Misplaced Pages

Talk:Woman: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:37, 8 May 2019 view sourceFlyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs)365,630 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:03, 20 January 2025 view source Tataral (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,890 edits →Transphobic initial sentence 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{Notice|]
'''Important Note:''' The most appropriate image to use at the top of this article is a highly controversial issue with many valid viewpoints. Polite discussion and negotiation of the viewpoints is welcome below as we continuously strive to find an image which best matches the current ''']'''.

]. Please add new images there rather than on this talk page, although the image discussion is welcome here.
''Any image which has not shown support here will be removed.''}}
{{Old AfD multi| date = 1 April 2012 (UTC) | result = '''speedy keep''' | page = Woman }}
{{censor}} {{censor}}
{{Notice|]
{{Vital article|level=3|topic=Life|class=C}}
'''Important Note:''' The most appropriate image to use at the top of this article has been a highly controversial issue with many valid viewpoints. The current lead image was chosen by ] on 5/26/2021.
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
]. New images may be added there.}}
{{WikiProject Anthropology|class=C|importance=high}}
{{Round in circles
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=C|importance=high}}
| ]
{{WikiProject Gender Studies|class=C|importance=top}}
| ]
{{WikiProject Feminism|class=C|importance=Top}}
| ]
{{WikiProject Women|class=c|importance=Top}}
|topic= ''Wording of lede'', ''Definition of woman'' and ''Self contradiction in lede''
{{WikiProject Women's History|class=c|importance=high}}
}}
{{WP1.0|coresup=yes|v0.7=pass|class=C|category=Natsci|VA=yes|importance=top}}}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Women}}
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Women's sport|importance=high}}
}}
{{pp|small=yes}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=pa}}
{{section sizes}}
{{page views}}
{{xreadership|days=75}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|maxarchivesize = 70K |maxarchivesize = 70K
|counter = 11 |counter = 28
|minthreadsleft = 2
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(180d) |algo = old(14d)
|archive = Talk:Woman/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Woman/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}


__TOC__
== Lead image ==

Botticelli's The Birth of Venus is a very poor lead image for this page.

I see that there used to be a gallery that was in Feb 2016 following RFC at ] about galleries of large groups of people (which arose from an RfC here, now in the archives ]), which arose from a about ethnic groups" that led to ]. There was an effort to repeal MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES ] in June 2016 that failed.

So OK, no gallery. There has been no discussion here since then.

In the article, we've had:
* in Feb 2016, leaving the infobox symbol at the top
* 18 May 2016 by ]
* 2nd 18 May 2016 also by OnBeyondZebrax
* women runners was replaced by Lee Remick 23 January 2017 by ] then by Zhyboo with Salma Hayek.
* the Salma Hayek image was replaced with a fitness model 10 February 2017 by ]
* on 15 February 2017 both images were removed by ], leaving the infobox symbol image at the top.
* on 12 March 2017 a drawing "of a woman's bust" was added by ]
* on 28 April 2017 image removed by ], leaving the infobox symbol image at the top.
* on 18 May 2017 the drawing "of a woman's bust" was restored by HeliumPearl, a few hours later by Flyer22; a different image of "a woman's bust" was added by HeliumPearl, immediately by ]
* on 2 August 2017 the current image of Botticelli's The Birth of Venus was added by ]; by ] 3 days later with no reason given. Immediately by Gunkarta.

So the Venus is just a "classier" version of the "bust", "fitness model", and actress pictures, emphasizing sexuality/beauty ideals, and this is not a good thing. I'm removing the image, leaving the infobox symbol image at the top. I very much doubt that an RfC would provide consensus for Venus or the similar images as the lead image on this page. ] (]) 14:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
:] I'd agree overall. I'm also concerned that it uses Western ideals to represent a global topic. I'd recommend scouring https://commons.wikimedia.org/Category:Females_in_art_by_medium for something not Euro-centric and not objectifying if possible (perhaps like the Willendorf Venus shown on the right?). Otherwise, I'd recommend just leaving it blank. ] ] 15:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
::something "not Euro-centric" so you propose a European artifact found in Europe instead. More of a comment on wikipedians than anything ] (]) 16:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
:::It's from Europe, but not really "Western"? But point taken. ] ] 18:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
:On Botticelli's The Birth of Venus image, I just love visuals and would prefer the art to represent the subject, that's all. There is no ill intention on my behalf for the installment of the image. What I did not expect was all this sensitivity; and the fact that people do read into things; like diversity and objectification issues, also the question of Eurocentric beauty ideals, I'm not a European myself. So.., if the main picture is posing a problem, go ahead remove it, I do not mind if the article has none. Cheers..!<span style="background:white;color:blue;font:arialbold;border-radius:4px"><b>&nbsp;'']''&nbsp;</b></span><span style="background:lightblue;color:blue;border-radius:2px">&nbsp;'']''&nbsp;</span> 05:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

:I don't/didn't mind the Venus image as the lead image because it's an artistic expression that shows the female form. It's not ]. There is a similar image (of a man) at the ] article. But, sure, if it's preferred that the lead images at both of these articles be of people with clothes on, so be it. at the aforementioned RfC, I stated in part, "''if this RfC closes with consensus for the broad interpretation of the gallery aspect, we should work out the wording for the content since a number editors, including ones who do support the broad interpretation of the guideline, clearly do not agree that the matter is WP:OR, and also have significant disagreement about the 'similarly large human populations' wording. And there is also the matter of having the gallery lower in the article. How is it any more of a problem for the lead than if it's placed lower in the article?''" The "OR" piece was removed from the wording, but the "similarly large human populations" piece is still there, and we see that it hasn't stopped the gallery that is at the bottom of in ] article. Furthermore, the ] article still has various images as the lead presentation. It also had it at the time of the aforementioned RfC. It's working for that article, but that's likely because the images are not of celebrities or other notables. As the aforementioned RfC shows, a main problem with such a presentation at articles was including celebrities or other notables. For this article, the debate was mostly over including trans woman ]. If we were to do a "variety" presentation again, the trans debate would start up again, but if we included a trans woman or trans women who weren't known as trans, I doubt we'd get fuss over the inclusion(s). People objected because they knew Cox was transgender. Maybe having a gallery at the bottom of the article would work. In that case, not noting who is trans could be seen as trans invisibility; so noting who is trans might be the better option despite the occasional anti-trans comments we'd get. Anyway, a single image for an article like this doesn't come anywhere close to being representative. At least a collage/gallery of different types of women has a significantly longer reach representative-wise. ] (]) 10:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

:As for the image EvergreenFir suggested, I don't see that as an improvement. ] (]) 10:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that the new image (woman mechanic) is the same problem as was identified with the original image, just in a different way. If the original image emphasized outdated and west-centric ideals of female beauty, then this new image emphasizes (also west-centric) ideals of modern feminism, which is not necessarily a point of view that I disagree with, but it is still a specific conceptualization of "woman" and not a universally applicable representation, and Misplaced Pages should aim for neutrality. Since the article for "man" uses the image from the Sistine Chapel of "The Birth of Adam", then why not use for this article the image from the Sistine Chapel of ""? (The image could potentially be cropped to show only Eve.) That seems the most logical option, to me. Or, alternatively, perhaps keeping the "woman mechanic" image, but along with a couple other images showing other conceptualizations of "women", such as one more traditional western conceptualization, a non-western woman, maybe even a trans-woman? (unless that would be perceived as violating "no ethnic galleries") Or, as a third alternative, one single photograph of a woman who is portrayed in a way that is neither, in traditional conceptualizations of the terms, feminine nor masculine? ] (]) 21:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Vontheri}} I agree with you that the current lead image is non-neutral in that it emphasizes ideals of western modern feminism. I do not support using a collage or an image from the Sistine Chapel. I have been (slowly) working on a gallery for lead image options for the Man and Woman articles. This is what I have so far, with my preferences being the sitting Brazilian woman and the small photo of the sitting Brazilian man, but cropped: ] (]) 00:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

::{{replyto|Kolya Butternut}} I think the Brazilian image you found would be a good choice. Out of curiosity, is there any certain reason you don't think the Sistine Chapel image would be a good fit? ] (]) 04:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
:::{{replyto|Vontheri}} I thought this was discussed here but I can't seem to find it. Basically I think the image should be representative of an actual man, not a piece of art. ] (]) 04:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
::::{{replyto|Kolya Butternut}} Okay. Well, I think the Brazilian images that you found would be good. I think it's best that the images should be just of a woman/man in a neutral way, and not in a way that suggests a certain role or occupation or activity etc., since the article is just called "woman", and not "women who are mechanics" or "women who are artists", etc. Thus the Brazilian image is a fitting choice. ] (]) 04:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{replyto|Vontheri}} Thank you; my thoughts exactly. See the section below, "A woman is more than a job".] (]) 04:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

== Framing ==

I've reached this article to read about how hormonal differences between women and men lead to differences in world-view between the sexes. But again, found nothing. Why all articles about sex are totally framed in anatomy + politics? I need objective information, from the Biological and Psychological Sciences, not feminist propaganda.--] (]) 23:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
:What are you talking about? ] (]) 23:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

== Sentence clarification (from "biology and sex") ==

"As in cases without two sexes, such as species that reproduce asexually, the gender-neutral appearance is closer to female than to male".
Shouldn't it be "such as species that *can* reproduce asexually"? If a species reproduces asexually then ostensibly it has no sex, in which case there's no male/female to which the embryo (appearing a sentence before that) can be similar. --] (]) 11:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
:Don’t really understand the question. Homo sapiens is a species that *can* reproduce sexually, but not every individual does so. But you don’t have to include the ′′can′′. One simply says, homo sapiens is a species which reproduces sexually (as opposed to some other way). If you still have a question, perhaps you can state it some other way? ] (]) 05:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2018 ==
{{hat|Not a forum, just taking up space. ] (]) 18:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)}}
{{edit semi-protected|Woman|answered=yes}}
'''Gender stereotyping'''
According to the United Nations of Human Rights, they mentioned that the states are required to defend women’s rights against any gender stereotypes discrimination. Also, the United Nation of Human Rights are obligated to protect women’s public and private life against any stereotype that women may encounter. <ref>https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/women/wrgs/pages/genderstereotypes.aspx</ref>
The United Nations of Human Rights mentioned the following, “A gender stereotype is a generalized view or preconception about attributes or characteristics, or the roles that are or ought to be possessed by, or performed by women and men. A gender stereotype is harmful when it limits women’s and men’s capacity to develop their personal abilities, pursue their professional careers and make choices about their lives. <ref>https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/women/wrgs/pages/genderstereotypes.aspx</ref> In addition, the articles explains that a gender stereotype is caused by a general idea or thought that has to do with women’s qualities, characteristics or roles that are achieved by women in this case. Also, such gender stereotype can be damaging when it decreases a women’s ability to make progress in either personal or professional setting. <ref>https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/women/wrgs/pages/genderstereotypes.aspx</ref>
The United Nations of Human Rights also explain that, “Harmful stereotypes can be both hostile/negative (e.g., women are irrational) or seemingly benign (e.g., women are nurturing). For example, the fact that child care responsibilities often fall exclusively on women is based on the latter stereotype. <ref>https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/women/wrgs/pages/genderstereotypes.aspx</ref>

“Gender stereotyping refers to the practice of ascribing to an individual woman or man specific attributes, characteristics, or roles by reason only of her or his membership in the social group of women or men. Gender stereotyping is wrongful when it results in a violation or violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms.” <ref>https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/women/wrgs/pages/genderstereotypes.aspx</ref>
“Example of wrongful gender stereotyping are the failure to criminalize marital rape based on societal perception of women as the sexual property of men, and the failure to effectively investigate, prosecute and sentence sexual violence against women based on, e.g., the stereotype that women should protect themselves from sexual violence by dressing and behaving modestly” <ref>https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/women/wrgs/pages/genderstereotypes.aspx</ref>
“Gender stereotypes compounded and intersecting with other stereotypes have a disproportionate negative impact on certain groups of women, such as women from minority or indigenous groups, women with disabilities, women from lower caste groups or with lower economic status, migrant women, etc.” <ref>https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/women/wrgs/pages/genderstereotypes.aspx</ref>
“Wrongful gender stereotyping is a frequent cause of discrimination against women and a contributing factor in violations of a vast array of rights such as the right to health, adequate standard of living, education, marriage and family relations, work, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, political participation and representation, effective remedy, and freedom from gender-based violence. “<ref>https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/women/wrgs/pages/genderstereotypes.aspx</ref>
'''Violence against women'''
“The Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women defines “violence against women” as “any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life.” “ <ref>https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/women/wrgs/pages/genderstereotypes.aspx</ref>
“It has taken decades of struggle by the women’s rights movement to persuade the international community to view gender-based violence against women as a human rights concern and not just as a private matter in which the State should not interfere. In 1992, the CEDAW Committee in its General Recommendation No. 19, asserted that violence against women is a form of discrimination, directed towards a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately. This violence seriously inhibits women’s ability to enjoy rights and freedoms on a basis of equality with men. In December 1993, the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, recognized that violence against women violates women's rights and fundamental freedoms and called on states and the international community to work toward the eradication of violence against women. The same year, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action recognized that the elimination of violence against women in public and private life is a human rights obligation. The then Commission on Human Rights condemned gender-based violence for the first time in 1994 and the same year appointed a Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences. The 1995 UN World Conference on Women held in Beijing reaffirmed the conclusions of the Vienna Conference, listing violence against women as one of the critical areas of concern. In 2017, the CEDAW Committee, marking 25th anniversary of its General Recommendation No. 19, further elaborated international standards on gender-based violence against women in its General Recommendation No. 35. In General Recommendation No. 35, the CEDAW Committee recognized that the prohibition of gender-based violence against women has evolved into a principle of customary international law, binding all States.” <ref>https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Women/WRGS/Pages/VAW.aspx</ref>
“Framing gender-based violence against women as a human rights violation implies an important conceptual shift. It means recognizing that women are not exposed to violence by accident, or because of an in-born vulnerability. Instead, violence is the result of structural, deep-rooted discrimination which the state has an obligation to address. Preventing and addressing gender-based violence against women is therefore not a charitable act. It is a legal and moral obligation requiring legislative, administrative and institutional measures and reforms and the eradication of gender stereotypes which condone or perpetuate gender-based violence against women and underpin the structural inequality of women with men.”
“The Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women and the CEDAW General Recommendation No. 35 provide for the concept of due diligence obligation of States. Under this obligation, States have a duty to take positive action to prevent and protect women from violence, punish perpetrators of violent acts and compensate victims of violence. The principle of due diligence is crucial as it provides the missing link between human rights obligations and acts of private persons.” <ref>https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Women/WRGS/Pages/VAW.aspx</ref>
“Considerable progress has been made in many countries of the world. Comprehensive legal frameworks and specific institutions and policies have been put in place to promote women’s rights, prevent and protect women from violence. There is growing awareness of the nature and impact of violence against women around the world. Innovative and promising practices are reported every year to the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council and the Commission on the Status of Women, including in the areas of investigations, prosecution and provision of services.” <ref>https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/women/wrgs/pages/genderstereotypes.aspx</ref>
“Yet, the figures on prevalence of violence against women are alarming. According to data by the World Health Organization, one third of women globally experience violence at least once in their lifetime. There are still obstacles to women’s access to justice, resulting into widespread impunity for violence. Considerable efforts are still required to promote women’s and girls’ autonomy and choice and to ensure the realization of the right of women and girls to a life free from violence.” <ref>https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Women/WRGS/Pages/VAW.aspx</ref> ] (]) 05:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
{{Ref talk}}
:]&nbsp;'''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] ] 05:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== This entire page is too ideological and political ==

<ref></ref>Why hasn't this page been fixed yet? With such a topic as huge as "woman" there shouldn't be so much jargon, politics and new age "ideas" while being written at a high school level. The article should be neutral and devoid of bias. The opening to the article should not have anything that is not about a female human being. I have read through pretty much all the comments on the talk page and I don't understand why this is not resolved. Transgendered individuals make up less than , not to mention transwomen making up even less from that number. Why is the entire side of the page is covered in "women in society", "feminism" and "feminist philosophy" page links? Come on, what is this? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a political rally. The first thing when you think about women is not feminism and feminist philosophy, get them out of here.

