discussed - body of article needs development first)[10] That is not a reason to restore your preferred version of the lead which lacks consensus. My edit had restored the version before you added your disputed text defining female gender based on women and girls. Please leave your preferred text out pending discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Kolya Butternut, I restored the WP:STATUSQUO, which is based on several sources and reflects the current content in the article, and offers ways to further expand the article. Your additions have happened after this text, and we have an ongoing discussion about the lead, which you opened below. The article has only recently cleared AfD, and there has been discussion about first developing the body before returning to the lead. I would appreciate it if we could first focus on developing the body of the article before making major changes to the lead and removing reliable scholarly sources. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
No, I restored[11] the wording prior to your edit which lacks consensus. And I did not remove any sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I meant more that this has essentially been the lead since July 24, e.g. [12], and your first major change to the lead happened on July 30 [13], and then a different major change [14] today. The current lead sentence reflects content in the article and the sources cited, and regardless, it seems best for collaborative editing to first develop the body of the article before we continue to discuss the lead. Beccaynr (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
And to clarify my previous comment - I thought sources had been removed because the content from the sources appears to have been removed in the recent update to the lead. But I think further article development will help resolve this issue. Beccaynr (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
This doesn't feel collaborative that you're restoring your wording and seemingly unwilling to discuss compromise language. I do not agree that the current first sentence well-reflects the sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful to hear from other editors who plan to work on the draft about whether it is helpful to further develop the lead now or first focus on developing the body of the draft. I reviewed sources above in this discussion, and I think further research and development of the body of the draft would be helpful at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
We could change the wording of the lead sentence without changing its meaning. This feels like WP:OWNERSHIP. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I am attempting to avoid WP:OWNERSHIP by appealing to other contributors for their input on this issue, and I am not the only editor who has contributed to the lead, and I have suggested a compromise option for resolving this issue. WP:OWNERSHIP includes, be cautious when removing or rewriting large amounts of content, particularly if this content was written by one editor; it is more effective to try to work with the editor than against them—even if you think they are acting as if they "own" the article. There does not appear to be a need right now to make major changes to the lead, so there appears to be time available to hear from others about their ideas on how to proceed. This article was draftified with a polite request for proponents of the article to have a disruption-free environment, so this is also relevant to my thinking about how best to allocate limited editor resources for developing this article. Beccaynr (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Your comments feel disruptive through evasiveness. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I think keeping the lead stable for now, while the body of the article continues to be drafted, is helpful for reducing disruption. I do not wish to continue repeating my position, but I wanted to respond to the suggestion that it seems disruptive to appeal to other editors for input, attempt to keep the lead stable during drafting, and propose of a compromise, because I think the WP:OWNERSHIP policy encourages this kind of collaboration. Beccaynr (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I was hoping we were done here, but I have to respond to say that you're mischaracterizing what I'm feeling is your disruptive evasiveness. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I am not trying to characterize your feelings - I have tried to explain my view on the applicable policy you cited and how it applies here, including a compromise approach to help resolve this issue. Beccaynr (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
There is well-established consensus that the lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. The best way to do that is to write the text of the body first. To proceed, reduce the lead to exclude a summary, and leave the minimum required to identify the topic, establish context, and explain why the topic is notable. Vexations (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
The content of the body will have no impact on whether the lead uses the words "women" and "girls" to explain female gender or if we instead substitute those words for their equivalent meaning. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@Beccaynr @Kolya Butternut @Vexations For now I changed the lede so it begins Female gender is the opposite of male on the gender binary, and pertains to .... I agree with Beccaynr that we should practice WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, but I also think it's important to have a lead that says Female gender is .. instead of female gender pertains to. I think there might be a better way to frame it than opposite of male on the gender binary, but that seems like the easiest way without changing the meaning too much. We should come back to it later once the body is more developed. The void century (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi The void century, I reverted the change because we already have sources that do not seem to support introducing female gender as the opposite of male gender, because while the gender binary is part of the topic of female gender, some sources also indicate there is more complexity than this. I think if we first continue to conduct and annotate research, and also continue to organize research, develop content and summary-style sections, it will become easier to figure out what to do about the lead. I am happy to discuss this further, but I think we will have the most productive discussion about how to frame the lead after the article is further developed. Beccaynr (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good. The void century (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
If you want just something as a placeholder, how is "Female gender is the socially constructed set of norms, behaviours, and societal roles of women and girls" as a start? That's pretty narrow, and it might require that we think very carefully about differentiating gender from gender identity; how people perceive others people vs how they perceive themself. Vexations (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

AfD close

This discussion began with a request for editors to note the closing statement of the AfD and has included discussion with the closing admins. Discussion has ranged beyond the original scope of this thread and appears to have strayed from article improvement, so I am boldly closing this thread with encouragement to open separate and specific Talk page discussions about article improvement and development, so conversations can be better organized and permit broader participation. Beccaynr (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

I would like to draw editors' attention to the closure of the AfD (by a panel of two uninvolved administrators), here. In particular, I would draw everyone's attention to:

To that end, we'd like to ask everyone to adhere to the following terms while the article is in the Draft namespace:

1. In general, anyone can edit the draft, but we'd politely request that the proponents of this article are given a disruption-free environment to craft the article. If you have disagreements about the content or the existence of the article, we'd ask that you wait to act upon those disagreements until the article has been moved back into mainspace. Additionally, the draft generally shouldn't be nominated for deletion again while it remains in draft space.

...

4. We ask that these restrictions remain in place until the draft is moved back into mainspace, or until a reasonable amount of time has elapsed (at least a month or two, but perhaps a bit longer if earnest progress continues to be made on the draft).