''"A woman is a female human being. The term woman is usually reserved for an adult, with girl being the usual term for a female child or adolescent. The term woman is also sometimes used to identify a female human, regardless of age, as in phrases such as "women's rights"."''

Why is this phrase "women's rights" here? Is this all women are about? Meanwhile the men's page says "men's basketball." This can be changed to "women's health", "women's volleyball", "women's section", I mean, literally ANYTHING else.

''"Women with typical genetic development are usually capable of giving birth from puberty until menopause."''

This is poorly written. Is it necessary to insinuate about infertility in the first intro to the page? Infertility/difficulty carrying to term ages 15-44. This stat does not include the top reason why women become infertile which is that they wait too long and their egg reserves diminishes severely after age 32. Again... WHY is this in the introduction to this article? I think everyone knows that not every single woman on the planet is capable of getting pregnant and giving birth, there is no need to handle this with kid gloves.

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

Why are transwomen being mentioned in the intro to this article? A woman is a female human by wikipedia's own admission--why are transwomen who are biologically male mentioned in an article about biologically female humans? Trans and intersex individuals make up such a tiny, minute portion of the population and should not be mentioned here. They do not hold equal validity in an article that is about female humans. This sentence should not be here at all and the wording of it uses lingo and buzzwords a la Vox or Slate. Transwomen are not "assigned" male; the doctor visually observes a baby's genitalia and uses the word corresponding to said genitalia. In essence, if you have a penis you are male and if you have a vagina you are female. Sure, there are anomaly's... but this doesn't belong here. The word "Assign" makes it seem like the doctor gives the baby it's sex because of his or her own personal choice or feelings, like "Hmmm, having assigned female in a while, let's do that!" If the baby chooses to transition later in life that has absolutely nothing to do with what the doctor, all the nurses and the parents saw with their own eyeballs at the birth. It's as simple as that. This line needs to be removed completely. It's inaccurate and personal feelings do not belong in an encyclopedia. ] (]) 08:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
:First, you aren't new to Misplaced Pages despite your new account. So I felt I should go ahead and point that out. Second, you are complaining about a gendered topic such as this being too ideological and political. What???? What would anyone expect, given the gendered issues that come with being a woman, such as ], ], ], etc.? This is not the ] article. The topic of ] is commonly associated with unsavory and ] aspects. So, of course, it wouldn't get as much weight in the ] article as women's rights gets in the Woman article. The Woman article addresses stuff like science, literature and art. If you want to expand that, or sports, then expand it, but make no mistake about it...the literature on "woman" mostly concerns what you see in the article. It matters not that you probably first think of the female body when you hear the word ''woman.'' Third, transgender and intersex women are currently not mentioned a lot in the article. Regardless of what you think, they should have their ] in the article. A Misplaced Pages article on "Woman" should not exclude mention of trans women and intersex women. I'm not going to address the rest of your statements, except to state that the lead should summarize the article. When there is content in the lead that is not covered lower, an argument for removing content from the lead can be made. ] (]) 12:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

:And as for "assigned," Misplaced Pages recently had , as you likely know. ] (]) 13:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

== A woman is more than a vagina? ==
<gallery mode=packed>
File:Michelangelo, Creation of Adam 03.jpg|The current lead image at ]
File:Scheme female reproductive system-en.svg|The current lead image at ]
File:Human_anatomy.jpg|Human anatomy.jpg
File:Weaving profile.jpg|Weaving profile.jpg
File:WomanFactory1940s.jpg|WomanFactory1940s.jpg
</gallery>
Apologies for bringing up the issue of lead image again, as I see it was discussed above a few months ago. But the lead image is kind of important because it's the image that pops up in previews and some aggregators and such. I was reading something that wikilinked "] and ]" and I moused over the links to see the ], and the lead image for ] is a picture of a man, specifically Michelangelo's ]. The lead image for ] is a diagram of the female reproductive system. These two pictures communicated to me that "man" is a male (complete) human being, and "woman" is a vagina. I didn't want to change it unilaterally (specifically, I didn't want to revert {{diff2|863552234|this edit}} without asking first). Is it just me? '''<sup>]</sup><sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">]</sub>''' 23:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
:Even though the image in question is not in an infobox or at the top of the article, but instead several screens down and below two other images (which are in the infoboxes), it is indeed very awkward that it's the "top" image that various on- and off-site scripts grab. A very slight tweak would be to swap the order of that image and ], which are very close to each other in the same section. This would not involve introducing any new images or changing what section or "screen" any of the images were on, so it would hopefully not be controversial; does anyone object? ] (]) 01:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
::No objection to that change, as I think it would be an improvement over the current situation. However, I think that change creates a new problem: the lead image for ] would be a picture of a man and a woman. I think articles like ], ], ], ], ], ], etc., should have a lead image that depicts a typical example of the subject. What about swapping it with ] or ] (both currently in the article), or adding a new picture altogether? '''<sup>]</sup><sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">]</sub>''' 03:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
:::Definitely an issue that File:Scheme female reproductive system-en.svg currently presents as the main image. And it wouldn't be much better to have the main image be of both male and female anatomy. Given what I stated about the ] article in the ] discussion above, I think it's time we revisit the "similarly large human populations" matter with a new discussion at ]. A lead image (collage or otherwise) that shows a variety of different types of women would work best -- meaning it would be better than an image of a single woman for this article. But if the Man article can get away with using a single artistic image for its lead image, so can the Woman article. This is regardless of the transgender topic repeatedly being more of an issue for this article than it has been for the Man article. ] (]) 04:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
:If we can't find a suitable lead image for this article, maybe we should change the lead image on ] instead? In general, I agree that the ] and ] articles should focus less on anatomy than the ] and ] articles. ] (]) 08:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
::Changing the lead image on the Man article won't fix the aforementioned issue with this one. And what would we change the lead image of that article to? We should be more focused on this article unless we want to have a discussion about both articles and leave a note there that, per ], the discussion is centralized here. ] (]) 23:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
:I was going to suggest a painting by Frida Kahlo - if the lead image on Man is a well known painting of and by a man, why not make the lead image on Woman a well known painting of and by a woman? But, unfortunately, it seems her work is still under copyright, and I can't think of another female portrait painter who is iconic in the same way. Someone who is more versed in art than me should make suggestions, but here are a few ideas:

<gallery mode=packed>
File:Serebryakova Bath house study 1912.jpg | female artist
File:Self-portrait in a Straw Hat by Elisabeth-Louise Vigée-Lebrun.jpg | female artist
File:Shoen Uemura - Firefly.jpg|female artist
File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg | male artist
File:Sandro Botticelli 046.jpg | male artist
File:Meisje met de parel.jpg|male artist
File:Venus von Willendorf 01.jpg | ancient</gallery>

:Alternately, I think either the factory picture or the weaving picture would be good. ] (]) 16:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
::Hmm I see there's already been some good discussion above about the Birth of Venus, beauty standards, etc up higher that I missed. ] (]) 16:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
:::Per what I noted in the Lead image discussion, I don't mind ] (the Birth of Venus image) being the lead image. I think that ] would be a poor choice because it's focused on women bathing. I think that ] would be a poor choice because of her dated clothing and the fact that she is a notable woman from the past. I think that ] would be a poor choice because it's too tied to a specific culture. I think that ] would be a poor choice because of just how famous the image is and that it is sometimes mocked. I'm not sure about ], but I know I don't prefer it. I think ] would be a poor choice (the poorest choice) because it's a statue without clear facial features and doesn't represent what is typically thought of as the female form. Yes, female forms differ, but ] is about trying to find a representative image. Sometimes a traditional or stereotypical image is more representative to the masses. For example, a red apple as opposed to a green apple, as the lead image for the ] article. I'm not stating that we need to go with a white woman as the lead image, though, of course. ] (]) 23:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
::::Oh brother, must we go through this again? I'd think we had best left well enough alone. But if we must, it would be best to use the first woman rather than the last, in other words a black woman should be used. ] (]) 00:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
:::::Which woman, Gandy? ] (]) 00:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
::::::Flyer, that's the point - which black woman? Seems to me we're between a rock and a hard place when we think we can find a woman to represent "woman". Look above at all the pure, virginal, sparkling white photos. A black woman in Africa with a nursing child in a sling as she works in a field might as well be from Mars compared to the above photos. I don't want to choose a woman but if we must at least a poor Asian woman better represents woman of today since they are at least half of our world population (I think). BTW, at one point we had a composite and that didn't work out either due to squabbles about the choices. ] (]) 01:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
:::::::Oh come on, there is no need to bring race into this. Just select the most suitable image that represents a female human, and that means a traditional or stereotypical image that resonates with readers. And I'm not even white. ] (]) 01:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

:::::::Gandy, yeah, in the Lead image discussion, I noted the "various display of women" aspect and that the "various display" route has been working for the Girl article for years. The main issue with using a collage or composite at this article? It was the people who kept complaining about having a trans woman -- ] -- in the collage or composite. ] (]) 02:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
::::::::Yup, you can have countless trans women saying that they knew something was wrong when they were three years old and yet there are those that say they know better than what these people knew for a fact because they lived it. All the more reason to not use a photo of some illusion of what is considered to be a woman. ] (]) 03:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

::::::::Oh, that reminds me (because this was also a criticism of at least one of the figures in the collage) of one of the criticisms of the Birth of Venus: it's not a depiction of a woman, it's a depiction of a deity. ] (]) 03:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::Who made that argument? Was it it a common argument? Whatever the case, I think that's a weak argument, -sche, since the imagery is clearly of the female human form. Editors could also use an image of ] to contrast the image of ] at the Man article, but then we'd have to worry about "Misplaced Pages is going with a religious viewpoint" arguments. In the case of Venus, it's ] and so we don't have to worry about "Misplaced Pages is going with a religious viewpoint" arguments. ] (]) 03:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

::"that means a traditional or stereotypical image that resonates with readers". You must be kidding, right? ] (]) 02:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
:::OK, looking at it again I understand why this comment may easily be misinterpreted. But I want an image that resonates with the majority of readers. According to , almost 50% of English Misplaced Pages readers come from the US or UK. An absolute majority of readers come from the ]. We should cater to them. ] (]) 03:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

:I don't object to switching to some completely different image (and I would be fine with either the birth of Venus or a black woman, as proposed above), but another "least change" idea that might side-step debate over a new image: is there a way to cause the image which is currently the ''first'' image in the article, ], to be parsed as the ''top''/''thumbnail'' image? ] (]) 01:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
::Agreed that the Venus symbol would be a good choice for a neutral image. ] (]) 03:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
::I assume one way to do this would be: instead of including ], copy and paste the entire contents of the sidebar into the article. Of course, this wouldn't be ideal because any changes updates to the sidebar would have to be added to the article manually and they'd likely fall out of sync. ] (]) 01:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
<gallery mode=packed>
File:Ivorian Women in Mining IndustryːThe smiling face of the scheduler.jpg | 1
File:Woman at work, Gujarat 01.jpg | 2
File:Rosie the Riveter (Vultee) DS.jpg | 3
File:Female-working-extracting-moisture-from-cassava-roots.jpg | 4
File:Njombe_Woman_Working.jpg | 5
File:Woman_Working_in_Fields_-_Chittagong_Hill_Tracts_-_Bangladesh_(13185061723).jpg | 6
File:A_woman_working_at_the_Apopo_rat_training_in_Tanzania.jpg | 7
File:Woman_mechanic_working_on_engine.jpeg | 8
File:Nigeria-our-work-women-in-field-542x340.jpg | 9
File:Sleepy_Cartoon_Woman_Working_From_Home.svg | 10 (Misplaced Pages editor reading this thread)
</gallery>
Some additional possibilities? '''<sup>]</sup><sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">]</sub>''' 04:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

How about this? A beautiful work of art that's 1. Stylized enough to feel somewhat universal 2. Not depicting anyone specific. 3. From a culture that's not over-represented on Misplaced Pages (it's a fresco from a Minoan palace.) 4. Not sexy or male-gazey.
<gallery mode=packed>File:Minoan_Women.jpg</gallery> ] (]) 05:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
:] is ambiguous gender-wise. And definitely no to the cartoon image. ] (]) 08:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
::If it feels ambiguous gender-wise I'd argue that's a good thing - it means it's presenting a broad and non-stereotypical view of women. Plus the title of the piece - ''Ladies of the Minoan Court'' - will clear up any confusion. I'm going to be bold and throw it up there - I think a piece of art is better for such a broad concept as 'woman' than a photograph of one specific person, and after looking at various pieces of art this feels like the best candidate that I've found. In any case it's definitely better than the various photos of conventionally attractive young white women that people keep putting up. But I know this is a controversial subject so 100% feel free to revert or put forward other candidates. (I'd be perfectly happy if we could find a good piece of art where the subjects happened to be black, per discussion above, for example.) ] (]) 18:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
:::. As a lead image for the topic, it is poor. Clearly, it does not adhere to what WP:LEADIMAGE states about the lead image being something the reader expects to see. You apparently want to use an image that readers won't expect to see...all for the sake of ambiguity or a "non-stereotypical view of women." Our job is to go with an image that readers will expect to see or one that will otherwise resonate with them, or use no image at all. After all, WP:LEADIMAGE also talks about it sometimes not being possible to have a representative image or any lead image. I fail to see how that image you added will resonate with readers in terms of what a woman is. "Conventionally attractive young white women" might be stereotypical, but they resonate with people. This is not an article about gender ambiguity. And the lead having the Woman article use such an image as the lead image is not an improvement. It is also silly for this article to go by such a standard while the Man article does not. Some people might not expect a black woman as the lead image, but a black woman as the lead image would clearly be of a woman to readers and is an image they (many anyway) can easily resonate with. ] (]) 08:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

:::Considering how debatable this topic (what lead image to use or to use a collage or composite) has been, it would be best to form consensus on an image or images before another lead image attempt is made. We can, of course, also take the ] route. For how an RfC on images can look, see ] and one that was had at ]. But like I stated in the discussion before that RfC about what blond hair image to use, too many options can overwhelm participants. In other words, the more options there are, the more overwhelmed editors are and less likely they are to vote. ] (]) 08:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
::::Well, it's a painting of women. That seems like something a reader might expect to see in an article about women. :) I'll add that my goal was not specifically to pick an androgynous image, even if I question why that would be a bad thing. Instead I picked it for the criteria I outlined above. You could probably make the image I picked feel less androgynous by cropping it differently, though, if that was the goal. In any case I'm not married to the choice.
::::...Out of ]'s choices I'm personally drawn to 3, 6, and 8. The construction images - 3 and 8 - in particular feel bold, empowering, dynamic, well composed, and well lit. ] (]) 15:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
:::::Thoughts in no particular order: 1. For my part, just about any of the images proposed so far are better than the current lead image, and I always appreciate boldness, so I think the Minoan painting was an improvement, but it's still not my favorite choice for a permanent replacement. 2. I prefer a photograph of a "typical" example(s) of an actual woman (a female human), rather than something abstract (including any symbol or painting) that shows someone's ''idea'' of a woman or womanhood or femininity, etc., for the same reasons as ], ], etc., shows a picture of a typical example of the subject rather than something more philosophical or esoteric (and for this reason I don't like the lead image at ], either, but that's for another day). 3. I really like the idea of a collage, as is done in ], because it demonstrates that "woman" is actually diverse; there is no typical woman; they come in many different appearances. However, it may take some time to create a collage that everyone is happy with; I understand there were some difficulties with the last one, although consensus may change, and perhaps the last collage would gain consensus now even if it didn't before. 4. I do believe/hope we can resolve this on the talk page without having to do something more involved like an RfC. 5. Perhaps we can agree on an interim image to replace the current one, until such time as a collage (or something else) can be created/presented/discussed/consented-to? '''<sup>]</sup><sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">]</sub>''' 16:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
:::::I agree this thread has too many suggestions and would overwhelm many people attempting to pick, and we should winnow things down to the few options with the most support. In whatever informal !vote or formal RfC we hold, we should also employ ranking of choices. I like ] best among the single-person non-painting photographs. What about, as a tentative suggestion for options: the aforementioned riveter photo (or another woman of colour), the birth of Venus, a collage like was used previously, or "none of the above"? In the last case, we would still be left to decide what non-lead image to put first in the article body and hence set as the "thumbnail" image, or to have another !vote with other options. ] (]) 21:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