Of course, a DRV could eliminate those restrictions, but until that point, I think we should all be bound by them (all four, found at the link above). Newimpartial (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I find it quite disturbing that editors who have disagreements about the content are being ever-so-politely requested to fuck all the way off until the article is moved to mainspace. Message received...  Tewdar  16:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Clearly you have not often enough been requested to fuck all the way off in thos topic area. I for one have received that message repeatedly, especially on Female and Woman (but also on Man, presumably for inclusivity). Newimpartial (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@Tewdar: The intention of that part is to request that proponents of the existence of this article are given some time and space to actually build it, free from the distractions of politics/activism that would otherwise make it impossible if this draft article were in mainspace. With that said, no individual editor is banned from contributing to the article, and keep in mind that it's a request, not a decree. If your intention is to improve the article by adding sourced content, then by all means, go for it. If your intention is to get the article deleted or prevent certain perspectives from being included in the article, that's fine, but we're asking for those folks to just hold off until the draft is completed. Hopefully that clarifies things, if you're still disturbed by this request, I'm happy to discuss it further, but I don't think there is anything particularly disturbing about it. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
...prevent certain perspectives from being included... - this is the absolute opposite of my approach to every article on this encyclopedia, and an approach that has pissed me right off on articles like Sex and gender distinction and Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory where certain editors have done precisely that. Surely a request for those who have disagreements about the content to wait until the article moves back to mainspace before editing it is an attempt to prevent certain perspectives from being included, at least for now? Perhaps I have misunderstood. Anyway, I probably won't be contributing, but neither do I oppose the existence of this article.  Tewdar  21:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
The terms of the AfD closure are not intended to prevent or discourage anyone's earnest attempts to add reliably sourced content to the draft, regardless of the perspective. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Scottywong: Could you possibly clarify a bit more what you were trying to discourage? These seem to be contradictory to me, which may be a misinterpretation on my part but I think is one that Tewdar and others share:
!1) In general, anyone can edit the draft, but we'd politely request that the proponents of this article are given a disruption-free environment to craft the article. If you have disagreements about the content or the existence of the article, we'd ask that you wait to act upon those disagreements until the article has been moved back into mainspace.
(2) The terms of the AfD closure are not intended to prevent or discourage anyone's earnest attempts to add reliably sourced content to the draft, regardless of the perspective.
The problem I see is that the editors who unconditionally supported the existence of the article and have been active in editing it are pretty much all of a similar perspective, whereas someone who might want to add in e.g. well sourced content that is critical of the idea of "female gender", or that characterises it as inalienable from female sex, or whatever else, is not going to feel able to add that in without having "disagreements about the content" with the article's "proponents". What's the solution there? Should everyone just be allowing everyone else to add in whatever they like as long as it's reliably sourced while the article's in drafts, and deferring any arguments about what the article should be about and contain until it's moved to mainspace?
A second issue is in identifying who are "proponents" in the first place. For instance, I'm a proponent of the article if it avoids POVFORK and other POV issues; however, I'm not if it fails to avoid those issues, and at this point I think it probably will fail to, especially if it's drafted by a group of editors who don't disagree with each other about the content. I don't plan to edit the draft (largely because I fear that any edits I might make would be immediately reverted irrespective of sourcing or rationale, and I don't want the stress), but for other editors whose proponency is conditional to act on that proponency would require them to question some of the content that's gone in and add in content that other editors might not love. In other words, they can only be proponents through disagreement (albeit hopefully open-minded, honest, and respectful) about the article's content. What's the solution there?
Thirdly, even editors who don't support the article's existence at all will probably feel that, if it's potentially going to exist regardless, it's quite important that it's balanced and impartial, but they may well feel discouraged by the AfD closure from entering the fray to influence its content knowing that a disagreement might be unavoidable. The result is that the article is much more likely to end up pushing an unbalanced perspective through their absence. What's the solution there?
Again, I may simply be misunderstanding what you were asking for, but if enough people misunderstand it then the misunderstanding will effectively become the instruction, and will affect how the article turns out. Ultimately, it will also decrease the article's chance of survival, because a one-sided article is much more likely to get deleted after it's moved to mainspace, so it isn't in the long-term interest of the article's proponents either.
I would be less confused if the AfD closure had said this:
If you have disagreements about the content or the existence of the article, we'd ask that you wait to act upon those disagreements until the article has been moved back into mainspace
...but you may well have meant exactly what you said.
Incidentally, please don't take this as general criticism of the AfD closure, which I think you and Valereee handled sensitively and very reasonably, and it can't have been an easy one. I would just appreciate some clarification of that instruction/request. Clicriffhard (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Not Scotty, but my feeling is this: no one is asking anyone critical of the content to wait forever. Only until those who are developing it have completed their drafting. Moving to main space doesn't mean: This is perfect as is, no further changes should be made. It means: This was our original vision.
When we are drafting, most of us are not thinking the first thing we spit out onto the page is perfect. Having someone looking over your shoulder saying, "That's not the best way to write that/organize that/express that/interpret that source" requires you to argue about what you're saying while you're still figuring out what it is you want to say. This sucks energy from the task of drafting. And it's inefficient for both those creating and those waiting for the draft to be finalized: there's every reason to expect that much of which is originally spit out is going to be changed anyway, so why object to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet when it's eventually going to end up saying Lorem dolor, amet consectetur adipiscing elit, ipsum sit, which you might very well not object to?
Writing is messy enough without having to defend every sentence as you go. If you personally want to draft objections in your sandbox while the article is being written, you're free to. I think that kind of thing is a waste of your time, myself, but it's your own time to waste. But requiring others to join in an exercise that wastes their time, too, is an inefficient use of volunteer time. Valereee (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks - I understand the rationale there but not quite how you were asking us to implement it. Was the request pretty much this?
allowing everyone else to add in whatever they like as long as it's reliably sourced while the article's in drafts, and deferring any arguments about what the article should be about and contain until it's moved to mainspace Clicriffhard (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
More like: if your primary interest in editing is to insert a criticism section to prove this is a POV fork, create a criticism section in your sandbox and wait. If you argued this was inevitably a POV fork but now sincerely want to help the creators bulletproof it, create the criticism section in your sandbox and ping one of them. Valereee (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Ok, but what about in the scenarios I asked about above? Clicriffhard (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I feel I've spent enough time on trying to clarify. You're clearly in doubt about whether you should be editing this draft directly, so I would say don't. Valereee (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. It's getting less and less clear to me but might be clearer to others. Thanks for trying. Clicriffhard (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
@Clicriffhard: WP:OWN still applies even in draft space. No one owns this article, and our AfD closure doesn't change that. If you have content that is referenced to a genuinely reliable source and is relevant to this article, then you should feel free to add it. Any article on the female gender should cover the topic as completely as possible, and that might include mentioning prominent perspectives that biological sex and gender are inseparable. No one has ever said that this article can only include content that supports the worldview that gender is separate from sex. The article is about the female gender, and if reliable sources report that some people believe that the experience of being female is exclusively accessible only to people that were born with female genitals, then that should arguably be included with appropriate weight. When we wrote: "if you have disagreements about the content or the existence of the article, we'd ask that you wait to act upon those disagreements until the article has been moved back into mainspace", it was intended to express something more like, "if this article discusses concepts that personally offend you (like gender being separate from biological sex), and you feel the need to add unsourced content or delete/modify sourced content in an attempt to promote your preferred worldview, we ask that you kindly leave the article alone while it's being drafted." Hope that helps to clarify. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 14:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Scottywong if reliable sources report that some people believe that the experience of being female is exclusively accessible only to people that were born with female genitals... - having spent some time editing the Sex and gender distinction article, I can assure you that such views, even when reliably sourced, are systematically excluded by the regulars. This, for example, was declared to be a "non-notable" viewpoint or whatever. Recently, an editor was reverted for adding content on grounds that the content isn't supported by the source (it does say I now draw the provisional conclusion that the words “men” and “women” are used predominantly in everyday English to mark a distinction of biological sex.) Now, you could argue that the latter was added in an UNDUE way, but if you fix that, there is a never-ending supply of WP:UPPERCASE to throw at it and, if that fails, there's always RfC where hordes of like-minded thinkers can always be counted on to veto any content that doesn't fit the WP:CONSENSUS view.  Tewdar  15:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@Scottywong: It clarifies your intended meaning - thank you. What I would say, though, is that the chances of someone reading this...
if you have disagreements about the content or the existence of the article, we'd ask that you wait to act upon those disagreements until the article has been moved back into mainspace
...and understanding this from it...
if this article discusses concepts that personally offend you (like gender being separate from biological sex), and you feel the need to add unsourced content or delete/modify sourced content in an attempt to promote your preferred worldview, we ask that you kindly leave the article alone while it's being drafted
...is close to zero. It appears to me that the more obvious interpretation is the one that is actually guiding people's behaviour, which is why we now have a draft that is de facto "owned" by a small group of editors who share a worldview, who cheerfully delete sourced content that they don't like, and whose idea of providing "balance" is to reference conflicting views by citing sources that typecast and ridicule them.
Don't get me wrong - I can't deny that that's quite a funny move, but I'm not sure it's the best way to achieve WP:NPOV, and I think it could be avoided if the clarification was anywhere near as prominent as the request in the AfD. Admittedly it may be too late at this point. Clicriffhard (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Clicriffhard: WP:AGF isn't really one of your more evident strengths, is it? Newimpartial (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh give it a rest... Clicriffhard (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm just saying, linking this diff as reference conflicting views by citing sources that typecast and ridicule them doesn't strike me as a best practice.
I mean, that such groups as the Promise Keepers, the Nation of Islam and the Christian Right and such New Age gurus as Marianne Williamson and Robert Bly call for a return to a social order that consistently reflects an absolute biological distinction between male and female" is pretty much indisputable, and if you threw in Jordan Peterson and Graham Linehan it might even be up to date. Are these the only figures in public discourse who posit chromosomes or anatomy as the basis of manhood and womanhood? Perhaps not, but they are certainly among the more prominent, and I don't see the source as "typecasting" such a wide range of social actors. Newimpartial (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Ok, but this is the problem with having an article edited by a small group with a similar worldview, because you are (like most of us) much more inclined to reference unsympathetic individuals when discussing a view that you find unsympathetic: with all due respect to Jordan Peterson and the Christian Right (and I mean that literally), the people who are widely viewed as creeps and cranks by anyone who's not on the political right themselves. There's no mention in your comment or that citation of Becca's that successive generations of left-wing and centrist feminists also have prominent disagreements over whether female gender is something that can be assumed at will, or whether only members of the female sex have any direct knowledge of what it's like to be female and everyone else is just guessing. Is that undocumented in relatively neutral terms in reliable sources? Of course not - you're just more likely to alight on sources that are closer to your viewpoint, as are we all.
It's not a question of whether anyone is right or wrong, or even whether they're more or less likely to be biased or to resist bias. The point of having a broad-based group of editors on any given article is so that no faction (incidental or intentional) has primacy over its content, and we can all remind each other than x is an unbalanced account of the sources, that y is an opinion and should be attributed, that z is tipping over into advocacy, and so on. And you know I'm not against this article existing if people can find a way to avoid POV issues, but this route is hopeless and can only lead to (i) an unbalanced article that will be quickly deleted, or (ii) an unbalanced article that won't be. Each is a bad result for different reasons.
I accept that I may be wasting my time trying to make that point. Clicriffhard (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
We have a whole article, Feminist views on transgender topics, that wrestles with the issues you raise here. The fact remains that so-called "TERF debates" within feminism have been much less consequential than the figures listed in the passage quoted above, and TERF allies and fellow-travellers (like Graham Linehan and J.K. Rowling) - along with astro-TERF organizations like LGB Alliance - have been much more prominent throughout this century than actual "gender critical" feminist organizations, of which very few exist.
I think the real underlying issue that you have identified is that you expect the BALANCE of the RS on the topic ought to result in one kind of article text, perhaps something like what Tewdar would hope for, and some other editors expect the BALANCE of the RS will land the article text somewhere entirely different. But what matters for the article is the sources actually produced, not what you think should be. I wasted considerable time yesterday looking for a decent source documenting the position that a biologically female body is required for a person to have authentic female experience. I couldn't find a reasonably high-quality 21st century source that either made that argument or that described that argument as being made by others. I still believe that someone, somewhere probably has delineated that position in a better source than op-eds and polemics, but I couldn't find it yesterday. The way we can build a balanced article will be by finding, using and sometimes discussing RS, not by shadow-boxing about the intentions of other editors. Newimpartial (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
That's fine, we can agree to disagree. The point you make about there being another article that covers the topic already... well, you probably know what the counterargument to that would be with respect to this article, so let's spare our typing fingers. Certainly if you're actively looking for the sources to add in those conflicting views, my concerns might prove unwarranted. Clicriffhard (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
You've already seen and dismissed shrewdly deconstructed this one, I suppose, nowhere near the standard of Judith Butler, the best philosopher currently still writing I suppose, still not ruddy good enough I suppose...  Tewdar  19:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
It's been a while since I read that one, but I don't see it as very promising based on (i) what I remember and (ii) it being a primary source by a philosopher - it is difficult to demonstrate DUE for those (except for widely cited work, like Butler's :p ). Newimpartial (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
It's got a hypothetical DSD and everything! 😁👍
it being a primary source...it is difficult to demonstrate DUE for those (except for widely cited work... oh, like this one, that's already being used in the draft in Wikivoice without attribution? 🤔🙄  Tewdar  19:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Funnily enough though, I've seen yourself and others fight tooth and nail to include primaries fresh out of peer-review with close to zero citations. They must have just been really good I suppose.  Tewdar  20:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a key difference between primary sources reflective of a mainstream research programme and more dissident primary sources. Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps this source could be used as a decent source documenting the position that a biologically female body is required for a person to have authentic female experience? Don't worry, it argues that this position is incorrect... 🙄  Tewdar  09:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Lol. There's no basis for this in Wikipedia policy whatsoever. It's just nakedly cherry-picking crappy (primary) sources based on preferred POV. And there's absolutely nothing mainstream about claims like Every baby is born with somewhat ambiguous genitalia...and it is up to medical professionals to dictate 'male' or 'female' designations based on socially constructed conceptualizations of 'sex' identity.
The proponents of this article have two options: they can work on the existing articles that already cover this topic, and work within the consensus process, or they can continue spending time on this 'social constructs all the way down' POV fork. Then it'll go to AfD again, except this time they won't have the 'but it's unfinished, it'll be good when finished!' excuse. Crossroads -talk- 18:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Speaking only for myself, I have no interest in a 'social constructs all the way down' POV fork. I don't think that's what the current version of this article is, and it is certainly not where I'd want to see the article end up, because I don't think that's where the main body of the sources lies. But recognising female gender as irreducible to and distinct from "biological sex" - I think that's pretty clearly where most of the high-quality RS on female gender land, which is something rather different from social constructs all the way down. Meanwhile, the sources for the contrary position - that female gender can be reduced to "biological sex", are generally poor. Newimpartial (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Tewdar, I don't think this is the place to mitigate the content of Sex and gender distinction (which is not actually an article about everyday English, and the view of one analytical philosopher can't really change that).

And you haven't really provided any evidence that there are reliable sources about the sex and gender distinction that take the position that said distinction doesn't really exist - even though I asked you to suggest such sources over, and ocer, and over again. Without sources (and I don't mean analytical philosophers taking to a dozen of their friends recruiting 400 volunteer participants from www.prolific.co, presenting them with information about an imaginary island giving information about biology and roles but not gender identity and then opining about "everyday usage"), the rest is just irrelevant WP:POV. Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC) fixed Newimpartial (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial's alternative reality: analytical philosophers taking to a dozen of their friends...
Actual reality: four hundred participants...
🤔  Tewdar  16:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking of another "methodology" I encountered last week. Fixed it. Newimpartial (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks like a valid methodology to me. So, we cannot include the views of philosophers (or possibly just 'analytical' philosophers?) on subjects such as "is there a sex/gender distinction?" or "what is a woman?" on Wikipedia, do I have that right? Or is it just these particular philosophers, who happen to hold a particular viewpoint? Because we seem to cherry-pick quotes from de Beauvoir (carefully, though!) and Butler (yikes!) quite often around here.  Tewdar  16:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm just kind of wondering what sort of amazing source we would need to support Scotty's hypothetical content some people believe that the experience of being female is exclusively accessible only to people that were born with female genitals. Because we include all sorts of stuff on the opposite side (CNN reviews of primary sources, articles with zero-citations fresh out of peer-review, etc. etc.)  Tewdar  17:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The Sex and gender distinction article is about a conceptual distinction, not notably about everyday language pragmatics. If you find philosophers opining about whether sex can be distinguished from gender conceptually (and who don't resort to imaginary islands where nobody has a gender identity - or even speaks a language, by all accounts), then of course we can look at such sources. That said, from my experience to date, most papers written by analytical philosophers are crap not reliable for topics outside of analytical philosophy.
And don't yikes! Butler, please: they just maybe the best philosopher currently still writing. That said, though, I have repeatedly conceded that their perspective on the Sex and gender distinction is more or less WP:FRINGE. Newimpartial (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
There are no imaginary islands in Evaluating Arguments for the Sex/Gender Distinction, and Mari Mikkola is not fringe.
Butler [...] just maybe the best philosopher currently still writing - Russell Brand wrote a book as recently as 2019, and I hear that Booky Wook 3: A Brand New Philosophy (geddit?!) is nearly ready for the printers.  Tewdar  17:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, neither Mikkola nor Butler assert that the sex and gender distinction doesn't exist, and both of them argue that it has problems. So maybe you ought to take your allies where you find them rather than discrediting the more widely cited ones and valorizing the more obscure. But none of this is really on topic for this article's Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Right; Mikkola just tells us that "[m]ost people ordinarily seem to think that sex and gender are coextensive: women are human females, men are human males." But we can't include this "ordinary view" anywhere on the encyclopaedia, except in the TERF section.  Tewdar  18:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The criticism section of that article is not appropriately termed a "TERF section". And the "ordinary view" doesn't deserve any more deference on that topic than it receives in the quality WP:RS. Which isn't much. Anyway, why do you insist on discussing this where it can't produce any improvement? Newimpartial (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Because Scotty seems to think that if reliable sources report that some people believe that the experience of being female is exclusively accessible only to people that were born with female genitals... it stands a chance of inclusion in the Female (gender) article. Somehow, I doubt it.  Tewdar  20:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Also, that particular passage does not appear to be in the "criticism section". Perhaps we do need a "TERF section".  Tewdar  20:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I spent some time today looking for such sources, and didn't find any. Maybe you will have better luck. Newimpartial (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Does de Beauvoir count, or do we only use her work for the 'becomes a woman' quote?  Tewdar  20:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
She's not a source for some people believe that the experience of being female is exclusively accessible only to people that were born with female genitals, since she doesn't say that. Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I am in the midst of developing related articles that may be useful for this article or others, and found this, from "NONFICTION; What Little Girls and Boys Are Made Of; GENDER SHOCK: Exploding the Myths of Male & Female. By Phyllis Burke" Dawidoff, Robert. Los Angeles Times 18 Aug 1996 (via ProQuest)
"Public discourse is rife with calls to return to traditional family values. These share the conviction that what has gone wrong with American moral life can be blamed on the feminists, who first sponsored the awareness that there really is a distinction between sex and gender. In response, such groups as the Promise Keepers, the Nation of Islam and the Christian Right and such New Age gurus as Marianne Williamson and Robert Bly call for a return to a social order that consistently reflects an absolute biological distinction between male and female."
There is also: Ruth Palombo Weiss. "Gender Based Learning" Training & Development Vol. 55, Iss. 1, (Jan 2001): 42-48. (via ProQuest)
"How gender shapes the way we learn has been studied from two main perspectives: One, the examination of sex differences in biology and the cognitive-processing approach of brain research. Two, the perspective taken by sociologists, psychologists, educators, and feminists that cultural programming matters most."
However, I agree it would be most helpful for discussion here to focus on the development of this article, including research and writing, because I think this will help us develop an encyclopedic resolution. Beccaynr (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll also note that the close allowed for the article to be sent to AfD again) by any editor if it returns to mainspace. But I'd like to reiterate something I said at the AfD: additional content along the lines of what is here currently can be added to gender role, woman, and other articles. I meant that. Nobody should be getting the impression that well-sourced material on female gender is unwelcome there. The events which led to the creation of this article had basically entirely to do with the first sentence of female and woman, but from this somehow developed a narrative that no new content is allowed.
The close also noted that there were more raw "delete" than "keep" votes. Rather than sink time into a draft that could just be AfDed again were it to see the light of day, I would suggest trying to improve existing articles instead. There are many articles on various topics related to gender that need work. And if there are disagreements at those articles - though I think there would be way fewer than some of the proponents of this article think - than they can be discussed there. Such disagreements would happen anyway if this article was moved into mainspace. Crossroads -talk- 05:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, I certainly intend to work on the content here, because of my belief that there is a coherent topic here that will never be discussed adequately at Female or Woman given LOCALCONSENSUS (or at Femininity which is, to be frank, a crap article). If it turns out that this topic is rejected by community consensus once it has actually been developed, then fine, and 'then the discussions can happen about the scope of other articles / where else the sourced material could go. Newimpartial (talk) 11:22, 4 August 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.