:::::WanderingWanda, of course, readers would expect to see an image of a woman or women. But that image you added does not cut it, and I'm certain most or all others would state the same. It's also better to have a lead image that doesn't only show a woman's face or just about only her face. Out of Levivich's latest choices, I really like image 8. Will readers expect to see a lead image of a woman working the way she is working in that image? Probably not. But before they click on the article, they will be expecting an image of a woman standing still doing nothing or doing something. So in that sense, that the woman is doing something will be expected. Readers can only guess what the woman might be doing before they click on the image. I considered image 3 as well, and wouldn't mind it as the lead image. We can also try for two or three lead images in a vertical way ]. ] (]) 11:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
:::::Out of these choices, I prefer image 8 the most. It's more contemporary and shows the woman more clearly than image 3. A crop may be beneficial. ] (]) 04:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
]
{{od|:::::}}
Regarding ''which woman'', what about the panracial line drawing of a woman that is etched onto a ] being carried by the ] spacecraft, and which is the first object constructed by humans to leave the solar system? This image, along with the companion image of a man and some technical information about its origin, was the first explicit, concrete interstellar communication attempt by humans, and is intended to convey information about all humankind to other beings, in case it is ever intercepted by extraterrestrial life. ] (]) 09:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

:I'm not for the line drawing image, which is focused on anatomy (because it's showing what a female human's body is likely to look like). Compare ] (a line drawing image with the one you suggested included) to ]. Pretty much the same thing, except the latter is more detailed. Even in the ] article, the lead image isn't focused on showing what the ] looks like. And diversity-wise, we can see that the image isn't of white people. The Venus image does show a nude woman, obviously, and it's informative to show a typical anatomy of a woman in the Woman article, but that image doesn't have the same "this is all about anatomy" feel to it. And as others have mentioned, this isn't the ] article. When it comes to anatomy, we already have anatomy images in the "Biology and sex" section. And this discussion started because of a concern that an anatomy image presents as the lead image (although that image is only of the reproductive system and doesn't show the overall body of a woman). ] (]) 23:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

:] (Leviv), regarding , the image isn't really in the lead. It currently shows as (mainly) being in the Biology and sex section, at least on my computer screen. And it's misplaced there. Moving the image to the top, ahead of the templates, will make it so that it's the lead image. ] (]) 13:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
::{{u|Flyer22 Reborn}}, fixed, thanks for the heads up! ]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">]</span> 19:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
:::I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who participated in this discussion! ]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">]</span> 06:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
:: Love the new image! {{emoji|2764|theme=noto}}{{emoji|2640|theme=noto}} ] (]) 17:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
:::Yeah! Good job! ] (]) 18:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
===A woman is more than a job?===
{{replyto|Levivich}} Sorry to say this but I hate that picture. I feel like it is defining a woman by her form of wage labor, and suggesting that a woman has more value when she performs traditionally male roles. I understand we didn't have much to work with, and I appreciate all your effort. I would like something like this as an example(it says all rights reserved): I discussed criteria I felt was important for this lead image in the ] article here: ] (]) 18:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
{{replyto|Levivich}} I found this creative commons image that I cropped:] ] (]) 00:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
:We've come to a consensus on this. Per all of the points made by me and others above, I see no need to discuss this so soon after achieving consensus. We cannot please everyone. ] (]) 01:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
::I understand there was just a consensus; my intention was to just add this information for consideration. The concerns I have don't seem to have been addressed. When more users who had not participated in the recent discussion get involved maybe that would be the time to open it up again? ] (]) 01:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
:{{re|Kolya Butternut}} For my part, I don't draw the same conclusions as you from the current lead image. I think people spend most of their time working, so a picture of a person working makes sense. A picture of a human interacting with technology (in this case, a woman working on an engine) makes sense: it depicts a typical "modern" human as opposed to one from a thousand years ago. That's just my opinion, though, and it's not up to me. I only added the current lead image because it was chosen by consensus here on the talk page. It's up to the consensus of editors what the lead image should be. ]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">]</span> 01:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
::], of the population in the United states perform wage labor, and those that do spend most of their time doing other activities. I feel like humans are over-identified with wage labor, especially in the US. I feel like the image to the right is modern and timeless, depicting the universal (abled) human activity of dancing. So, if more folks would like to open this up for discussion again in the future hopefully my concerns here can be addressed too. Thank you. ] (]) 02:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

{{re|Netoholic}} This thread shows consensus for that lead image. What your edit has done is to make the reproductive system diagram the lead image again, which is how we started this, months ago. Self-revert and join the talk page discussion. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">]</span></span> 12:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
: Pretty sure I read the opposite above, and I concur with them. It is not illustrative of the concept of "woman" to show one performing a traditionally-male job covered in protective clothing and a helmet that shows almost no part of their form which would make them discernibly a woman from a man. Its otherwise a brave, empowering picture. -- ] ] 13:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
::"Love the new image!" "Yeah! Good job!" "We've come to a consensus on this." means the opposite of consensus? WTF are you reading, Net? <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">]</span></span> 13:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
::: A "quiet consensus" based on a few kudos... but a consensus that cannot last once people notice that you've made it. If you look further down on this page its clear there is no consensus presently. Also, you've failed to address my point about how this lead image for "woman" is doing a job typically done by, and dressed looking like, a man. ] says the {{tq|purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter}} - something yours does not do since I can barely tell its a woman except for the caption. I thought about moving the "Pregnant woman" image up to the lead, as it at least is a clear representation of the vast majority of women in the world, showing their form and indicating an important role to society, but until people on this talk page hash out their opinions (and ultimately reject the activists who want to redefine this topic rather than document it fairly), then its pointless to even have a lead image at all. -- ] ] 13:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

== Emoticons ==

"Women are twice as likely as men to use ] in text messages"<ref>http://news.rice.edu/2012/10/10/women-use-emoticons-more-than-men-in-text-messaging/</ref> ] (]) 16:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

: Any suggestions for wording or placement? ] (]) 15:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

::The emoticon article. ] (]) 15:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

::: Why not both? ] (]) 16:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
::::Various minor gendered differences shouldn't be included in this article. It would be far too long. Save those for specific topic articles. ] ] 18:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
::::: Yeah, it's too trivial as information about women. ] (]) 18:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

:::::: Is there, or should there be, some sub article? Perhaps something like "Differences between men and women" or "Women and technology"? ] (]) 18:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
:::::::] may be what you're after, still, not an obvious fit. ] (]) 19:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

:::::::: Hm, yes, perhaps, but that seems more strictly academic. But I'll give it a try. But at any rate, I do think there should be some mention here, perhaps not of this particular point, but that there are differences, in general. ] (]) 20:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::Or perhaps that belongs in ], ] or ]. ] (]) 22:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::: Perhaps human. Have the non humans used emoticons? ] (]) 23:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::]. But I was thinking of "but that there are differences, in general." ] (]) 07:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::::: Specifically differences between human men and women. ] (]) 08:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Maybe in ]? In all seriousness, though, "] are differences in the mental functions and behaviors of the sexes..." and so that article seems the right place for well-sourced information about how men and women communicate differently. ]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">]</span> 08:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I do still think there should be one article summarizing all the differences between men and women. Here's another example: In women, the index and ring finger tend to be the same length, whereas men's ring finger tends to be longer.<ref>http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/05/the-secrets-of-the-male-hand/</ref> ] (]) 11:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
{{reflist talk}}
:Have you found ]? That's physical differences, though. ] (]) 14:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

:: Ah, thanks for that! So, I guess that about covers it, the physical, and the psychological. But perhaps there could be social, cultural, political, economic, etc... ] (]) 15:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
:::] This navbox might help. ]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">]</span> 16:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

:::: Perfect, thanks! (^.^) ] (]) 16:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

:::: Hmm, what about gender differences? ] (]) 16:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

:::: {{reply to| Levivich}} I've edited your above comment to not insert the template onto the talk page as it causes undesirable identation issues for sections below your comment. ] (]) 02:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

== Clarity on the tail of the intro ==

I know people are probably sick of talking about this element of the blurb, but I feel like the following quoted segment should be made more clear:

<blockquote>
There are also ] (those who have a male ] that does not align with their ]),<ref name="MorrowMessinger">''Sexual Orientation and Gender Expression in Social Work Practice'', edited by Deana F. Morrow and Lori Messinger (2006, {{ISBN|0-231-50186-2}}), p. 8: "Gender identity refers to an individual's personal sense of identity as or , or some combination thereof."</ref> and ] women (those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female).
</blockquote>

Specfically, the second half (regarding "intersex women") seems to be using "women" to refer to self-identified gender, not sex, although the parenthetical does not indicate this in any direct way (you could argue it indicates it indirectly since it mentions a deviation in sexual characteristics). Looking through the ] article, I can't find any instance of the word "woman" that isn't referring to sex, so I don't think there's some 3rd usage I'm overlooking. Simply put, the parenthetical is simply defining what an intersex <i>person</i> is, not an intersex <i>woman</i>, which does not match the first half of the sentence (corresponding to trans women).

If the mention of "intersex women" is simply an additional nod to the usage of the term "woman" to refer to self-identified gender instead of sex, then I feel like there is a clearer way to present that, possibly simply by adding some kind of preface, like so:

<blockquote>
The term "woman" is also sometimes used to refer to one's ], such as with ] (those who do not fit typical notions of male or female but ]).
</blockquote>

This makes the purpose of the sentence (inclusion of the use of the word as a gender identity) more immediately clear, keeps the two topics of the sentence in agreement in terms of format, and makes the last parenthetical directly relevant to the article (current version is not). That said, what I proposed here still needs some obvious work. Notably, the version of the preface I've provided is somewhat ] in its use of "sometimes".

Honestly, I think the answer is that the exact wording I'm providing for the preface is wholly undesirable, but the general structure is something that should probably be used. However, I don't know what specific wording would actually be good for this first portion. Whatever wording is used, it should be specific and supported by reliable sources. Even the current wording ("There are also") is honestly awful.

Perhaps the most concrete claim possible looks something like this (very rough):

<blockquote>
Within some ], the term "woman" is . This usage has also been adopted by ___a group you can reliably make this claim about___ <i>(new source goes here)</i>.
</blockquote>

Thoughts? First, on whether or not we can agree that the current sentence is poorly done in the ways I've mentioned, and second, on what I've proposed to replace it. ] (]) 02:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


== On "wermann" ==
{{Reflist-talk}}


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


:You appear to be correct. For those interested, here are some such discussions . I've gone and made an edit (]) which replaces the specious ''wermann'' with ''wer'' (apparently the most common OE word for male/man) and {{wt|ang|wǣpnedmann}}, which is attested occasionally as the analogue to ''wifmann''. I hope this looks acceptable.
I have put a '''''' together of image options for an RfC for the lead images of both this article and WP:]. We can use the associated talk page to narrow down our choices prior to an RfC. I have included more images of men because IMO the existing lead image of WP:Man is worse than the existing image of WP:Woman. --] (]) 09:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)<br>
:I think the Dictionary.com link is rotten, as it no longer contains the information we're citing it for. If anyone has access to the OED or another source which verifies this etymology, please verify this text if possible. –] (] • ]) 18:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
<u>'''For reference: '''</u> ] (]) 23:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


== Why does this page use ] even though ] uses semi-protection only? ==
:Out of the images you are proposing, my votes are for "blue shirt" (second choice: "plaid") for the "man" article, and "hijab" (second choice: "smiling", would be first choice if not for the fact that she is wearing lipstick/makeup, which is sort of a prop rather than just showing simply a person) for the "woman" article. I think the images should be just of a person to the extent possible, and not showing any sort of specific traits or actions or props, other than clothing if necessary. (For example, not the "dancing" image as it shows a specific action rather than just a person, and not "hardhat", "grinder", "cart", "drill", or "wiring" as they show specific actions/occupations, and not "steps", "steps crop", "iphone", or "sunglasses" as they contain props in addition to just the person.) ] (]) 09:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
::I feel similarly. I didn't want an image that overly identified someone with a job, activity, or culture. At the same time I feel like social role, culture, and activity are inextricable from our humanity and would naturally be visible. So my preference ends up being a picture of someone where we may have a sense of these things, but we are not distracted by them. My ideal that I looked for were pictures with men and women sitting in front of their dwellings and where I had a sense of their bodies. I actually like that "steps crop" man is holding an iphone; it gives him a somewhat universal modern context, but it's also not visually distracting, unlike "iphone" man where he is actually looking at the iphone. I don't mind that "smiling" woman has makeup. It appears to be a small amount to me, and makeup is a common social signifier for women. Did you notice "ponytail"? It was meant to be a pair with "hijab" (which I don't particularly like because she's so covered, and she is a famous woman). --] (]) 22:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
:Are we thinking montage or one single image? ] (they/them) (]/]) 22:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
::I was originally thinking one single image. There is a , but we could have a ''gallery''. Personally I like the idea of three images stacked on top of each other so that the top image is actually the lead image, and it seems consistent with most articles to have images on the right side of the article as you scroll down. The only difference here would be directly stacking them. ] (who has ''much'' more experience) may have been interested in three side-by-side photos. ] (]) 23:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
::I see . ] (]) 23:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
::According to the manual of style I linked to above, it's best not to use any sort of gallery or montage. ] (]) 23:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
:::Nope. I'm fine with the current image. So are others. As seen in the ] section above, we already reached ] on this. Editors need to learn to compromise, like editors did in that discussion, and accept that things will not always go their way. They should not keep pushing and pushing until they get their way. I don't see why we should change the current lead image or add two more just because one or two editors can't accept consensus. ] (]) 07:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
::::That's not a fair characterization of what's happening here. This is a new discussion which considers new criteria and new images. I did not participate in the previous discussion where the current image was selected, but perhaps most importantly, this is a proposal that we change the image of WP:] to a photograph rather than a painting, which is consistent with the consensus that was reached here for WP:Woman. ] (]) 10:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::It is a fair characterization, because, apparently, to you, the consensus among others is not enough. We somehow have to use an image that satisfies you and/or WanderingWanda...even though there will never be an image that satisfies everyone. Even when there were multiple images presented as a collage or whatever, there were issues. As made clear by WP:Consensus, "Consensus on Misplaced Pages does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable)." If this discussion is only about the Man article, okay then. ] (]) 17:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


::::::Kolya, you state, "I did not participate in the previous discussion where the current image was selected." Why is that? ] (]) 19:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC) ... ] (]) 08:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::: when {{tq|previously unconsidered arguments}} are raised, which in this case is the argument that the image should not depict a woman engaged in labor, or even doing anything.
:::::::{{ping|Gandydancer}} The previous discussion occurred just before I was following this page. ] (]) 19:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
::::::::We all know that consensus can change. That doesn't mean we should look to change it because one or two editors are not satisfied with the result. To repeat, "there will never be an image that satisfies everyone." We just recently had a lead image discussion and we considered everyone's arguments, even yours after the discussion had ended. There is no need for a new one because you aren't satisfied with the current image. ] (]) 03:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::We should always be looking to improve[REDACTED] articles, regardless of how long it has or hasn't been since a previous change. There could be people who participated in the previous discussion who may change their mind after considering the additional arguments that have been presented since then, and there also could be other people (such as myself and ]) who were not aware of the previous discussion who could give input, along with any from the previous discussion who wish to participate, in a new consensus. The current image is clearly flawed in so many ways. It seems to me like a subtle violation of neutral point of view. The image shows a certain ideal of a "woman", and it seems it was most likely chosen for exactly that reason. It's just as non-neutral as it would be to have an image of a "woman housewife"; both would be presenting a specific ideal of a "woman", rather than a generalized and neutral example of a "woman". Just because it may present an ideal that we might agree with and like, it is still a specific ideal, and is not appropriate for this article.