Social construction section

Not much of this section is really about 'female gender'. The second paragraph, which deals with female gender roles and constructions of femininity (not female gender) might be just about relevant, but the first paragraph, where we've found a source on gender and fiddled it so that it focuses on female gender, thrown in some other stuff on (not specifically female) gender and tagged on a bit about how masculinity is usually regarded as superior to femininity (again, not female gender) is quite the WP:COATRACK. I saw some of the discussion about scaffolding, but at some point, we need a roof. Or some walls. Or...  Tewdar  10:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

If you have sources or constructive ideas related to article improvement and development to offer as it relates to this point, please feel free to post them. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
constructive ideas related to article improvement and development to offer as it relates to this point - yes, delete the first paragraph from this section.  Tewdar  10:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Lede sentence - "This distinction is commonly known as the sex and gender distinction"

What distinction? The lede talks about female gender, then states that sex might be included in gender, then tells me this is a distinction. Doesn't make any sense really.  Tewdar  09:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tewdar, the lead can develop as the body of the article develops, so there does not appear to be a need to focus on the exact wording of the lead right now. If you have sources to offer to help develop the body of the article as it relates to this point, please feel free to post them. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 10:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
This assertion will never make sense, no matter how the body develops.  Tewdar  10:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Tewdar, the AfD close politely requests "If you have disagreements about the content or the existence of the article, we'd ask that you wait to act upon those disagreements until the article has been moved back into mainspace." This is posted at the top of the Talk page and there was a recently-closed discussion thread where editors with concerns had an opportunity to discuss this with the closing administrators. Perhaps you can follow up directly with the closing admins on their Talk pages for further clarification. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
It was clarified that if you feel the need to add unsourced content or delete/modify sourced content in an attempt to promote your preferred worldview, we ask that you kindly leave the article alone while it's being drafted." Suggesting that totally nonsensical content be deleted does not come under this umbrella, I feel. Somehow, I am getting the impression that sufficient sourced content on "female gender" as a distinct topic does not exist, which explains why there is so much COATRACK and stuff that doesn't make any sense going on here.  Tewdar  10:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we need to spend much time on the lead sentence right now. The article body content is still being drafted, with multiple planned sections tagged with the {{empty section}} template. There's no point wordsmithing the lead until all of the content in the article body is included. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I would agree, except that this part of the lede seems to indicate, and I'm being polite here, attempt1attempt2attempt3... oh alright, I won't complain about the lede anymore, except to say that I hope the citations won't be there in the "finished" version.  Tewdar  16:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Last sentence in lede beginning "Gender identity and gender expression..."