:GENSEX enforcement vs. generic vandalism. ] (]) 12:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::The manual of style states "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic". This image appears to be staged like a stock photo, and not a "natural" representation. An image of a "woman mechanic" would be perfectly appropriate for the article for ], (although this specific image wouldn't be, for the reason I just gave: it is not a "natural representation") but this article isn't about mechanics or women who are mechanics, it is just about "women". The image for this article should be simply that of a woman, nothing more and nothing less.
:Also because trolls and bigots perseverate more on people ] who are either gay/bi/pan or trans. Transwomen are targeted more than transmen and thus this article gets more trolls. Here's an article: ] ] 16:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
:The page has had ECP since July 2023. At that time the article and talk had some targeted vandalism from sockpuppets that had gamed autoconfirmation. –] (] • ]) 04:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)


== A new departure required for this article (and others) ==
:::::::::], to respond to your response to me earlier, I didn't realize that the woman in the "hijab" photo was someone famous. Who is she? The fact that she is someone famous is a good reason to not use her as the image, so after learning that I now prefer "smiling", although one issue with it is that her eyes are closed. Also I didn't notice before that she was wearing an earring, which is also a sort of prop. However, pretty much any of the images you presented would be fine (except for the first six for "man" and the "woman mechanic" one. The "woman dancing" would be a little better than the current one but is still showing a specific action rather than just simply a woman) and certainly better than the current one. I'm not sure how the "ponytail" image goes with the "hijab" image, but regardless, I don't think the images for the two articles should have to "match" or "go together". As for the images with the smart phone giving a sense of modernity: the articles are simply "man" and "woman", not "modern men" or "modern women", so I don't think that really makes a difference. That said, I am willing to change my votes to the same images you picked ("steps crop" and "smiling") if that would help with achieving consensus. ] (]) 01:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::], the woman in the hijab is ]. I got it from spelled her name "Fartun", which is apparently incorrect, so that may be why I didn't realize she was particularly well known when I searched for her. I felt her picture was a pair with "ponytail" just because the portraits are visually similar. I agree it would be better not to use someone famous; it is just so hard to find good pictures! I think we have somewhat of a consensus for at least a temporary (and vast) improvement. ] did not state a clear preference yet. Genericusername57 wanted the woman to appear to be aware that she is being photographed, which is met by "smiling". We can add and subtract photos from the sandbox found above in the header as we find better photos. ] (]) 02:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Following the Tickle v Giggle judgement should this article be reframed in its entirety?
:::::::::::Vontheri, I don't consider "the image is not good enough because I disagree with it" rationale as "looking to improve wikipedia." As for the current lead image, there is no ] violation. Nothing on that page (WP:NPOV) supports that image being a WP:NPOV violation. As for "a certain ideal" of a woman? How? Because she is not of some ethnicity you would prefer her to be of? Because she is not as dark as you would like her to be? Because she might be considered physically attractive? Many would argue that the image is not ideal or stereotypical because of what the woman is doing. The "a certain ideal of a woman" argument can be argued for any image we use, because, again, no image is going to satisfy all editors and editors' views of "ideal woman" differ. As for "and it seems it was most likely chosen for exactly that reason"? Like I stated in the ] discussion, "Our job is to go with an image that readers will expect to see or one that will otherwise resonate with them, or use no image at all. After all, ] also talks about it sometimes not being possible to have a representative image or any lead image. 'Conventionally attractive young white women' might be stereotypical, but they resonate with people. Some people might not expect a black woman as the lead image, but a black woman as the lead image would clearly be of a woman to readers and is an image they (many anyway) can easily resonate with." WP:LEADIMAGE is not about using an image going against "an ideal that we might agree with and like." As for "lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic," I do not see how you think any image of a woman is going to be truly representative, given that so many types of women exist. We do not have to go with an image of a woman doing nothing but standing still. That is not a better image because she's not doing something that other women might not do. Just looking at Kolya Butternut's selections or Genericusername57's selections (especially the latter), they include women wearing or doing things that not all or most women wear or do. So I fail to see why "female mechanic" should be singled out as not representative. I disagree with your "not natural" and "stock photo" argument.


:::::::::::Kolya Butternut, what consensus are you speaking of? I don't see it. ] (]) 13:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC) <small>] (]) 13:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)</small>
::::::::::::::::For my part, I would have absolutely no issue with a more natural-seeming picture of a woman mechanic. What I want to avoid is a picture that tries to be either globally representative or aspirational and empowering, whatever that would mean. I'd like the picture to be just one individual woman going about her life—who cares whether she's a mechanic or a housewife? Obviously there are plenty of women in both situations. <small>Back in the day, I was involved in promotional/stock photos at my workplace: we were directed to stand around touching pieces of equipment and looking intently focussed, which of course had nothing to do with our actual work. I'm reminded of that by the current photo, which is one of the reasons I'd like to change it.</small> Cheers, ]] 23:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::: The consensus seems to be that the smiling woman is a good photo. &nbsp;I know you like the mechanic photo. &nbsp;I don't know what you think of the smiling photo or any of the others. ] (]) 13:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


The Australian Human Rights Commission acted as a friend of the court. Barrister Zelie Heger told the court that sex was no longer defined in the Sex Discrimination Act but that “importantly the act recognises that a person’s sex is not limited to ”.
:::::::::::::I don't know about consensus that it's a good image. But I don't see consensus to add that picture as the lead image. So . Do I like it? It's meh for me. And other than my comment on that, I'm not weighing in on alternative lead images for this article because I see no need for a change and I'd rather not comment on "what is the best lead image" every time someone comes along and wants to change the lead image. And believe me, it will keep happening no matter what lead image we use. My feeling is obviously that we should retain the current lead image (the one I reverted to). I don't feel that we should have two or three lead images in a row, but I wouldn't strongly object to two or three lead images in a row. The templates would be moved farther down, though. ] (]) 14:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


This doesn’t just have repercussions in the jurisdiction of the court that made the judgement
::::::::::::Flyer, if my argument is best characterized as "the lead image is not good because I disagree with", then anyone's argument on here could be best characterized as "this image is good because I agree with it" or "this image is not good because I disagree with it." In fact, anyone's argument to anything at all could be best characterized as "I'm in favor of universal healthcare because I agree with it" or "I'm against gun control because I disagree with it." Come on... I'm not against the current image because I "disagree with it". I'm against the current image because of the many reasons that I have already explained. And in fact, I don't disagree with the ideal that women can be just as good as mechanics as men, or such similar things, but I don't feel that this article is the appropriate place for such an image.


:
::::::::::::As I explained before, by "certain ideal" I meant that the mechanic photo invokes an ideal of modern western feminism. It was nothing to do with race or skin color. Nor does my argument have anything to do with being something "most women" do or don't do. It's simply that the image has political tones to it, and is not neutral in that way. It seems the image was chosen with an agenda, and not with the goal of selecting an encyclopedic image. May I ask, would you object to the image being one of a "woman housewife"? If so, then why?


“So today’s ruling in favour of Tickle will be significant for all the 189 countries where CEDAW has been ratified - from Brazil to India to South Africa.
::::::::::::(Apologies if I didn't place this post in the correct location. It's a bit difficult to know where to put it with there being so many threads and sub-threads.) ] (]) 23:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Regarding the "lead image is not good because I disagree with" aspect, I meant that other editors already worked toward a consensus for a lead image. For another editor to essentially come along and say "that consensus is not good enough" is faulty reasoning in this case because what is the best image or a better image is all opinion, unless there actually is an objective aspect to it based on what WP:LEADIMAGE states. This will keep happening over and over again, which is why I'm actually for not using a lead image in the case of this article if we are not to use a collage or a group of images as the lead image. And doing so (not having a lead image) would be in line with WP:LEADIMAGE. As for your "anyone's argument" comparisons, Misplaced Pages is obviously different. Our arguments on Misplaced Pages should usually be based on its rules. Selecting images is a trickier case than the vast majority of our rules even when following WP:LEADIMAGE because of the higher subjective level that comes with it.


When it comes to interpreting international treaties, national courts often look at how other countries have done it.
:::::::::::::We still disagree on using the current lead image. I don't see the housewife matter as at all the same.


Australia’s interpretation of the law in a case that got this level of media attention is likely to have global repercussions.
:::::::::::::Your comment is in the correct location since you are replying to me. ] (]) 00:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Flyer, not using any image at all is fine with me. As for the previous consensus, there were previous consensuses prior to it as well. The lead image has been changed multiple times before. I'm not aware of any policy that says that a new consensus cannot be reached after a previous consensus.


If over time a growing number of courts rule in favour of gender identity claims - it is more likely that other countries will follow suit.”
::::::::::::::Why would a housewife image be different? If you wouldn't be okay with such an image, then why not? ] (]) 00:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Vontheri, "the lead image has been changed multiple times before" is the point. I made that very clear above. It's not about "any policy that says that a new consensus cannot be reached after a previous consensus." It's about this going on and on because there will always be someone not satisfied with whatever current image we use. That is where compromising comes in. It's pointless to keep debating the lead image. There are a lot of topics where consensus on Misplaced Pages settles a matter for years. This is not one of those. All the back and forth over images is why ] now exists.


Is the term ‘Woman’ as has been widely understood and as reflected in this article (possibly even as a distinct definition) becoming anachronistic?
:::::::::::::::It's obvious why we shouldn't use a housewife image. You know that. It is not at all obvious that we shouldn't use the mechanic image. I suggest you drop the housewife matter, because I'm not going to elaborate. ] (]) 02:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC) <small> ] (]) 02:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC) </small>


] (]) 08:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Flyer, we shouldn't use a housewife image because it would invoke a specific ideal/ideology instead of being simply a neutral image of a "woman". That is the exact same reason why the woman mechanic image should not be used, just the ideal/ideology is an opposite one. Either way, it's ideological, and about more than just a "woman", and is not anywhere near being the most appropriate image for this article. I'm not going to drop it because it's an obvious comparison and, I think, my strongest argument for why the current image is not appropriate.


:The judgment is from a single Australian court and legal definitions don't necessarily override biological, social, or historical understandings of womanhood. The article currently presents multiple viewpoints, including both traditional and evolving definitions of womanhood. Legal definitions serve specific purposes and may not encompass the full complexity of biological, social, and cultural understandings of womanhood. The concept of woman has deep cultural, historical, and biological roots that extend beyond legal definitions.
::::::::::::::::You say "That is where compromising comes in." YES! My thoughts exactly! Why not use a neutral image of just a woman, nothing more, nothing less? An image that doesn't invoke any certain ideology or viewpoint. A "boring" image, essentially. Or, alternatively, use no image at all? ] (]) 03:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
:Misplaced Pages should aim to present mainstream knowledge and established facts. A single court case does not warrant an immediate overhaul of a fundamental concept. The article should reflect various perspectives, including traditional definitions alongside emerging views. Drastically changing the article based on one legal decision is overreactive.
:::::::::::::::::Not repeating myself. And nothing ideological about the mechanic image. Nothing obvious about your comparison. As for dropping it, I was referring to you asking me about going with a housewife image. You can keep going on about it if you want to, but you won't see me engaging you on it. ] (]) 04:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
:Major changes should be based on broad scholarly and societal consensus, not single events. The current article already includes information on gender identity and the evolving understanding of sex and gender in the opening section. Adding information about this court case and its implications could be done without completely reframing the entire article. The implications of this ruling might be better covered in a separate article or section, rather than reframing the entire concept of woman. ] (]) 01:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Vontheri, Flyer22 has not accurately represented our arguments or correctly inferred what we have been thinking so it's not worth continuing to respond to them (and they don't want us to anyway). There's going to be an RfC, so I think we should focus on getting opinions for which images to include. ] (]) 04:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
::That's a great response. Thanks for taking the time. I'm broadly very with you but I think, given the 'lean' that what we consider to be RS have it's a discussion we need to have.
::::::::::::::::::Do not patronize me. But do speak for yourself. I know exactly what Vontheri has meant. I disagree with Vontheri. I know exactly what you have meant. I disagree with you. If I have not accurately represented your arguments or correctly inferred what you have been thinking, the same can be stated for you with regard to me. In fact, that you felt the need to state that " not referring to ''meh' when said thought opinion was unique" below and at ] shows a lack of understanding. And then we have Vontheri below stating that " argument seems to be that since no image would satisfy everyone and be what everyone would expect to see, let's use an image that is to the extreme of not being what people would expect to see." You are right that I do not want you talking to me. But more so, I do not want you repeating your flawed logic to me. And I am a she, by the way. No need to use ''singular'' they on me. ] (]) 04:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
::Let's see if any other editors have a view. ] (]) 08:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::], I believe {{tq|there actually is an objective aspect to based on what WP:LEADIMAGE states}}. I do not believe the current image is {{tq|what our readers will expect to see}}. I think the current image is what readers would expect to see as the lead image for WP:Mechanic or similar article. I think here a reader would expect to see an image of a woman who is not engaged in such a specific, uncommon, activity. The first thing a reader may think when seeing the current lead image may be "woman mechanic" rather than just "woman". ] (]) 01:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
:::It's not even clear what would need to be changed, but regardless, I agree with ViolanteMD that it is not warranted to reframe anything at this time. The content in the article is based on reliable sources on the topic, of which there are extremely many; a court case isn't going to impact that much. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Kolya Butternut, I ask that you don't ping me to a talk page that I'm obviously watching. Although I get your point that the "first thing a reader may think when seeing the current lead image may be 'woman mechanic' rather than just 'woman'," I don't see that there is an objective argument for not going with the mechanic image. Plus, the mechanic aspect is heightened by the "mechanic" caption, which can simply be removed. I noted that our readers likely won't be expecting to see a black woman either, or any non-white woman (because society tends to use images of white people as the default), but the image would still be of a woman and it will resonate with many people. We cannot possibly have an image at this article that resonates with everyone. You are stating that our readers will not be expecting to see that image because of the work she is doing. Well, many readers will not be expecting to see a woman sitting on the steps smiling. I noted the following above: "We do not have to go with an image of a woman doing nothing but standing still. That is not a better image because she's not doing something that other women might not do. Just looking at selections or Genericusername57's selections (especially the latter), they include women wearing or doing things that not all or most women wear or do. So I fail to see why 'female mechanic' should be singled out as not representative." I've stated all that I have to state to you. ] (]) 02:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC) <small> ] (]) 02:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC) </small>
:::It's not exactly a revolutionary position either. For many legal purposes, gender/sex is defined as something that can be reassigned, rather than what you were born as. ] (]) 13:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::"Female mechanic" is singled out because it is the current image. My selections are simply the best images I was able to find; that does not mean that I think there are no problems with them, or that there are no problems with Genericusername57's images. I feel that having different options aids the discussion, and different people will have different opinions that I may not have considered. There is an objective argument for not going with the mechanic image. You may disagree with it, but there is an argument that the image does not adhere well to MOS:LEADIMAGE because it is not what readers would expect to see; this is a reason to consider changing the previous consensus. I believe the smiling woman would be much closer to what a reader would expect to see, and I believe other images could be found which would also be much closer to what a reader would expect to see. There is no perfect image, but I think improvement is needed and can be achieved. We can have an RfC, and if you don't want to add your opinion to narrow down the images that's your choice. ] (]) 03:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