This 'scaffolding' sentence doesn't look like it has a great deal to do with 'female gender'. It would probably be more suitable in the gender article lead.  Tewdar  10:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tewdar, the lead can develop as the body of the article develops, so there does not appear to be a need to focus on the exact wording of the lead right now. If you have sources to offer to help develop the body of the article as it relates to this point, please feel free to post them. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 10:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Will you agree to keep the article in draft space until we can come to consensus on the lead? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think anyone will be moving the article to the main space until it is ready, and that naturally includes the lead. Though as per my comment above, the lead is the last section that should be drafted if we're following the normal drafting process, because the lead should follow the body. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree, and I would add that per Consensus policy, Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals, i.e., the five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
If LEADFOLLOWSBODY applies to drafts, then the lead should be blanked for now. Per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, If having a rough, tentative summary helps you write the body, keep your own private summary, either on your computer or in your User space. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Now that is the best idea I have seen on this talk page! 😁👍👍👍👍👍  Tewdar  18:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with that suggestion, because we have a rough sketch based on a wide variety of sources that incorporate a wide range of related Wikipedia articles, and this seems beneficial for editors interested in helping develop the article. Removing a large portion of reliably-sourced content that may be able to be incorporated into the body of the article as it continues to be developed does not seem helpful for promoting collaboration by editors interested in helping develop this draft. I encourage everyone to review the AfD closure note posted at the top of this Talk page for guidance from the closing administrators on how we may be able to best proceed with the drafting. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't see any pressing need to blank it beyond a couple of WP:IDONTLIKEIT type posts. I'd say that the principle of LEADFOLLOWSBODY applies, insofar as you should write the body first and then the lead at the end. But at the same time, this isn't the main space, and the draft has multiple empty sections so the lead not being representative of the body is not unexpected. There is no deadline in getting this article drafted, and these sorts of discussions on removing imperfect and placeholder content because it's imperfect are ultimately distracting from that goal. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Most of the lede isn't even on the topic of female gender...  Tewdar  18:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Female gender pertains to characteristics related to the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral experience of being a woman or girl, such as gender roles and/or gender identity. - everything after this is either nonsensical, or about something else.  Tewdar  18:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
That's certainly a point a view, though one that is not shared by all participants on this talk page. Point 1 of the AfD closure states plainly If you have disagreements about the content or the existence of the article, we'd ask that you wait to act upon those disagreements until the article has been moved back into mainspace., emphasis mine. This section as well as the other one on the lead seems definitely a disagreement about the content.
There are experienced editors contributing to this page, and I think we all should make the good faith assumption that we will follow all of the relevant policies and guidelines when it comes to article content and scope. If at the point the article is moved back to the main space those concerns are still valid, then per the AfD closure that is the time to raise them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
That's certainly a point a view, though one that is not shared by all participants on this talk page - in what respect is the content after the part I just quoted in any way coherent or relevant? Also, this is a draft talk page. I'm not meddling with the article. If I was trying to break it, I certainly wouldn't be telling you to remove stuff that everybody who wants this article killed will tell you is irrelevant, incoherent waffle. I'd say, "oh yeah, 😂 looks great, 😂 ping me for the next AfD."  Tewdar  19:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
There certainly is still a lot of crap in the lead paragraph, but I don't think that's anywhere near the main problem with the draft at the moment. Newimpartial (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
How come you're not editing it? You busy or something?  Tewdar  19:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Somewhat, and I'm also trying to figure out how to approach this mess. Nobody wants to see me trying to do that directly in Draft space. Newimpartial (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I find the best approach is to just stare at the article for a while, and get really, really angry at it. That's what I did with this article. And now, it's reached the standard of "crap", as opposed to "AfD candidate", which it was before I started editing it...  Tewdar  19:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
So my preferred text can't be in the lead because LEADFOLLOWSBODY (an essay), and your preferred text can be in the lead because WP:THEREISNORUSH, also an essay, and you're accusing my arguments of being WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT? And Beccaynr is already citing WP:CONSENSUS, suggesting that I shouldn't expect my voice to be heard ever.... Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Unless I've missed something, your preferred text right now for the lead is to blank it. I don't have a preferred text for the lead, I just don't see a pressing need to delete it right now because it will be re-drafted later.
And Beccaynr is already citing WP:CONSENSUS, suggesting that I shouldn't expect my voice to be heard ever There is a difference between your voice being heard, and your voice being the consensus version. Many editors will voice opinions on content that do not find consensus, but their voice is still heard during the discussion. There is nothing out of the ordinary about that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
It is very out of the ordinary in the context of stonewalling. You can see my preferred version discussed earlier in this talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Kolya, this is not simply (or primarily) a matter of STONEWALLING. The last version of the lede you reverted to in the draft attributes to the WHO a position that is unsupported by the source. The other sources you have proposed above seem to be to be weak and cherrypicked: a 2004 (!) women's health article to lend apparent WEIGHT to a dictionary, and a niche legal source. Whatever the lede of this possible article will turn out to be, it is unlikely to follow these particular sources. Newimpartial (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
This is not the best section to discuss the details of my proposed edit, but I want to address your comment. The diff you reference with the WHO source is not my preferred text; I was merely attempting to restore the last version which was not controversial, but perhaps there is no version which is not controversial; that is why I have now suggested blanking the section (or just sentence). My preferred text relies on the Merriam-Webster definition of gender[15], which is not only noteworthy and mainstream, but consistent with the sources in the #Lead_sentence_and_sources_as_of_01:37,_1_August_2022_(UTC). But we can discuss this in those talk page sections. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Koyla Butternut, I do not think it is constructive at this time to rehash the discussion that has already happened in the Talk page above about your previous edits to the lead. I think it would be helpful at this time to move on to collecting and using reliable sources to develop content for the body of this article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
In your opinion, which single source that you've found so far gives us the best general overview of the topic female gender?  Tewdar  19:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
In your opinion, how would my taking the time to try to answer this question contribute to the improvement or development of this article? Beccaynr (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
In your opinion, how much time does it take to copy n' paste an ISBN or DOI? Probably less than the time it took to make that last reply, I'd say.  Tewdar  20:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Tewdar, I am trying to determine how your question is related to article development and improvement. It does not appear to be a productive use of time to try to identify a single source for this broad topic, while research and development is underway, so I was following up to find out if your question is related to article development and improvement, and if so, why you believe that reviewing all of the sources in the article and this Talk page and then presenting a single source would be beneficial at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Look, that's great, thanks for your response. I find it best, if I'm writing about a broad topic, to at the very least know what texts are generally regarded as providing the best overview of that topic. Otherwise, I'd just be fumbling about picking up random bits and bobs, free pdfs from websites, obscure books and articles with passing mentions, without having the contextual knowledge that would enable me to write a decent article.  Tewdar  21:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
It does not appear that identifying a single source, for a topic discussed by a wide variety of academic disciplines, will necessarily help with identifying and incorporating a range of sources with due weight into this article. I think article construction is a methodical process, and it will take time to conduct research and review sources, so the various ways that female gender is examined and discussed by various academic disciplines can be presented. I encourage everyone to review WP:NPOV policy, because it offers guidance about sources and article development. Beccaynr (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Well then, I am very interested to see where your approach to article construction takes us. All the best,  Tewdar  22:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Planning a move discussion for mainspace

A discussion will be necessary before moving this draft to mainspace per WP:Requested_moves#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:RM, Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia. WP:NOTRM includes Moves from draft namespace or user space to article space. Beccaynr (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
WP:Drafts#As a result of a deletion discussion states that Authors should ... use the AfC submission process to have the page moved back to mainspace. Per WP:AFC, Attempting to bypass the process by moving the page, or cutting and pasting it into a new mainspace article, may lead to the page being moved back into draftspace again, speedy-deleted or listed for AFD, and repeated attempts may even lead to you being temporarily or permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia due to disruption.
Per WP:AFCPURPOSE, If this article were nominated for deletion at WP:AFD, would it be likely to survive? ... Maybe, but I'm not sure. Then ASK FOR HELP on the talk page, where the talk page is WT:WikiProject Articles for creation.
Regardless of where the discussion takes places, it is clear that to avoid disruption a discussion must be had. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
The AfD closure was pretty clear that an AfC review is not needed when it stated plainly When there is consensus among contributors that the draft is ready, it should be moved back into mainspace over the redirect (AfC review is not necessary). And Beccaynr is correct that a RM is the wrong process as well. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
You're right, but more importantly, there must be consensus among contributors that the draft is ready. This may essentially be the move discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Possible move after draft process

This discussion began with a request for editors concerned about the article title to allow and/or contribute to the development of the article with an assumption that the article topic is the gender of women and girls, to stop arguing semantics of sources, and propose a move after the article is in main space. This discussion includes support for the current article title, and discussion of the timing of this post, because it may seem premature. The discussion appears to have served its purpose as an announcement. The discussion then appears to have moved beyond the scope of this section and away from article improvement and development, so I am boldly closing this section to help keep this Talk page focused on article construction, per the Talk Page guidelines, e.g. "Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject." Beccaynr (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

It seems like the title is the main issue for some editors who are critical of this article, given that the exact words "female gender" are not always used in sources on female gender. I am open to a discussion moving this page to "gender in/of women and girls," "gender in/of female humans", or another variation.

If the title is your main concern, I would appreciate if you do the following until the article is in mainspace:

  1. allow/ contribute to the development of the article with the assumption that it's about the gender of women and girls.
  2. stop arguing the semantics of sources that don't use the exact words "female gender"
  3. propose a move once this article is in main space.

Thank you, The void century (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is something we need to worry about right now, though I would say that the suggested names in bold go against the article title policy, particularly WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I named the article Female (gender), but there is quite a fuss being made about the fact that some sources don't use those exact words, so I'm just asking those folks to hold off on that particular criticism until the article is in main space. The void century (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Take all the material involved in "Female (gender)" and move it to the Gender article as a subsection under section "Gender identity and gender roles". That's what the "gender" article is for: everything that pertains to "gender". Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:11, 12 August 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.

Definitions

  • "Gender refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person's biological sex." APA Guidelines, (2012/current) [16]
  • "Gender refers to the roles, behaviours, activities, attributes and opportunities that any society considers appropriate for girls and boys, and women and men. Gender interacts with, but is different from, the binary categories of biological sex" WHO (2018/current) [17]
  • "Gender is the structure of social relations that centers on the reproductive arena, and the set of practices that bring reproductive distinctions between bodies into social processes" Gender: In World Perspective (2015) (2009 version online)

The above definitions are cited in THE TRANSGENDER EXIGENCY, Defining Sex and Gender in the 21st Century by Edward Schiappa (Dec 2021) [18] Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really following (I voted 'delete' iirc), but there's an interesting thing to consider based on these two definitions which will have to be considered, if you're going to be successful with bringing this to mainspace. And that is this: unless there's been a massive shift in the views of reliable sources on the topic lately, those two definitions are outliers for gender, but they do nail the definition of the term gender role pretty exactly.[a] Clearly, the terms gender, gender identity, and gender role are closely related terms in the gender-related space; however, they are not identical, and they are not synonyms of each other. Whether those editors here who wish to bring this draft to mainspace *should* talk more about gender role, I cannot say, and I'm not advocating for (or against) that. (I did a ^F scan on this page, and the term gender role only occurs once; kind of interesting, not sure what to infer from that.)
But I find both of these definitions[b] muddy at best; perhaps they make sense in context (I haven't read the sources) for example, if they appear early on in a section about "roles", in which case they've simply elided the term role in order not to duplicate the term from the section title again in the definition, or some such. But if they are really claiming those statements as a definition of gender itself (not gender role) then I consider them outliers. Or maybe it's me, and things *have* shifted—it happens all the time in this space—but I'm just giving you a heads-up that you shouldn't necessarily take these definitions as gospel, but dig a little further. I did a quick (non-scientific) check by googling "gender role", and I don't see anything surprising or that upends my sense of what gender role means. HTH, and good luck. Mathglot (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
What is your understanding of the standard definition of gender? Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Mathglot? Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ Just to dot the i's and cross the t's: when John Money created the concept of gender identity in 1955, he defined it as "all those things that a person says or does to disclose himself or herself as having the status of boy or man, girl or woman." And he named it—guess what?—gender role !! Yes, he did. The term gender identity didn't get created until 1964 and basically took over Money's definition word for word, leaving "gender role" available for societal expectations of men and women, which has pretty much remained the definition ever since. Although the two definitions above would disagree with me on that.
  2. ^ There seem to be three of them now; not sure if one got added, or I just can't count. In any case, I'm referring to the first two, only.