== Usage of phrasing from the article of trans woman in this article ==
:::::::::::::::::You stating that "Female mechanic" is singled out because it is the current lead image is exactly what I mean about "what is the best lead image for this article" debate going on and on. The "not what readers will expect to see" argument regarding that image is weak. I don't see why you think readers would expect to see ]. They obviously wouldn't. No, an editor coming along and objecting to whatever lead image is up there is not "a reason to consider changing consensus." We won't be agreeing on "Female mechanic." No need to repeat. ] (]) 03:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


@]
:::::::::::::::::And considering the "women should smile" notion that some people (especially men) have (Google it if you don't know what I mean), I wouldn't be surprised if readers expect to see a smiling woman as the lead image. ] (]) 03:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


The phrasing of {{xt|] are women who were ] and have a female ]}} is the phrasing used on the article for ] and is the result of a longstanding consensus and discussion. Attempts to that definition should be made on the article ], not this article. ] ] 03:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Flyer, your argument seems to be that since no image would satisfy everyone and be what everyone would expect to see, let's use an image that is to the extreme of not being what people would expect to see. I don't think that the image being of a woman of any certain race or ethnicity is in any way equivalent to the image being of a mechanic (or any other occupation). By default, the woman has to be of ''some'' race. What race she is is irrelevant. The article is about "women", not "white women", or "black women", or "Asian women", etc. As an example, look at the lead images used on the article "]". They are all simply of dogs, with nothing extraneous. Not dogs doing specific actions, or dogs dressed in costumes or service dogs or dogs swimming or anything else. The same can be said for the article "]", or "]", or "]", or "], or "]", on and on. This article, as with any other, should be the same. Why should this article be different? The image should simply be of a woman. Not of a woman who is presented as being in a specific occupation or performing a specific action. ] (]) 04:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::You state that this is my argument, and yet I have not stated or implied any such thing. I'm done talking with you about this. The only extreme I see are your comparisons. Well, that and some things that Netoholic has stated below. And "performing a specific action"? All of the image selections are of specific actions. ] (]) 04:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|It is a fair characterization, because, apparently, to you, the consensus among others is not enough. We somehow have to use an image that satisfies you and/or WanderingWanda.}}
::::::I actually haven't said one dang word against the current image. I like the current image a lot. This is a good example of how in your interactions with me, you prejudge me and make assumptions about me and my motivations instead of earnestly attempting to collaborate with me. (I'm curious how hard you'd be going to bat for the current image, which depicts a woman working in a traditionally and statistically male-dominated profession and wearing an outfit that many people would regard as masculine-coded, if I was the one that proposed it, or if instead, you'd go off about how it's ''yet another example of WanderingWanda pushing their sinister feminist queer agenda.'')
::::::With that said, I don't have any problem with considering some new ideas for the image, especially considering not many participated in the recent discussion and considering it was not a formal RfC or anything like that. Your attempts to shut the conversation down are not serving anyone.
::::::To the matter at hand: I disagree with the notion that the image should {{tq|should not depict a woman...doing anything.}} Action can add real life and energy to an image. As humans we spend our time on earth doing and creating and living and working and playing, why is an image of placid inaction more representative than an image of action? ] (they/them) (]/]) 21:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::::You argued, "This is a good example of how in interactions with , prejudge and make assumptions about and motivations instead of earnestly attempting to collaborate with ." Our other interactions are not for this discussion, but I'm not wrongly challenging you at articles. And it's easy to prejudge you when you keep making the same type of edits and arguments. If you edited the way you should edit, we wouldn't be butting heads. I have tried collaborating with you. When you do something wrong or something I disagree with, I'm not going to support it. And while some things on Misplaced Pages should involve compromising, not everything should. If you had proposed that image, I would have supported it just the same. As seen in the aforementioned previous discussion, it's clear what type of image you were looking to add, and that I objected to it.


:There's no rule that says we have to copy the exact wording from another article. The point to be made in this paragraph is that gender assignment doesn't necessarily align with gender identity. "] have a ] that does not align with their ]" is true, verifiable, concise, and relevant to the specific point. If the point of the paragraph were to insist that trans women really are True™ women, despite the contrary POV held by some people, then we might want to reconsider that, but I think this is enough for the actual point of the paragraph. ] (]) 03:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::As for your " attempts to shut the conversation down are not serving anyone" argument, making the common sense argument that no image is going to satisfy everyone and that we've been through image issues at this article in the past is not attempting to shut down discussion. Going by your and Kolya Butternut's logic, we'd need a new discussion every time someone is not pleased with a current image. And that obviously goes on and on, and on. ] (]) 03:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
::Given the multiple 200KB RfCs related to this phrase (newcomers, see ], ], ] and bring a snack) it seems prudent for this article to reflect the consensus—rather, the status-quo in the absence of consensus—at ]. The validity of trans womanhood within Wikivoice is, if not a shut case, then something I'm very tired of reading centralized discussions about. –] (] • ]) 04:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|it's clear what type of image you were looking to add}} And what type of image is that? ] (they/them) (]/]) 04:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
:::An RFC about what to say in the ] sentence of a different article has no bearing on what to say elsewhere in a different article.
:::::::::Exactly the type you described in the ] section above. ] (]) 05:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
:::Your comment has reminded me of a discussion earlier this year (probably related to ]) about whether editors have an RFC on one page and then assert that the decision at Article A applies to all articles. I was skeptical that editors actually tried that, but you have just proven that they do. ] (]) 05:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Here is my stated reasoning for picking the image: {{tq|A beautiful work of art that's 1. Stylized enough to feel somewhat universal 2. Not depicting anyone specific. 3. From a culture that's not over-represented on Misplaced Pages (it's a fresco from a Minoan palace.) 4. Not sexy or male-gazey.}} Which part do you have a problem with? ] (they/them) (]/]) 05:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
::::This sentence is ] a sub-topic, (and could be ]ed using an ]) if we weren't also pluralizing and combining it with a definition of Intersex), I think the phrasing at the target article is definitely relevant (if not binding). I think those past discussions are relevant here, if not binding. –] (] • ]) 14:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::It's not difficult to recall that I argued, "Clearly, does not adhere to what WP:LEADIMAGE states about the lead image being something the reader expects to see. You apparently want to use an image that readers won't expect to see...all for the sake of ambiguity or a 'non-stereotypical view of women.'" But no need to repeat; the discussion is right there for everyone to see. ] (]) 05:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::It's clear how you feel about the lead Woman image, maybe add your opinion for the Man image? ] (]) 08:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC) :::::This (half) sentence in the lead connects to (most of) a single paragraph in the body, which does not really feel like a ] situation to me. ] (]) 21:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::@] That's true that there's no rule for it having to do that, however I see no reason for it '''not''' to mirror the phrasing from its own article.
:I don't mind the current image too too much, but I think it's overly staged and stock-photo-y—like an ad for women's workshirts, or something. Other editors have mentioned the wish to avoid artworks because they present an idealised notion of womanhood—and I think stock photos do that to some extent as well. I've been gathering possible alternatives for the past while, and have some of them up now ], if you'd like to take a look, together with some representative samples of things to be avoided (in particular, she should look like she knows she's being photographed, which rules out the dancing woman above). Cheers, ]] 23:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
::The thing with that sentence is that it doesn't establish the relationship to the topic, and can leave readers confused about the relation to the article. Establishing the relationship to the article of a category of woman is far more clear than the current version.
:::::::Wanda, I agree that action can add a sense of real life to an image, that's why I selected the "dancing" photo. My main objection is to a photo which connects a woman to her employment, but I do want to consider the argument that the image should not depict action. ] (]) 23:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
::Additionally, I don't see much underlying reasoning for removing it other than the belief that they AREN'T. Which, {{xt|The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered.}} (from WP:UNDUE). The point of the paragraph is to highlight the existence of two specific types of women and provide a definition for them.
::Genericusername57, I actually prefer that it not look like the woman is aware of being photographed. Pictures of women looking into the camera often look like staged photographs rather than real life. If the looking into the camera looks like natural eye contact with the viewer I wouldn't mind that. Out of your photographs I like "hut" the most. Did you see my gallery and talk page above? I considered a lot of criteria for my top choices, one of which is cosmopolitan and multi-racial. ] (]) 23:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
::Your sentence proposal of "Trans women have a gender identity that does not align with their sex assignment" doesn't work as a definition, because the definition form would therefore be "(someone) who has a gender identity that doesn't align with their sex assignment" which is too broad.
::Those are fantastic. (And I'm not just saying that because gnu is currently peer reviewing an article I created.) Many there meet my preferences. Should the lead images of ] and ] be selected together? For parity? <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">]</span></span> 23:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
::Also for RoxySaunders' reasoning that it 'makes it semantically clear that we are defining a term, not merely making an observation.'. ] ] 10:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Genericusername57}} what do you think about consolidating all of our photos into the sandbox page? There's a link in the header here. ] (]) 23:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
:::I don't think this article needs to define trans women. I think it needs to provide information about trans women.
::::You titled this section "Lead images: future RfC." So change that I reverted you on was obviously premature. Reading the above, I don't see why you felt that consensus was for that image. And just because editors haven't stated that they don't like an image...it doesn't mean that they like it or feel that it's the best lead image. No one can force editors to participate in a discussion, or decide that if they don't vote on a new image...then the previous consensus should be overridden. If you are going to start an RfC, get on with it. No one here should be trying to override the previous consensus when there is no clear consensus for a new lead image. ] (]) 14:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
:::BTW, what you have called "my sentence proposal" is what the article said before your recent efforts to change it. 10 years ago, trans women were barely name-checked in the lead as an example of women who could not give birth. Five years ago, this article said "Some women are ] (those who have a male ] that does not align with their ]), or ] (those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female)." For a while, it said "Trans women are those who...". The "have" language appeared soon after that. ] (]) 22:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::::: It is fine to make an edit which is agreed to be an improvement before waiting for an official RfC. &nbsp;Your opinion seems unique, but I don't understand what you want in an image; I am hearing arguments against what everyone else wants but I can't follow what you want, besides wanting stability. You stated that you felt the "smiling" image was "meh", that that doesn't tell me what you think of it compared to the previous image. If you don't want to participate in this ongoing discussion you don't have to, but others do. I think it's a good idea for this image to evolve. This has been an ongoing discussion since 2004.&nbsp;I see no evidence that we are somehow improperly going against previous consensus. &nbsp;It seems to me we are building off past consensus. &nbsp;] (]) 15:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
::::@] Well there's not much point in providing information about trans women to the readers if we dont even say what trans women are, definitionally speaking. ] ] 23:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::No it is not fine. Going against previous agreement and putting up something that you happen to like only leads to edit warring. I agree with Flyer: "If you are going to start an RfC, get on with it." It beats going on and on to "evolve" the image with no end in sight. &nbsp;] (]) 15:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
:I prefer the explicit {{xt| women are women who...}} forms. Given the apparent challenge these identities present toward more simplistic models of sex and gender, their respective womanhood does bear repeating. The perceived redundancy in {{xt|] are women who...}} makes it semantically clear that we are defining a term, not merely making an observation. This is helpful for orienting lay readers who may initially misunderstand "transgender women" as "AFAB transgender people". –] (] • ]) 04:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I feel like a couple of us are talking past each other. &nbsp;I feel like my arguments aren't being accurately represented. &nbsp;I don't feel like it's going against previous agreement, but i guess we'll have to disagree. But what happens after an RfC? I don't think an RfC should limit us to a particular image; I think we should decide on what criteria we would like to meet, while also deciding on a photo to use for the time. ] (]) 15:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
:I stand by what I said in my edit summary, which is that {{tq|"women are women" is redundant/poor writing}}. The lead sentence of ] and the sentences here on trans women serve different purposes; one defines the topic of that article, while the other describes a subset of the people described in this article. It is already established in this article that women are being talked about.
::::::::Nothing "quite unique" about what I stated. Meh is meh. Feelings obviously are not always black and white. And when it comes to consensus, I stand by what I stated above. And I was not speaking of others improperly going against previous consensus; I was speaking of your actions. I like the current image. "Meh" vs. liking/preferring the current image clearly speaks to "what compared to the image." We did decide "on a photo to use for the time." ] (]) 16:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
:It is not the case that {{tq|it doesn't establish the relationship to the topic}}; the term 'trans women' contains the word 'women' already. Nor will readers possibly be confused by thinking of AFAB transgender people, as it immediately defines the term with {{tq|Transgender women were assigned male at birth and have a female gender identity}}.
:::::::::I was not referring to "meh" when I said I thought your opinion was unique. I thought you were the only one whose opinion was that you didn't want a change, while also expressing no preference. I see now that you did state you like number "8" above, and Gandydancer clearly doesn't agree with my change now either. It's difficult to follow what you think when mostly what I've heard from you is talking about other people. ] (]) 17:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
:My also slimmed down "intersex women are women who...", for the same reason. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I know you were not referring to "meh" you said " opinion seems unique." I didn't need to state anything about the images you presented when I'd already been clear that I support the current lead image. It was clear, and still is, that I am currently against any change. Per what I stated above, I don't see the point. As for "mostly what heard from is talking about other people," I don't get that. ] (]) 00:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
::@] How is it poor writing?
To have an RfC I think we should narrow down the choices in the ] gallery first. ] (]) 20:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
::And the purpose is to define a type of subset of woman. ] ] 23:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
===Don't remove the current image===
:::I see where Crossroads is coming from, because it does feel a bit redundant. <small>"The department of redundancy department is the department that..."</small> I would usually agree that it's subpar writing. But I think I'm this case an exception is warranted given the context. I'm sure I've explained this train of thought before, and probably more eloquently, but I think there is actually a fair bit of semantic confusion around the term "trans woman" or "trans man" that doesn't occur with say the phrase "black woman." This is hardly scientific, but my observation has been that a lot of folks think trans woman means trans man and vice versa. So I think making the somewhat ungrammatical choice is actually the superior choice. ] <sup>]</sup>] 00:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Regarding ]'s recent attempt to remove the lead image:
::::TLDR: keep it the way it was :) ] <sup>]</sup>] 00:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::@], I think you will have to specify when "the way it was". Until a few weeks ago, the lead said:
:::::"] have a ] that does not align with their male ] at birth, while ] women may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology."
:::::A couple of years before that, it said:
:::::"] have a male ] at birth that does not align with their ], while ] women may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology."
:::::If we go back five years, it said:
:::::"Some women are ] (those who have a male ] that does not align with their ]), or ] (those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female)."
:::::The "women are women" language was recently by A Socialist Trans Girl, and it was removed less than three hours later. ] (]) 00:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Hmmm, I guess I misread the edits then. I'd have to go back and see what I said in the previous discussions. ] <sup>]</sup>] 01:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)


:As I'm sure most of us remember, and as {{u|A Socialist Trans Girl}} and others have alluded to above, this same question has been debated over at ]. The longstanding consensus attained there resulted in the following wording: {{tq|Transgender women (often shortened to trans women) are women who were assigned male at birth}}. There is of course no requirement that different articles describe a term in the same way, but I think we would be wise to observe the previously-attained consensus. It is, as far as I can tell, ''exactly the same question'' being asked here as was there -- contrary to some assertions made by others here, I don't see any meaningful difference between the two articles that would invalidate the consensus achieved by the community there.
1. A unique concern has been raised that a lead image should be in place so that the main image for search results, etc, is not a picture of the female reproductive system. Until consensus is reached for a new image the current one should stay in place. (The one and only) ], (the #1 premiere member of the WanderingWanda fanclub) ], and ] all agree this is a concern. (Addition: ] expressed this concern as well. -WW)