NPOV and the topic of female (gender)

Hi everyone, I am writing to share some thoughts about NPOV and how it may relate to the development of this article. According to WP:NPOV, All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. I think this means we are not looking for one definition of female gender, but ultimately to find a way to broadly summarize our research and writing about the topic. Based on research conducted thus far, it already appears there are a wide range of academic disciplines that address female gender from various perspectives, and I think it will be helpful for us to explore and organize these perspectives in this article.

For example, according to Susan Kingsley Kent, in Gender: A World History, "what philosophers, religious thinkers, scientists, physicians, psychiatrists, sociologists, anthropologists, historians, politicians, and educators have been telling us about gender has changed frequently."[1]: 4  Another example is from Ruth Palombo Weiss, "Gender Biased Learning" Training & Development 55 (1), (Jan 2001): 42-48, "How gender shapes the way we learn has been studied from two main perspectives: One, the examination of sex differences in biology and the cognitive-processing approach of brain research. Two, the perspective taken by sociologists, psychologists, educators, and feminists that cultural programming matters most." From my view, these sources indicate that female gender is a broad topic with a significant potential for development as an article, and we should take care to attribute sources and identify the academic perspectives as we continue drafting. I think this will help us with organization of the article and help the reader navigate this complex topic.

Dividing up the topic of female gender into sections such as biology, neuroscience, psychology, sociology, and culture may help us with determining how to assign due weight to various perspectives. I think NPOV creates challenges when trying to develop one exact definition of female gender in wikivoice, and I think it may be counterproductive for this article to proceed with a goal of finding one. I think it will be more productive to examine how female gender is addressed by various academic disciplines, and to summarize this in a balanced manner, with the best sources.

I think it will help to take some time with the research, and later develop an overview of the topic that accommodates various perspectives with due weight. This is why I suggest a focus on the development of the body before a focus on the exact language of the lead, and why I sketched a broad draft overview as an umbrella introduction to various aspects of this topic, with links to additional aspects of this topic that are addressed in other articles.

Overall, I think our definition of female gender in this article can essentially become an impartial and balanced overview of various academic perspectives on this topic. I am happy to discuss this further, although I also think additional research is currently needed to help us determine the structure and content of the article, because it is still very early in the drafting process. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Ideally we will find sources that provide a weighted summary for us, but yes, let's continue to find definitions from different disciplines. From the source you provided, Gender: A World History:
  • "We conventionally think of gender as the cultural or social qualities attached to a sexed body."[1] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I think it will be important to note qualifying terms such as "conventionally" and to also consider the context in which any one quote is presented. For example, when a line like that (at p. 3) is followed by e.g. "But it turns out what philosophers, religious thinkers, scientists, physicians, psychiatrists, sociologists, anthropologists, historians, politicians, and educators have been telling us about gender has changed frequently", (at p. 4) I think the context is necessary for presenting information from this source in this article. Beccaynr (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I think Beccaynr has the right approach in mind here. With some many disparate fields, each with their own variant definitions and inherent biases, I suspect it is highly unlikely we will find a single source that could provide a fully weighted summary. There's an inherent risk of WP:SYNTH with this approach of course, but if we keep it clear that "this is what philosophers say about female gender" versus "this is what politicians say about female gender", then I think we can avoid that risk by being careful. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Beccaynr has subtlety misquoted the source. It states that ideas about gender have changed over the past two thousand years. What disciplines' definitions do we still need? Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Koyla Butternut, I think it will be important for our collaborative editing to focus on the content, not editors. If you disagree with how to interpret or present a source, please focus on explaining your interpretation and perspective. My perspective on the potential development of this article is informed by the perspectives presented by various academic sources, and how they approach and discuss female gender. I think we will be incorporating more than definitions, and will have the opportunity to present what female gender means for women and girls according to various academic perspectives. I have presented a view few examples in this section, but I think there are more that support this broad NPOV approach in the Research section above. Beccaynr (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Again, which fields/disciplines do we still need represented? Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
In my opening comment, I suggested "biology, neuroscience, psychology, sociology, and culture" as examples, although Kent has identified a broader range of academic perspectives. I think the answer to the question will become more clear as research continues to develop, and there appears to be a wide range to explore. Beccaynr (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I heard that, but which do you feel we have not addressed? It seems that the biological, psychological, and sociological concepts of female gender have been discussed here at least. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I think additional research and NPOV policy will help guide us in identifying and organizing perspectives. I feel it is too early to try to produce an exact answer to this question based on the early stage of the research and drafting process. My sense is that it will take some time for this article to be developed and for this question to be answered. Beccaynr (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
No idea what that is supposed to mean. I'll try one more time: what additional research needs to be done? Specifics please. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
This is a collaborative editing exercise, so I think this is a question best answered collaboratively. There are a wide range of specific academic and other perspectives that have been identified by various scholarly sources. I have listed some of them in this post, and the Research section offers sources that may help expand on the specifics. It does not seem necessary to do more than this at this time due to the early stage of the research process. Beccaynr (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
What is all of this resistance about? I'm trying to collaborate with you but I'm not hearing any specifics about what you think needs to be researched. I don't know if you think I have a particular POV you disagree with. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I feel as if I have provided specific ideas in this post and the Research section on this Talk page that can be further researched, by listing a wide range of academic and other perspectives. Each one of these perspectives on female gender could be further explored through research, which could help maintain NPOV for this article. The draft article also contains a variety of sections that have yet to be developed. Beccaynr (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
The ontological status of female gender could be an area of research that benefits this article. A question that seems to be especially relevant is for example: Is the female gender classification a uniform type with a common essence or not. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/ has an extensive overview of the main views. I think we ought to at least address gender nominalism and gender realism. Vexations (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I suspect it is highly unlikely we will find a single source that could provide a fully weighted summary. There's an inherent risk of WP:SYNTH with this approach of course... - How about even one source, with a bit of discussion of female gender roles, identity, and expression, from the perspective of just two or three disciplines? Can we manage this, even?  Tewdar  17:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd need to read them to be sure, as I don't have access right now, but I think the two named above by Beccaynr; Kent's Gender: A World History and Weiss' Gender Biased Learning, might have some comparison content of relevance across fields based on what Beccaynr has said about them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for this excellent response. I'll take a look.  Tewdar  17:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I had a quick glance through the Kent book. Wasn't quite what I was looking for, but still fairly useful I'm sure.  Tewdar  18:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
The Standford link by Vexations also looks like it has some good content, at least on the feminist perspective of the sex and gender distinction. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
It appears to essentially be WP:UGC, so we won't be able to use it as a source, but it is a starting point that could be discussed in a specific Talk page section. Beccaynr (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a peer-reviewed source. It's not user-generated content. Certainly the sources it cites can be of use to us. Vexations (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Vexations, thank you for the wikilink. I had at first not found the author name when I reviewed the source, which was a concern for me, but it is dated and is written by Prof. Mari Mikkola. There is more information about citation here, and it looks like we are encouraged to wait until archiving happens on September 21 before fully citing it. Beccaynr (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll take a look at this too, glutton for punishment that I am.  Tewdar  18:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
NPOV encourages us to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" and I think this means we will not be able to use one source as the basis for this article. There are so many sources available that discuss female gender, from a wide range of academic fields, so it seems that we risk compromising NPOV if this is not acknowledged in this article. Beccaynr (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I think this means we will not be able to use one source as the basis for this article - nobody suggested doing that, as far as I'm aware.  Tewdar  17:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
From my view, we have a wide range of potential sources, and seeking one source (as it relates to article development, as we discussed this above) may be contrary to NPOV. My interpretation of your comment was that it was a continuation of the previous discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
What discussion? The one where I asked for a source summarizing the whole topic? Doesn't have to be one you know, could be two, three...fifty - the more the merrier!  Tewdar  18:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that is the discussion, where my reply [19] included encouragement for everyone to review WP:NPOV, because it does not appear that we should try to find a source summarizing the whole topic - it appears that the integration of sources, per NPOV policy, will allow us to summarize the topic. Perhaps we are on a similar track and this is a semantic difference - with a core policy such as NPOV, I think it is helpful to talk about our approach at the outset. Beccaynr (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Let me see if I'm reading this correctly. You don't think we should try and find high-quality reliable sourcing that summarizes the topic to base this article on. What we should do instead, is collect sources such as Cultural Representations of Gender and Science: Portrayals of Female Scientists and Engineers in Popular Films and "Being female doing gender. Narratives of women in education management" and essentially create our own original summary of such sources, hopefully somehow ending up with a coherent presentation of a complex topic for which a reliable barometer may or may not exist, but which in any case we can safely do without. Am I understanding this correctly?  Tewdar  19:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
No - I think sources presenting broad overviews of academic and other perspectives are helpful because they indicate there are a variety of sections that can be developed in this article. This is how we avoid original research and maintain WP:NPOV. We can approach this topic from a wide range of academic perspectives, and organize material according to sources as discussed in each academic field. Beccaynr (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
One thing that complicates this is female gender could either refer to an individual's role/identity, OR the sociocultural conception of the group. Here are a few examples.:
So I think a lead will probably need to clarify that female gender is both the characteristics AND a person who is a member of the group with those characteristics. The void century (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi The void century, to help facilitate discussion, I think it would be helpful to attribute sources in comments so everyone does not have to click through to assess each source. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Kent, Susan Kingsley (2020). Gender: A World History. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190621971. Retrieved 7 August 2022.

Nature of this page

This page explains it somewhat, but I think we need more info here about what the page is intended as so editors know what to contribute Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 16:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Immanuelle - from my view, I think there may be a fairly narrow focus on the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral experience of being a woman or girl, because this seems to be a consistent overview of the subject in a variety of reliable sources. At minimum, this focus seems to be a reasonable starting point.
Based on past discussions and research, I think this can be a parent article, and related articles have been added to various sections of the draft - each of these may offer opportunities to incorporate content and research into this article in WP:SUMMARY form. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
@Beccaynr how is this different from just an article like woman or female socialization? If it's identical then I think female socialization might be a better name for the article, as it would work with the way trans people talk about this. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 23:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
From my view, the woman article has content that may be worthwhile to incorporate into this article (e.g. the Culture and gender roles section), but that article as a whole seems too unweildy with its overall focus on data and trivia to comprehensively address the subject of female gender, so in some ways, this is a WP:SPINOFF from the woman article, or the subjects can at least be more clearly organized between the articles.
I also think sources help show female gender is studied and discussed by a wide variety of academic disciplines, so a parent article seems unique and helpful for readers navigating a broad and complex subject, and the current outline is not identical to the woman article. There also appears to be support in sources and related articles for focusing on more than one aspect of female gender.
And I think the key is female gender exists as a verifiable concept, with ample sources and related articles that can support a parent article. Also, if we could continue to follow the guidance from the AfD closers and focus discussion here on how to develop this article, instead of whether it should exist at all, that would be appreciated. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Just to chime in, I also don't think "socialization" would be a good term anyways for the article title here. The subject certainly includes part of that, but that would be narrowing the scope even further in a way that isn't appropriate for the topic aimed at here, Immanuelle. SilverserenC 00:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
@Beccaynr@Silver seren Well many may interpret the concept of female as a gender itself being an oxymoron as it is a sex term and woman is a gender term. Generally I see an attempt to make this an article about a gender, as opposed to a social phenomenon related to gender to lead to this article being rejected when it seems to actually be pretty worthwhile Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 07:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Immanuelle, the article currently reflects a distinction made in academic and scientific research between female as a gender category and female as a sex category, as applied to humans. I revised the lead slightly to summarize the contents of the article, which is based on scaffolding from sources that indicate female gender includes the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral experience of being a woman or girl. This multifaceted approach to the article seems to track how academia and science address humans generally, and a parent article that covers each significant aspect of female gender seems to align with WP:NPOV policy. Do you have specific ideas or sources to help develop this article? Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It feels pedantic and strange to continue with this specific idea of the page and its framing, it’s a very good article but it probably could be changed to a less provocative title, that would probably get the article approved as it’s a very good article. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 17:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