:To lay things out explicitly, the only argument raised against inclusion of {{tq|trans women are women who...}} seems to be that it's redundant. I think we're missing something, though -- in my reading, there are two important semantic differences between the following two sentences.
2. I, ], ], ], ] have all expressed support for the current image. ] has said they "don't mind the current image too too much". ], ], and ] have expressed disapproval. This indicates there is a narrow consensus to keep the current image at this time. (Let me know if I missed anyone.) ] (]) 14:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
::'''A:''' {{tq|Trans women were assigned male at birth...}}
: No such thing as a "narrow consensus" this is ] - simple weak majority does not decide. There is 'no' consensus, and so the lead image should revert to the longest-standing one. -- ] ] 14:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
::'''B:''' {{tq|Trans women '''are women who''' were assigned male at birth...}}
::Honestly, I don't know why I said "narrow". It's 2-to-1. Not narrow. See also the ] policy. {{tq|''Consensus'' on Misplaced Pages does not mean unanimity}}. ] (]) 14:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
:Okay... I'm going to put aside the dispute about the image for a moment. I have no idea what your issue what WanderingWanda is. I know nothing at all about the backstory. But referring to him/her in the way you did ("the #1 premiere member of the WanderingWanda fanclub") Does not seem at all civil to me. Really...? You couldn't think of any other way of referring to the person? ] (]) 17:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
::(] *pst* Look again at who signed the post! :) The joke was that I was calling Flyer a big fan of mine, because we've had some tensions that are visible here on this thread. I probably *shouldn't* have joked about it, but I just thought it was kind of funny that we suddenly found ourselves on the 'same team'. I prefer they/them pronouns, BTW.) ] (]) 02:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
:::] Oh, I feel stupid. I don't know how, but somehow my eyes tricked me and I thought the post was signed by someone else and that the comment was meant to be some sort of insult towards you. I find that there is so much unnecessary rudeness and incivility on Misplaced Pages, as well as overzealous "letter of the law, not spirit of the law" type mentality akin to if ] were to do something like giving someone a speeding ticket for driving one mph over the speed limit, and I'm kind of getting tired of it to the point that I'm even considering stopping my editing of Misplaced Pages and participation in discussion. I'm not referring to anyone or anything on this talk page, although I think people could be more rational and understanding on this page too, but I'm referring to some incidents on other articles' talk pages. By the way, I usually use "they/them" when referring to people online whose genders are unknown. (See the section "my thoughts on singular 'they'" on my user page) Not sure why I said "he/she" this time. ] (]) 06:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
:{{u|-sche}}, {{u|feminist}}, and {{u|Mathglot}} participated in the discussion as well. It's worth noting that this consensus was reached three months ago. While I don't mind if editors want to pick a new image (I've always said that), I am violently opposed to going back to having a diagram of the reproductive system be the lead image, which is what Netoholic's revert did. I'm also rather ticked off that one editor is steamrolling over everybody else here. There is an ongoing discussion to pick a new image, multiple editors have contributed images to the selection pool, it takes a lot of time to work through this, so Netoholic should just ''join that discussion'' instead of pressing the undo button. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">]</span></span> 14:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
:: Turns out that undo button is installed on your end also. I didn't replace anything with a diagram - I moved the lead image down, leaving no image in that section entirely. But I do have to ask why a reproductive-based image is so wrong? Certainly we're not presenting an image which represents only small population of women and and even smaller number that perform a certain role, right? Why are you fighting to have a picture that is basically a man on the article for woman? I think its not just unrepresentative, but insulting to women. Do you think that's what we want? -- ] ] 15:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
:::{{tq|a picture that is basically a man}} If you want to argue the image isn't representative because of the proportion of women who work as mechanics or whatever, fine, but please be more thoughtful about it. Saying that a woman is "basically a man" because she's working as a mechanic is something I'd expect a time traveller from the 1950s to say. ] (]) 15:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
:::: She is covered in baggy clothing, toolbelt, and helmet, and is doing a job that is vastly more populated by men. It displays many aspects which are rare in women, and has so many elements that are typically male, that I can't even really be sure other than the caption if its a woman. For illustrative purposes it fails considerably. But its empowering and probably makes a couple editors have the "feel-goods' for virtue signalling some kind of empowerment message. You don't need a time-traveling man to say so, any average modern woman will say the same. My current vote is "pregnant women" down on the page. Its not perfect but its representative of at least most of what it means to look like and be a woman. -- ] ] 15:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::I completely disagree with the current image. But not because I even close to think that the image "is basically a man". The image is obviously a woman. But it's a woman in a specific role. There's nothing wrong with a woman being a mechanic. It's just not anywhere close to being an appropriate image for this article. The article also isn't about "pregnant women". That would be just as bad as the current image. The article is "woman", not "pregnancy". ] (]) 17:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::Nothing wrong with childbirth but the lead image should not play into the stereotype that womanhood is primarily about childrearing. I also feel strongly that the woman article should not have more nudity than the man article. That would play into another stereotype: that Misplaced Pages editors are a bunch of straight white male techies :) If a fully nude female shot is used a fully nude male shot should be used as well (and no, shirtless doesn't count as nude.) ] (]) 16:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::: Womanhood, as a distinguishing characteristic from the counterpart article ], is primarily childbearing. I think full nude showing genital regions is a bit much, but the "pregnant woman" image is tasteful. It shows the commonplace, major body differences (breasts, fat distribution, musculature) which is in contrast to ]. I have no problems with an equivalent photo on ] (I've proposed this ] over on that page tentatively). The point of these images is to show the stark contrasts between the sexes, otherwise they could just be generically part of ]. That contrasts are represented in differences of form and unique societal roles of each. -- ] ] 16:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::::Strongly disagree that {{tq|Womanhood ... is primarily childbearing.}} <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">]</span></span> 17:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::::: Don't be jerk and misquote me. People can see above what I actually wrote. The point of these lead images are to show contrast between the sexes - and there is no bigger one than childbearing. Its the single most unique (and should be the most respected) aspect of being a woman -- ] ] 17:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::Strongly disagree that the primary distinguishing characteristic between a man and a woman is childbearing, or that childbearing is the most unique aspect of being a woman, or that it should be the ''most'' respected. Also strongly disagree that the point of these lead images is to show contrast between the sexes. (The point is to depict a typical example of the subject of the article; i.e., a typical man, and a typical woman. A pregnant woman is not a typical woman. Most women spend most of their lives not pregnant, some never get pregnant, yet they are still women.) In my view, the problem with Net's entire approach is that he is defining "woman" vis-a-vis "man", i.e., the "Adam and Eve" approach, where a woman is seen in terms of how she is different from a man. "Womanhood" isn't the same as motherhood, and motherhood isn't the same as childbearing. What makes a woman a woman isn't just biological, it's more than that. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">]</span></span> 17:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::: "where a woman is seen in terms of how she is different from a man" ... and a man is seen in how he is different from a woman. That's what "contrasting" means. This is an objective standard, really, because we need images that represent two halves of humanity. They should be ones which clearly show contrasting form and societal role of the typical example. Its silly to say "women aren't ''always'' pregnant, therefore...". Hell, if we based it on what single activity is engaged in most often, we'd have pictures of two ''sleeping'' people. If we don't set some objective criteria for the, we're stuck debating subjective values... like this stupid mechanic picture which could be replaced with any other picture. We'll never settle on one if its just based on whim. "What makes a woman a woman isn't just biological" - c'mon we have no way of showing an ''image'' of women's state of mind or any ethereal qualities you think are important. -- ] ] 17:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">]</span></span> 19:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)]]
:::::::::::If the article were ], or ], I might agree that the lead image should show the contrast, but that's not what this article is. Man and woman are only two halves from a biological standpoint, i.e. "male" and "female". Some would say there are human beings who are both a man and a woman, and human beings who are neither a man nor a woman, and women who were born male, and men who were born female. Also, "{{tq|... if we based it on what single activity is engaged in most often, we'd have pictures of two ''sleeping'' people}}" is incorrect. Most people spend the overwhelming majority of their time (2/3) awake. My original logic behind suggesting the "woman working" picture is that most people spend most of their time working, but Kolya has persuaded me otherwise since the consensus on the current image was reached. {{tq|If we don't set some objective criteria for them, we're stuck debating subjective values...}} yes, that's why there are currently-ongoing discussions about criteria at ] and ]. I'll note that the suggestion of using the pregnant woman image, or of using ''any'' image currently in the article, was discussed in the last round a few months ago and consensus was against it, which is how the whole endeavor to gather new options began. I really think the most productive thing you can do is to join the already-ongoing conversations about the images in the galleries, and of course you're welcome to post new images for consideration as well. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">]</span></span> 18:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::: It will be fun watching you try to find a single image to represent all that ethereal postmodernist/gender studies crap. We do not use lead images which display things which are far outside the norm for the topic. Hermaphrodites, intersex, genderqueers, transsexuals, tomboys, etc. are minor population groups. This is not a dig at them, just a fact that the women's population represented in those is incredibly small. We use images that are largely representative of the topic and, as best we can, show characteristics which contrast it with other closely-related topics. Across the world, the one unique characteristic of womanhood is motherhood - else we'd not be having this conversation. On average, women work outside the home far less than men, which is why a similar contrasting image for a man would be the one showing that work. Men's typical role in society is to provide for the eventual childrearing in that way, so it contrasts with the motherhood display in the woman's image. YES YES YES we get there are exceptions, stop re-capping the exceptions and start narrowing down the typical. -- ] ] 19:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::{{tq| Hermaphrodites, intersex, genderqueers, transsexuals, tomboys, etc. are minor population groups. This is not a dig at them, just a fact that the women's population represented in those is incredibly small. We use images that are largely representative of the topic}} This type of statement is exclusionary even if it has the cloak of reasonableness, and it doesn't hold water if you spend a moment thinking about it. Only a tiny fraction of the population are ]s, for example. About one in a hundred. Does that mean that Misplaced Pages's policy should be that a redhead should never appear as a lead image, unless the article is specifically about redheads or a specific redhead? That would be absurd. If someone finds a really good, powerful image of a redheaded woman, we're supposed to say, ''sorry, Misplaced Pages has a firm no-redheads policy for lead images. Not that we have anything against redheads, you understand. We're not prejudiced or anything, perish the thought!! We just believe that pictures of redheads should never appear on Misplaced Pages, ever, unless we're absolutely forced to use one.'' I'm sure that would make our redheaded readers and editors feel like they are welcomed and valued, and like Misplaced Pages is an openminded, neutral, and prejudice-free environment. ] (]) 19:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Some more thoughts on this: I've proposed several images for Man and Woman. Some of them I consider queer in some way; the majority I do not.
::::::::::::::My first idea for the lead image for Woman was a self portrait by ]. Of course at this point it seems like the consensus is for a photo, not a painting, and, in any case, it turns out her paintings are all under copyright, so that's a no go. But for a moment I thought it would be a perfect choice. My reasoning was simple: Man (at the time) had the Creation of Adam as the lead: a powerful, iconic painting of a man, by a man. So, I reasoned, Woman should have a powerful, iconic painting of a woman, by a woman. I did some research, gave it some thought, and I realized a Kahlo painting was not only the best choice (based on that criteria), it was the ''only'' choice. Nothing else would have that kind of iconic power. It also would've been a ] choice. Frida was an openly bisexual crossdresser and gender-non-conformist. She proudly didn't shave her small mustache and usually included it in her paintings. I can almost hear the screeching of the hypothetical peanut gallery now. "Most women don't have visible mustaches!!" Sure, and most women aren't name Frida, either. Who gives a fuck? It's exhausting, this sense that queerness is something that has to be answered for.
::::::::::::::One of the men I threw into the Man gallery is queer. Not visibly so, but it's clear if you do even the slightest bit of digging. And again, who gives a fuck? It's a nice photo. If people like it they can vote for it, if they don't no one's forcing the image on anyone. Do I have to answer for his queerness? Do I have to answer for my own?
]
::::::::::::::Ironically the one time someone seemed to get upset with me for the supposed queerness of an image I proposed, I did not, and do not, consider the image remotely queer. It's just a pretty painting of some courtly woman from an old Minoan palace. Why did I pick it? *Shrug* It happened to be on the cover of a book I read recently and I thought it was pretty. What was the book? ''All Cissies Are Bastards: A Queer/Transgender Manifesto'' ...No, just kidding, it was a new translation of ''The Odyssey'' by Homer. Anyway, this particular editor thought it was androgynous; I thought it was stereotypically feminine. But I argued that if some people thought it was androgynous, that it wasn't a big deal. (Somehow, if they saw the original, I don't think they would consider it gender-ambiguous, on account of the woman have curvy exposed breasts. I cut those out. Why? Some people expressed the viewpoint that the image shouldn't have nudity, and while personally I am 100% pro nudity, I was trying to be consensus-minded.) Cheers, ] (]) 01:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::If you are referring to me about you selecting that painting image, my objection to it in the ] section above had nothing to do with queerness. I was not thinking "oh, that's queer" when objecting to that image. I was thinking, "Oh, readers won't be able to clearly discern that that's a woman. It's a poor water color image that does not demonstrate 'woman' well." And, yes, per WP:LEADIMAGE, the image should clearly be of a woman. I very clearly told you that " does not adhere to what WP:LEADIMAGE states about the lead image being something the reader expects to see. You apparently want to use an image that readers won't expect to see...all for the sake of ambiguity or a 'non-stereotypical view of women.' Our job is to go with an image that readers will expect to see or one that will otherwise resonate with them, or use no image at all. After all, WP:LEADIMAGE also talks about it sometimes not being possible to have a representative image or any lead image. I fail to see how that image you added will resonate with readers in terms of what a woman is." You asked, "Who gives a fuck?" Misplaced Pages does. I know that you don't like the way Misplaced Pages works -- going with the majority view per WP:Due or by readers' expectations, except for when the majority view and readers' expectations work in your favor. I know that you being told to stop trying to right the supposed great wrons. But Misplaced Pages has rules. Of course, we shouldn't use an image of a woman with a mustache as the lead image of this article. For goodness' sake! ] (]) 04:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::: {{ping|Levivich}} You know, despite your intent behind posting that image on the right, that woman looks extremely happy and should be rightly-respected for fulfilling some of the most important roles a woman does. There are a lot of women of all economic classes which do the same thing every single day. I don't think its fair for you to turn their contributions to society into a joke. Ask your own mother, or any mother, if at anytime she found herself in that same situation, and how she felt about it given the joy that tends to result. -- ] ] 19:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


:Sentence '''A''' states only that trans women were assigned male at birth. Sentence '''B''' states three things:
::What happens if the editors who participated in the last discussion do not participate in this one? &nbsp;Just asking because I don't see that discussed on WP:Consensus. ] (]) 15:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
::1. Trans women were assigned male are birth.
:::Only those who participate can form the consensus. ] 19:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
::2. ''(new)'' Women who were assigned male at birth are trans women.
::::I understand what you are stating, but I don't fully agree with it since we have consensus discussions all over Misplaced Pages where a few editors cannot come along and overturn that consensus based on their opinions alone. For example, some of our controversial topics that have had RfCs and may be based on one or more Misplaced Pages rules. ] (]) 04:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
::3. ''(new)'' Trans women are women.