From my view, this article and its title are based on reliable sources in the article, including but not limited to:
  • Sociology Reference Guide: Gender Roles & Equality (PDF). Salem Press. 2011. pp. 33–34. ISBN 978-1-42983-466-7. Retrieved July 24, 2022. In biosocial terms, gender is not the same as sex. Gender refers to the psychological, social, cultural, and behavioral characteristics associated with being female or male. Gender is defined by one’s gender identity and learned gender role. Sex in this context, on the other hand, refers to the biological aspects of being either female or male.
  • "gender". APA Dictionary of Psychology. American Psychological Association. Retrieved 10 December 2022. 1. the condition of being male, female, or neuter. In a human context, the distinction between gender and sex reflects the usage of these terms: Sex usually refers to the biological aspects of maleness or femaleness, whereas gender implies the psychological, behavioral, social, and cultural aspects of being male or female (i.e., masculinity or femininity).
  • Wamsley, Laurel (2021-06-02). "A Guide To Gender Identity Terms". NPR. Retrieved 2022-07-29.Sex refers to a person's biological status and is typically assigned at birth, usually on the basis of external anatomy. Sex is typically categorized as male, female or intersex. 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.
There are also sources cited in Talk discussions that further appear to support this article title, e.g.
  • "Concepts and definitions". UN Women. Retrieved 13 December 2022. Gender: refers to the social attributes and opportunities associated with being male and female and the relationships between women and men and girls and boys, as well as the relations between women and those between men. These attributes, opportunities and relationships are socially constructed and are learned through socialization processes. They are context/ time-specific and changeable. Gender determines what is expected, allowed and valued in a women or a man in a given context. In most societies there are differences and inequalities between women and men in responsibilities assigned, activities undertaken, access to and control over resources, as well as decision-making opportunities. Gender is part of the broader socio-cultural context. Other important criteria for socio-cultural analysis include class, race, poverty level, ethnic group and age.
  • "Gender of person". Statistics Canada. October 1, 2021. Retrieved 13 December 2022. - the "Gender of person" section includes: Gender refers to an individual's personal and social identity as a man, woman or non-binary person (a person who is not exclusively a man or a woman). [...] some people's gender may be different from their sex at birth", and a section titled "Conformity to relevant internationally recognized standards" includes, This standard shares similarities with the definition of gender published by the Williams Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law in the "Best Practices for Asking Questions to Identify Transgender and Other Gender Minority Respondents on Population-Based Surveys" (2014). They define gender as "a multidimensional construct that has psychological, social, and behavioral dimensions that include gender identity and gender expression." (wikilink added)
  • Asia A. Eaton & Suzanna M. Rose. "The Application of Biological, Evolutionary, and Sociocultural Frameworks to Issues of Gender in Introductory Psychology Textbooks" Sex Roles (2013) 69:536 – 542. The purpose of this paper is to explore the application of biological, evolutionary, and sociocultural frameworks to issues of gender in the 10 most popular introductory psychology textbooks in the U.S. The use of these metatheories is of interest to feminist scholars because they have implications for the extent to which students learn that gender and gender differences are fixed and innate or socially constructed. If gender and gender differences are seen as malleable, then efforts at social change to improve women’s status or men’s and women’s abilities or opportunities can be understood as promising endeavors. (an example of distinguishing gender from women, and studying gender as a concept in a variety of academic and scientific frameworks)
  • Burke, P. (1996). Gender shock: Exploding the myths of male and female. Anchor Books/Doubleday. In "Gender Shock," Phyllis Burke explodes the many myths surrounding our rigid gender system of male and female by looking through 3 lenses of gender identity: behavior, appearance and science. Analyzing the latest research in psychology, genetics, neurology, and sociology, Burke finds that gender (or behavior) is not the result of one's biological sex (the body itself) and that gender and sexuality are separate elements of the self. (an example of a multifaceted academic and scientific approach to gender)
  • Thomas Eckes, Hanns M Trautner (2000) Developmental Social Psychology of Gender: An Integrative Framework Psychology Press. Gender is one of the most important categories, if not the most important category, in human social life. Though at first sight distinguishing between female and male may seem straightforward, a closer look readily reveals that this fundamental categorization is fairly complex - it is imbued with a host of cultural meanings and practices pervading each and every aspect of individual, interpersonal, group, and societal processes. Thus, all known cultures provide rich and well-differentiated sets of concepts and terms to categorize and characterize boys and girls, men and women, to separate between female and male roles, rights, and responsibilities. In all known cultures, females and males meet with distinct sets of gender-related beliefs and expectations exerting powerful, and often subtle, influence on their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. (this appears to be an example of distinguishing gender and women)
  • Phillip L. Walker, Della Collins Cook (1998) "Brief communication: Gender and sex: Vive la difference" American Journal of Biological Anthropology. 106:255–259. A failure to make the distinction between gender and sex is analytically incapacitating in a field such as physical anthropology, whose strength lies in the integration of biological and cultural information. (this seems to emphasize the importance of the distinction between gender and sex categories)
  • Paula Ruth Gilbert. (November 1, 2002). "Discourses of Female Violence and Societal Gender Stereotypes". Violence Against Women. Volume: 8 issue: 11, page(s): 1271-1300. Society's cultural stereotypes about women and gender color the way professionals in law enforcement, the legal system, the courts, and social policy agencies treat women who commit violent acts of aggression. This article will attempt to shed some light on how gender stereotypes that continue to permeate our society create the very cultural discourses that people in positions of power and in the population at large use to talk about women and violence. (this appears to further support distinguishing the concept of gender from women)
  • Jocelyn Steinke. (2005) "Cultural Representations of Gender and Science: Portrayals of Female Scientists and Engineers in Popular Films". Science Communication. Volume: 27 issue: 1, page(s): 27-63. Images of female scientists and engineers in popular films convey cultural and social assumptions about the role of women in science, engineering, and technology (SET). This study analyzed cultural representations of gender conveyed through images of female scientists and engineers in popular films from 1991 to 2001. (this also appears to support a distinction between gender and women)
  • Vincenza Priola (2007). "Being female doing gender. Narratives of women in education management". Gender and Education. Vol 19. The paper explores gender relations in academia and discusses how gender is constructed within academic institutions. It is based upon the study of a business school, part of a British university. The construction of gender relations within this institution was of special interest because the majority of managerial roles were occupied by women. (also appears to study gender as a distinct concept, separate from data about women)
  • Chris Shilling (2009). "The female bodybuilder as a gender outlaw". Qualitative Research in Sports and Exercise. Vol 1. Issue 2. This paper is a sociological exploration of the female bodybuilder as a ‘gender outlaw’, a figure who is stigmatised not because she has broken a formal law, but because she has disregarded so flagrantly dominant understandings of what is aesthetically, kinaesthetically and phenomenologically acceptable within the gendered order of social interaction. (another example of gender analyzed as a distinct concept)
  • Hyde, J. S., Bigler, R. S., Joel, D., Tate, C. C., & van Anders, S. M. (2019). "The future of sex and gender in psychology: Five challenges to the gender binary." American Psychologist, 74(2), 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000307 The view that humans comprise only two types of beings, women and men, a framework that is sometimes referred to as the “gender binary,” played a profound role in shaping the history of psychological science. In recent years, serious challenges to the gender binary have arisen from both academic research and social activism. This review describes 5 sets of empirical findings, spanning multiple disciplines, that fundamentally undermine the gender binary. These sources of evidence include neuroscience findings that refute sexual dimorphism of the human brain; behavioral neuroendocrinology findings that challenge the notion of genetically fixed, nonoverlapping, sexually dimorphic hormonal systems; psychological findings that highlight the similarities between men and women; psychological research on transgender and nonbinary individuals’ identities and experiences; and developmental research suggesting that the tendency to view gender/sex as a meaningful, binary category is culturally determined and malleable. Costs associated with reliance on the gender binary and recommendations for future research, as well as clinical practice, are outlined. (this appears to support a multifaceted approach generally to the concept of female gender, with multiple academic disciplines)
  • Hilary M. Lips. (2020) Sex and Gender: An Introduction, Seventh Edition at p.xiii ...dramatic changes have been wrought over the past century and a half in male-female relationships, in the ways women and men think of themselves and each other, in the ways we think about gender, and in the societal norms for feminine and masculine behavior. For example, at the beginning of the 1900s, women did not have the right to vote in any country except New Zealand... (this appears to distinguish female gender from the impact on women and women generally)
I also think from a big picture view of the topic of female gender, it seems reasonable to build an article to provide an overview of a concept that has been a subject of academic and scientific research for more than 40 years. Beccaynr (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Related discussions, with sources

fyi, there are discussions related and adjacent to this topic at Talk:Woman#WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD and Talk:Gender#Lead sentence definition that include discussion of sources that may be of interest to editors of this article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

How should we proceed?

It has been over 6 months since this draft was created, and it has improved a lot during that time, mostly thanks to @Beccaynr. However, it still needs some development. With only two editors actively working on it (myself and Beccaynr), that will probably be a slow process. I don't know all the ins and outs of how to get more editor attention on an article. Is there any way to garner additional non-disruptive editor-interest? For example, can we post it at WP:WikiProject Gender studies? The void century (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi The void century, thank you for following up on this. I think some of the slowness with the article process is related to how this draft is related to other articles, including Gender, where there was recently extensive discussion that resulted in a revised lead that is now similar to the lead in this article. I have also started related articles and linked them here, and one task I have planned to work on but have yet to focus on is research in the Wikipedia Library. In any event, I think making neutral requests for assistance at relevant Wikiprojects is a great idea. Beccaynr (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
@Beccaynr@The void century I am quite confused about the nature of this article still. Does it involve a total overhaul of many other articles? Should we make an article on Draft:Male (gender)? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 04:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Currently, this is mostly an academic article about gender as it relates to women, so I don't see it as conflicting with other articles. The void century (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Immanuelle, the AfD closing statement posted at the top of this article Talk page discusses moving/merging content and the consensus process, not a total overhaul of many other articles, and I do not think anyone has suggested a total overhaul of any article. In my review of related articles, there appear to be various articles that may benefit from additional work, but that seems typical for the encyclopedia generally. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Where do we stand with regards to getting this article ready for the mainspace? Is the behavioral characteristics section the only one that remains to be drafted? Or are there other planned sections that need to be scoped out and researched? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I have planned to work on the culture and legal sections, but my to-do list also includes drafting a proposal to revise the lead of Woman per WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD, which seems related to this article. We recently had an extensive discussion related to revision of the Gender lead, and I think there could be additional consideration of how this article relates to other articles. Overall, I would like to first invite editors from relevant Wikiprojects to participate here, and allow them some time for drafting and discussion before we focus on a move to mainspace. Beccaynr (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
The closest I could find to asking for contributions are: Category:Gender studies articles needing attention, Category:Gender studies stubs, wp:peer review and WP:WikiProject Gender studies/Collaboration. I'm unclear on whether adding categories would work for a draft article. Do any of these sound appropriate? The void century (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I was thinking a message could be posted on the Wikiproject Gender Studies Talk page, similar to how requests for assistance are routinely posted at the Wikiproject Women in Red Talk page. Categories can't be added to drafts, and the Collaboration page at Wikiproject Gender Studies does not appear to have been active since 2007. Beccaynr (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:Female_(gender)/Archive_2&oldid=1141278338"