:I think the second item is most important here: consider the difference between "{{tq|Mome raths sleep at night}}" and "{{tq|Mome raths are raths that sleep at night}}". The first merely tells us a fact about ], while the second tells us that the category of mome raths ] the practice of sleeping at night. If you wanted a sentence that expressed items 1 and 2 but not 3 (as some did at the RfC), you could say {{!tq|trans women are people who were assigned male at birth...}} (to be clear, I would oppose this wording, because the tiptoeing around item 3 communicates to readers that it's false, which runs counter to what our {{wli|reliable sources}} say). I anticipate that some will argue that item 3 above is tautological -- ''"of course trans women are women, it's in the name!"''. To those people, I would point you to the previous RfC, where, while the community did rightly conclude that it was proper to describe trans women as women, many editors hotly debated this categorization. (Of course, we write for our readers, not our editors, but I think the RfC is illustrative that many people out there are confused about this fact).
:I think the picture of the mechanic is a fine lead and thumbnail image, and certainly better than going back to using a vagina as the thumbnail as in . (My personal ''highest'' preference would be for the collage we used to have, but that might require revisiting general guidelines on using collages.) ] (]) 20:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
::Collage has the advantage of being able to display the ''diversity'' of the subject. The downside is that if the collage is all one image file, like at ], then it can make a poor thumbnail because the individual images may be too small to render at a reduced size. If the collage is made from multiple image files, like at ] or ], then only one of the images appears as the thumbnail, but ''that'' image is "the lead image", and so we're back to square one. Personally, though, I think my preference would be for a multi-image collage, like at ] or ], although as you say, that might require revisiting general guidelines. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">]</span></span> 20:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
::: Notice how the Paris image displays structures which are unique to Paris, and which are typically associated with Paris. It does not show a picture of minor side street that, while still technically unique to Paris, isn't something that clearly illustrates how Paris is different from, say, any small town in France. The pictures don't show Paris covered in snow, fog or during a rainstorm either, because we want those unique structures clearly seen. -- ] ] 23:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


:Now, the good news for us is that, backed by the ] RfC, it seems we all agree that statements 1, 2 and 3 are supported by proportional usage in reliable sources. We have some slight disagreement about whether item 3 needs to be explicitly stated, or if it can be implied, but we're already on track for a nice consensus. So the question just becomes how best to express them. As I've said above, I think {{diff2|1245603585|the current state of the article}} fails. I think there's a few good ways we could do this, though. I think {{u|A Socialist Trans Girl|ASTG}}'s suggestion is a good one -- that would probably be my first choice. I also have no major issue with the previous state of this article as {{u|CaptainEek}} points to: {{tq|Some women are ] (those who have a male ] that does not align with their ]), or ] (those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female)}} (though perhaps it's more accurate to put the sex assignment bit in past tense). ]<sup>]</sup> 00:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
===Rotating gallery===
::The "Some women are ]" language wasn't something CaptainEek mentioned, and I don't know whether they prefer it. That's just what the article said five years ago. ] (]) 01:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
The problem: 1. The MOS discourages montages 2. One single image of one single person cannot adequately encompass such a broad subject as Man or Woman.
:::That's correct - I don't know if Eek likes it or not either, but I credit them with pointing to it nonetheless. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::The ] says: {{tq|On the whole, there is consensus that both option 1 and option 2 are superior to other presented options. There is no consensus as to whether option 1 or option 2 is preferable. In the absence of affirmative consensus, the status quo (which appears to be option 1) holds.}}; that RfC was from 6 years ago. The ] says {{tq|There is no consensus between proposal 1 and proposal 2.}} So there really isn't a solid, {{blue|"longstanding consensus attained"}}, just no consensus defaulting to the status quo in both RfCs, which is the ''A trans woman is a woman'' wording at the Trans woman article. {{pb}} Anyway, that aside, I'm fine with how the trans women sentence is currently worded on this article, but my preferred phrasing would be something along the lines of: {{tq|Women who are transgender have a male sex assignment that does not align with their female gender identity...}} or {{tq|Women who are transgender were assigned male at birth and have a female gender identity...}} ] (]) 23:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:::In this version we'd be linking ] instead of ] (less specific), unless we blue the whole phrase {{xt|]}}. I like the intent but this strikes my ear as an overextension of ]. Anyone remember the debacle? –] (] • ]) 16:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)


<small>(sorry for the late comment! i've jsut been a bit busy :<)</small>@] @] @] @] @] @] It ''appears'' we have a consesnus against the current wording, so should we change it? WP:CON states taht consensus involves an efofrt to address editors legitimate concerns, and I think that has been done?
A solution: What if we took ], specifically the featured picture section? We could have a rotating featured image that's changed once a month, with a voted-on cue of images. Has anything like this ever been tried? Just a thought. ] (]) 03:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
:I don't want to use the language from ] in the lead, but perhaps somewhere in the body. I prefer "a transgender woman is {{tq|an adult who was assigned male at birth but whose gender identity is female}}", as in Dictionary.com. @] may not agree with the proposed change either. ] (]) 18:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:It's fine with me. I have a suspicion other editors might not like the idea, but we'll see. ] (]) 03:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


:@], do you think the purpose here is to provide a definition of ''trans woman'', or to provide information about how certain parts of this subject relate to the whole?
:It's a creative idea, but based on my experiences on various wiki projects, I would advise against introducing any more systems that ''require'' indefinite input/upkeep than necessary. What happens when people stop having time or interest to pick new images, or when there's no consensus/agreement for any candidates? Is the most recent featured image (picked by people who didn't have it in mind as a permanent image) kept on indefinitely? IMO, if one image can't represent the subject, we should pick multiple images for a (stable) collage. ] (]) 04:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
:To use a different subject matter as an example, are we trying to say:
:I think that's overcomplicating things. We don't need to encompass all of womanhood in a single image. We just need an image like one that might be the lead image in a normal encyclopedia. If we can, I think it would be best for the image to simply communicate "woman" rather than something more specific like "woman mechanic" or "Congolese woman" or "pregnant woman". Every woman has characteristics and context, but we can aim for something averaged. --] (]) 06:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
:* Cats are animals. Domestic cats can live with people, and big cats are wild animals.
:This seems like a needlessly complicated solution for what is largely a trivial problem. ] (]) 06:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
:* Cats are animals. Some cats are domestic cats, and other cats are big cats.
: No. -- ] ] 08:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
:* Cats are animals. Big cats are cats that are defined by the structure of their vocal cords.
:] (]) 18:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::Please share your answer to your question if you would like a response. ] (]) 19:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::My inclination, as I have said several times above, is to not provide a definition. I would rank these 'cats' options 2-1-3 myself, but I think that either of the first two are preferable to the third option. And you? ] (]) 20:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::It's probably better to not provide a definition of trans woman, especially since the definition at ] doesn't have much consensus. I guess I agree with your first comment in this talk page section. ] (]) 20:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I would be fine with "Some women are transgender..."; it's a slight improvement over the current wording considering the paragraph starts off with "Most women are cisgender". I went ahead and made the edit. ] (]) 20:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::@] Honestly, I completely agree with this.
:::::It 1. Clearly establishes relation to the topic
:::::2. It has good readability
:::::3. I believe it effectively addresses the concerns of editors, as is needed for consensus.
:::::I'd like to see what @] and @] think of this proposal, and hopefully we can form a consensus. ] ] 06:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::I tweaked the sentences a bit to reduce redundancy. Feel free to revert if those edits I've made (e.g., {{tq|Some women are transgender, meaning they were assigned male at birth}}) are not improvements over the prior version ({{tq|Transgender women were assigned male at birth and have a female gender identity}}). ] (]) 15:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:@] wait whats your reasoning for not wanting to use the current definition, or ]'s definition of "a woman who was identified (assigned) as male at birth"? :3 ] ] 06:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::Because the phrase "trans women are women" is redundant, and because it is highly controversial it would require a strong consensus finding it meets NPOV. What's your reasoning for wanting to use this language? ] (]) 07:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::: We've ], and whatever else it may be, the phrase "trans women are women" is '''not redundant'''. ] (]) 09:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Tautological then? ] (]) 10:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::@] a tautology is definitionally redundant. Which we just established it isn't. The phrasing of " is a ..." is commonly used on wikipedia.
:::::For an example to make this more clear, the article ] says that moon rock is rock originating from earths moon. And while it could be changed to say 'Moon rock originates from earth's moon' in order to account for the POV of people who think the moon is made of cheese or something, there's no need to do that because 1. it's not supported by any RS, and 2. even if some obscure or some old RS says that, it doesn't matter.
:::::Not saying you want to account for the view of moon-cheeseists in the article for moon rock or anything, rather the opposite; it's using the fact that you (presumably and hopefully at least) don't think we should do so to demonstrate how it's the same for this article.
:::::<small> i probably couldve written the last too paragraphs in less words, sorry</small> ] ] 12:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I can see how it's redundant:
:::::> Trans women are women who were assigned male at birth and have a female gender identity.
:::::> Trans women are adult female humans who were assigned male at birth and have a female gender identity.
:::::> ]: "In humans, the word female can also be used to refer to gender in the social sense of gender role or gender identity."
:::::> Trans women are adult humans with a female gender identity who were assigned male at birth and have a female gender identity.
::::] (]) 12:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::@] well it's not really controversial at all, as Misplaced Pages only considers RS.
::Personally I merely prefer that phrasing to must saying 'Trans woman were...' as that just seems like it's listing a random fact without establishing the relation to the article. I quite like the phrasing of "Some women are transgender, meaning they...", what do you think it?
::Additionally, for it to be found to violate NPOV, first there actually has to be RS cited which opposes it. ] ] 12:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::The RFC at ] over this language was indeed controversial. It is a tautology, because "woman" has two different meanings. If we just look at ''Merriam-Webster'', we can interpret the word to be defined as {{tq|an adult ... person ... of ... the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs}} and {{tq|an adult ... person ... having a gender identity that is the opposite of male}}. If we say "trans women are women", it is not clear whether we are saying that trans women are both women and men, or trans women are just adults with a female gender identity, so we should not say that unless the sources clarify that for us. ] (]) 15:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Perhaps "circular" is a more accurate descriptor than tautological. ] (]) 18:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::: If you put a period after it: "{{xt|Trans women are women{{hairspace}}<big><big>.</big></big>}}" and that's the end of the sentence, then yes. But I don't believe that anyone is calling for that. If you have a predicate clause after: ("{{xt|Trans women are women '''who''' + &lt;descriptive clause>}}") then it is not circular or tautological, for the same reasons as ''redudant''. Clearly you have some kind of objection to having the word ''women'' in the sentence twice, but other than subscribing to the debunked journalistic trope of ], I don't see what it is. That said, I lost track of who first suggested no definition is needed here because it is given at the linked article, but I agree. That also solves the issue about whether or not the two articles need to use the same wording (they don't, but why use any wording at all here? This article's topic is not trans women, and no definition is needed, as long as it is linked). ] (]) 03:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::@] well trans women isn't the focus of the article, but is within the scope. And if we weren't to have a definition, wouldn't it just be "] exist.", or just omitting it infavour of just mentioning them in a see also? Because in the first case, I don't think that's very helpful to the reader, and additionally, in the first and second case, I don't think that WP:DUE weight is being given. ] ] 05:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::: Just because a concept is within scope of the artcle is no reason to define it; that's why we have ], where a definition can be found for those interested. The lead of this article has 277 words and 44 links; if we defined all of them (or even a small percentage of them) the lead would become cluttered and unwieldy. Some of the linked words if the lead lacking any definition include: ''female'', ''human'', ''sex'', ''gender'', ''fertile'', ''puberty'', ''sex differentiation'', ''male'', ''man'', ''sex assignment'', and ''intersex'', and I fail to see any convincing reason why ''trans woman'' requires a definition, when these words (and the other 30 linked words) in the lead do not. ] (]) 21:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@] That makes sense. Could you please clarify what you would like to replace the existing sentence(s) with? Perhaps just 'Some women are trans women.'? Or something else ] ] 00:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::@] That's not a tautology, nor is it circular. I think that trying to determine based on the definition of woman is ]; MW's definition for trans woman is clear.
:::::Sorry what? If we say "trans women are women who..." then it's completely clear what we're saying, that being saying that 'trans women are a category of women, who....'. I don't understand your point with that.
:::::The sources DO clarify that, MW's definition of trans woman says that they're 'women who...'. I don't understand how those two implications could be derived from 'trans women are women who...' ] ] 05:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Replying to you and Mathglot, saying {{tq|Trans women are women who...}} is unclear because the meaning of ''women'' is difficult and unclear. {{tq|A moon rock is a rock}}, and the other examples in Mathglot's list are not analogous because it is obvious what ''rock'', etc., mean. {{tq|Trans women are women who...}} just leads to the question of what is a woman, so we should get as clear as we can. But of course there's still the question of this language being DUE and NPOV. ] (]) 05:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::This is a variation of the oft argued issue. Everyone agrees that a woman is a woman. Some people think that biological sex is the defining factor in deciding which people are women and which aren't. Some don't. So soon we will (hopefully) have a definitive legal view and can put this one to bed.
::::::: ] (]) 14:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Last I checked, the UK who has a history of ] does not define this for the world. ] (]) 16:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::All kinds of despicable and wrong things have been enshrined as law at one time or another. UK courts are reliable sources for laws in the UK. Even without the context of the incredible and pervasive transphobia in Anglo/Scottish culture, I don't see why their opinion would be "definitive" for the text of this or any article. –] (] • ]) 22:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@] 1. Law doesn't matter for this, as it's a social construct, not a legal concept.
::::::::2. other countries exist! ] ] 00:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@] so then you can start a new talk page section about the article answering that question. However RS says that trans women are indeed women (duh), so for the paragraph in question I think it's irrelevant. Plus, determining if they are based on what the article defines women as would be ], it just matters what RS says. ] ] 00:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::You're not responding to something I said. ] (]) 00:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::@] I am! You said "saying Trans women are women who... is unclear because the meaning of women is difficult and unclear" and ""Trans women are women who..". just leads to the question of what is a woman, so we should get as clear as we can.". Or am I misreading? ] ] 01:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::As I attempted to say, your response was not responding to a correct interpretation of my words. ] (]) 01:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::@] Apologies, could you rephrase what you said so I can understand the intended meaning? ] ] 02:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Writing in this article that {{tq|Trans women are women who...}} is confusing for our readers because the meaning of women is not simple for them to understand. {{tq|Trans women are women who...}} just leads them to ask the question of what is a woman, so we should be as clear as we can. ] (]) 07:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::@] so.. are you saying the article should further answer that question? If so, then thats a different discussion.
:::::::::::::Plus, that's kinda how people get to know what words mean. One can point to different types of chairs and go "chair", and then someone who doesn't speak the language can get more of an understanding of what a chair is.
:::::::::::::Regardless, RS says it, and I think you're probably underestimating readers. If they're confused, they can just click the blue link and then understand what ''trans woman'' means, and there's no confusion. ] ] 00:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Unless someone actively objects to the current version, I don't think that it's necessary to continue debating/explaining/talking past each other. ] (]) 00:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::@] I think thats for the best to be honest. I don't think any progress towards consensus is being made in this line of discussion with kolya ] ] 00:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:This is the current version:
:"Some women are ], meaning they were ], while some women are ], meaning they have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology."
:Does anyone really hate this version? Or is this something we can all live with for the next few months/years? ] (]) 02:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::@] I don't hate it, I actually like it. ] ] 02:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::it seems like a good compromise, for consensus. ] ] 02:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::As I noted earlier I don't like piping from ] to ] (]) but this isn't an enormous problem. I'm fine with this. –] (] • ]) 18:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)


== Transphobic initial sentence ==
===Admin note===
{{admin note}} Out of an abundance of caution, I've decided to protect the article for three days. But if you figure this out sooner, let me know and I'll unprotect it early. ] 14:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


The first sentence, "A woman is an adult female human." is inherently transphobic and feeds the transphobic rhetoric that only females can be women. It should be more inclusive from the get go and less bigoted. ] (]) 13:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
===Moving on===
:The footnote shows that "female" can refer to gender as well, and in any case, this definition is what is used in reliable sources. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 23:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Our goal is simple: we should have images that allow readers to identify the topic as quickly as possible. When social differences between men and women are minimized, biology becomes a primary, if not the main, difference between the two sexes. If the point of confusion is that the current lead image is more suitable for ] than ], then Netoholic has a point. The current lead image on ] does not show any occupation (echoing Kolya Butternut's point above at ]; it should not be hard to find a similar image that shows a woman.
:While this very succinct sentence was not necessarily historically intended as transphobic, it has indeed become very problematic today, and is now used as a political slogan, for example by the Trump administration and in anti-trans campaigns. If you google "adult human female," most results are related to anti-trans activism. While it is correct that "female" includes trans women in modern definitions, I don't believe mentioning this in a ''footnote'' is sufficient in a situation where, for example, the Trump-led White House now uses the term specifically to exclude trans women.
:Another problem is that the definition is overly simplistic, regardless of its anti-trans connotations today, and relies too much on somewhat narrow and outdated sources. For example, it cited two rather random and somewhat outdated sources, including a nearly two-decades-old Pocket Dictionary of Medicine. In medicine, up-to-date sources are considered very important and a Pocket Dictionary from the early 2000s is not considered a good source today, and medicine is not the only perspective that we need to take into account. The social and cultural dimensions are equally important. I understand the desire to have a succinct definition, but it should not be at the expense of accuracy and sensitivity. I therefore propose a slightly amended version that takes into account both the above concerns and how "female" is now defined, as explained by the footnote, as well as the coverage in the body of the article. I believe this version is more informative for readers, in addition to addressing the potential insensitivity of the current version:
:{{tq|"A woman is an ] ] who identifies as ], encompassing a range of ] identities, cultural roles, and biological experiences."}}
:--] (]) 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::We've had this debate about a bazillion times. Just because Trump uses it as the definition doesn't mean ours suddenly has to change; that'd be awful reactionary of us. I am not opposed to dropping the footnote content out of the footnote though. ] <sup>]</sup>] 20:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::That may very well be, but the usage and implied meaning of this term has evolved significantly in recent years, making it much more problematic than it once was, and old discussions from half a decade ago carry less weight today. And even if we ignore the insensitivity of the definition today, it lacks nuance and is somewhat outdated and simplistic. --] (]) 20:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I've tried my hand at ] that just drops the footnote content into the lead. I think some more brainstorming may be necessary on the whole though, and we should be conscientious that the first para of ] and Woman should mirror each other. ] <sup>]</sup>] 20:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Moving it out of the footnote was an improvement compared to the older version, at least. --] (]) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::While upmerging the footnote is still better than version, I also agree that changing this now is far too reactive; plus, changing something due to Trump isn't in line with Misplaced Pages policy and is awfully Americentric. I don't see any evidence that the existing definition's meaning is any different than it was the last time this was discussed. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


:::::The version by CaptainEek should be reinstated. There is absolutely no reason to relegate the sentence about gender that is already in the article to a footnote. Apart from that, we need to continue the discussion on how the sentence can become more sensitive and accurate, and avoid any implicit trans-exclusionary bias. It is well known that "adult human female" (and similar terms) has been utilized as an anti-trans slogan for years, since 2018, long before "woman means adult human female" was adopted by Trump as one of his core policies announced on the day of his inauguration, along with a host of discriminatory policies. If you google the term, you get only results about anti-trans discourse, including an anti-trans film . This has nothing to do with being "Americentric." The term is well known globally as an anti-trans slogan, notably from the United Kingdom. --] (]) 23:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
If we don't want a lead image showing a random human being, and the main goal is to avoid having ] as the topmost image, there are many possible solutions. One is to move ] upwards so that it appears above the image of the female reproductive system. The other is to add an image in the sections above. For example, either of ], ] or ] can be added to the History section. ] (]) 07:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:03, 20 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Woman article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
Censorship warningMisplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.
Lead image

Important Note: The most appropriate image to use at the top of this article has been a highly controversial issue with many valid viewpoints. The current lead image was chosen by an RfC on 5/26/2021.

A gallery and discussion of potential lead images is also available here. New images may be added there.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about Wording of lede, Definition of woman and Self contradiction in lede. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting on that topic, and read through the list of highlighted discussions below before starting a new one:
This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAnthropology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconSociology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGender studies Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconFeminism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
WikiProject iconWomen's History Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen's sport High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Misplaced Pages. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Section sizes
Section size for Woman (35 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 4,239 4,239
Etymology 3,171 3,171
Terminology 5,168 5,168
Biology 615 19,909
Genetic characteristics 2,177 2,177
Hormonal characteristics, menstruation and menopause 6,577 6,577
Morphological and physiological characteristics 5,189 5,189
Circulatory system 2,223 2,223
Sex distribution 746 746
Intersex women 2,382 2,382
Sexuality and gender 6,102 6,102
Health 2,911 12,945
Maternal mortality 4,890 4,890
Life expectancy 2,670 2,670
Reproductive rights 2,474 2,474
Femininity 3,031 3,031
History 4,710 4,710
Culture and gender roles 5,071 17,946
Religion 928 928
Violence against women 11,947 11,947
Clothing, fashion and dress codes 1,777 1,777
Fertility and family life 6,696 6,696
Education 5,219 5,767
Literacy 548 548
Government and politics 2,314 2,314
Science, literature and art 181 6,548
Science and medicine 1,142 1,142
Literature 555 555
Music 4,670 4,670
Gender symbol 1,103 1,103
See also 310 310
Notes 41 41
References 30 30
Further reading 1,107 1,107
External links 692 692
Total 103,606 103,606
Daily pageviews of this article (experimental)Pageviews summary: size=76, age=40, days=75, min=1319, max=2352, latest=1630. The pageviews file file is stale; please update it; see § Instructions.

On "wermann"

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

You appear to be correct. For those interested, here are some such discussions . I've gone and made an edit (Special:Diff/1216741813) which replaces the specious wermann with wer (apparently the most common OE word for male/man) and wǣpnedmann, which is attested occasionally as the analogue to wifmann. I hope this looks acceptable.
I think the Dictionary.com link is rotten, as it no longer contains the information we're citing it for. If anyone has access to the OED or another source which verifies this etymology, please verify this text if possible. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

GENSEX enforcement vs. generic vandalism. Dronebogus (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Also because trolls and bigots perseverate more on people assigned male at birth who are either gay/bi/pan or trans. Transwomen are targeted more than transmen and thus this article gets more trolls. Here's an article: EvergreenFir (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The page has had ECP since July 2023. At that time the article and talk had some targeted vandalism from sockpuppets that had gamed autoconfirmation. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 04:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

A new departure required for this article (and others)

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

The Guardian points out:

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

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

The Beeb draws attention to the significance of this judgement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The judgment is from a single Australian court and legal definitions don't necessarily override biological, social, or historical understandings of womanhood. The article currently presents multiple viewpoints, including both traditional and evolving definitions of womanhood. Legal definitions serve specific purposes and may not encompass the full complexity of biological, social, and cultural understandings of womanhood. The concept of woman has deep cultural, historical, and biological roots that extend beyond legal definitions.
Misplaced Pages should aim to present mainstream knowledge and established facts. A single court case does not warrant an immediate overhaul of a fundamental concept. The article should reflect various perspectives, including traditional definitions alongside emerging views. Drastically changing the article based on one legal decision is overreactive.
Major changes should be based on broad scholarly and societal consensus, not single events. The current article already includes information on gender identity and the evolving understanding of sex and gender in the opening section. Adding information about this court case and its implications could be done without completely reframing the entire article. The implications of this ruling might be better covered in a separate article or section, rather than reframing the entire concept of woman. ViolanteMD (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
That's a great response. Thanks for taking the time. I'm broadly very with you but I think, given the 'lean' that what we consider to be RS have it's a discussion we need to have.
Let's see if any other editors have a view. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
It's not even clear what would need to be changed, but regardless, I agree with ViolanteMD that it is not warranted to reframe anything at this time. The content in the article is based on reliable sources on the topic, of which there are extremely many; a court case isn't going to impact that much. Crossroads 22:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
It's not exactly a revolutionary position either. For many legal purposes, gender/sex is defined as something that can be reassigned, rather than what you were born as. Anywikiuser (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

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

@Crossroads

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

There's no rule that says we have to copy the exact wording from another article. The point to be made in this paragraph is that gender assignment doesn't necessarily align with gender identity. "Trans women have a gender identity that does not align with their sex assignment" is true, verifiable, concise, and relevant to the specific point. If the point of the paragraph were to insist that trans women really are True™ women, despite the contrary POV held by some people, then we might want to reconsider that, but I think this is enough for the actual point of the paragraph. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Given the multiple 200KB RfCs related to this phrase (newcomers, see Talk:Trans woman/Archive 4, Talk:Trans woman/Archive 10, Talk:Trans woman/Definitions and bring a snack) it seems prudent for this article to reflect the consensus—rather, the status-quo in the absence of consensus—at Trans woman. The validity of trans womanhood within Wikivoice is, if not a shut case, then something I'm very tired of reading centralized discussions about. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 04:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
An RFC about what to say in the MOS:FIRST sentence of a different article has no bearing on what to say elsewhere in a different article.
Your comment has reminded me of a discussion earlier this year (probably related to WP:LOCALCON) about whether editors have an RFC on one page and then assert that the decision at Article A applies to all articles. I was skeptical that editors actually tried that, but you have just proven that they do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
This sentence is summarizing a sub-topic, (and could be WP:SYNCed using an Excerpt) if we weren't also pluralizing and combining it with a definition of Intersex), I think the phrasing at the target article is definitely relevant (if not binding). I think those past discussions are relevant here, if not binding. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 14:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
This (half) sentence in the lead connects to (most of) a single paragraph in the body, which does not really feel like a WP:SUMMARY situation to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing That's true that there's no rule for it having to do that, however I see no reason for it not to mirror the phrasing from its own article.
The thing with that sentence is that it doesn't establish the relationship to the topic, and can leave readers confused about the relation to the article. Establishing the relationship to the article of a category of woman is far more clear than the current version.
Additionally, I don't see much underlying reasoning for removing it other than the belief that they AREN'T. Which, The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered. (from WP:UNDUE). The point of the paragraph is to highlight the existence of two specific types of women and provide a definition for them.
Your sentence proposal of "Trans women have a gender identity that does not align with their sex assignment" doesn't work as a definition, because the definition form would therefore be "(someone) who has a gender identity that doesn't align with their sex assignment" which is too broad.
Also for RoxySaunders' reasoning that it 'makes it semantically clear that we are defining a term, not merely making an observation.'. A Socialist Trans Girl 10:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't think this article needs to define trans women. I think it needs to provide information about trans women.
BTW, what you have called "my sentence proposal" is what the article said before your recent efforts to change it. 10 years ago, trans women were barely name-checked in the lead as an example of women who could not give birth. Five years ago, this article said "Some women are trans (those who have a male sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity), or intersex (those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female)." For a while, it said "Trans women are those who...". The "have" language appeared soon after that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing Well there's not much point in providing information about trans women to the readers if we dont even say what trans women are, definitionally speaking. A Socialist Trans Girl 23:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I prefer the explicit women are women who... forms. Given the apparent challenge these identities present toward more simplistic models of sex and gender, their respective womanhood does bear repeating. The perceived redundancy in Transgender women are women who... makes it semantically clear that we are defining a term, not merely making an observation. This is helpful for orienting lay readers who may initially misunderstand "transgender women" as "AFAB transgender people". –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 04:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I stand by what I said in my edit summary, which is that "women are women" is redundant/poor writing. The lead sentence of trans woman and the sentences here on trans women serve different purposes; one defines the topic of that article, while the other describes a subset of the people described in this article. It is already established in this article that women are being talked about.
It is not the case that it doesn't establish the relationship to the topic; the term 'trans women' contains the word 'women' already. Nor will readers possibly be confused by thinking of AFAB transgender people, as it immediately defines the term with Transgender women were assigned male at birth and have a female gender identity.
My edit also slimmed down "intersex women are women who...", for the same reason. Crossroads 22:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
@Crossroads How is it poor writing?
And the purpose is to define a type of subset of woman. A Socialist Trans Girl 23:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I see where Crossroads is coming from, because it does feel a bit redundant. "The department of redundancy department is the department that..." I would usually agree that it's subpar writing. But I think I'm this case an exception is warranted given the context. I'm sure I've explained this train of thought before, and probably more eloquently, but I think there is actually a fair bit of semantic confusion around the term "trans woman" or "trans man" that doesn't occur with say the phrase "black woman." This is hardly scientific, but my observation has been that a lot of folks think trans woman means trans man and vice versa. So I think making the somewhat ungrammatical choice is actually the superior choice. CaptainEek ⚓ 00:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
TLDR: keep it the way it was :) CaptainEek ⚓ 00:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
@CaptainEek, I think you will have to specify when "the way it was". Until a few weeks ago, the lead said:
"Trans women have a gender identity that does not align with their male sex assignment at birth, while intersex women may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology."
A couple of years before that, it said:
"Trans women have a male sex assignment at birth that does not align with their gender identity, while intersex women may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology."
If we go back five years, it said:
"Some women are trans (those who have a male sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity), or intersex (those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female)."
The "women are women" language was introduced recently by A Socialist Trans Girl, and it was removed less than three hours later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Hmmm, I guess I misread the edits then. I'd have to go back and see what I said in the previous discussions. CaptainEek ⚓ 01:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
As I'm sure most of us remember, and as A Socialist Trans Girl and others have alluded to above, this same question has been debated extensively over at Trans woman. The longstanding consensus attained there resulted in the following wording: Transgender women (often shortened to trans women) are women who were assigned male at birth. There is of course no requirement that different articles describe a term in the same way, but I think we would be wise to observe the previously-attained consensus. It is, as far as I can tell, exactly the same question being asked here as was there -- contrary to some assertions made by others here, I don't see any meaningful difference between the two articles that would invalidate the consensus achieved by the community there.
To lay things out explicitly, the only argument raised against inclusion of trans women are women who... seems to be that it's redundant. I think we're missing something, though -- in my reading, there are two important semantic differences between the following two sentences.
A: Trans women were assigned male at birth...
B: Trans women are women who were assigned male at birth...
Sentence A states only that trans women were assigned male at birth. Sentence B states three things:
1. Trans women were assigned male are birth.
2. (new) Women who were assigned male at birth are trans women.
3. (new) Trans women are women.
I think the second item is most important here: consider the difference between "Mome raths sleep at night" and "Mome raths are raths that sleep at night". The first merely tells us a fact about mome raths, while the second tells us that the category of mome raths is defined by the practice of sleeping at night. If you wanted a sentence that expressed items 1 and 2 but not 3 (as some did at the RfC), you could say trans women are people who were assigned male at birth... (to be clear, I would oppose this wording, because the tiptoeing around item 3 communicates to readers that it's false, which runs counter to what our reliable sources say). I anticipate that some will argue that item 3 above is tautological -- "of course trans women are women, it's in the name!". To those people, I would point you to the previous RfC, where, while the community did rightly conclude that it was proper to describe trans women as women, many editors hotly debated this categorization. (Of course, we write for our readers, not our editors, but I think the RfC is illustrative that many people out there are confused about this fact).
Now, the good news for us is that, backed by the Trans woman RfC, it seems we all agree that statements 1, 2 and 3 are supported by proportional usage in reliable sources. We have some slight disagreement about whether item 3 needs to be explicitly stated, or if it can be implied, but we're already on track for a nice consensus. So the question just becomes how best to express them. As I've said above, I think the current state of the article fails. I think there's a few good ways we could do this, though. I think ASTG's suggestion is a good one -- that would probably be my first choice. I also have no major issue with the previous state of this article as CaptainEek points to: Some women are trans (those who have a male sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity), or intersex (those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female) (though perhaps it's more accurate to put the sex assignment bit in past tense). Srey Sros 00:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
The "Some women are trans" language wasn't something CaptainEek mentioned, and I don't know whether they prefer it. That's just what the article said five years ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
That's correct - I don't know if Eek likes it or not either, but I credit them with pointing to it nonetheless. Srey Sros 01:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
The RfC you linked to says: On the whole, there is consensus that both option 1 and option 2 are superior to other presented options. There is no consensus as to whether option 1 or option 2 is preferable. In the absence of affirmative consensus, the status quo (which appears to be option 1) holds.; that RfC was from 6 years ago. The RfC from a year ago says There is no consensus between proposal 1 and proposal 2. So there really isn't a solid, "longstanding consensus attained", just no consensus defaulting to the status quo in both RfCs, which is the A trans woman is a woman wording at the Trans woman article. Anyway, that aside, I'm fine with how the trans women sentence is currently worded on this article, but my preferred phrasing would be something along the lines of: Women who are transgender have a male sex assignment that does not align with their female gender identity... or Women who are transgender were assigned male at birth and have a female gender identity... Some1 (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
In this version we'd be linking Transgender instead of Trans woman (less specific), unless we blue the whole phrase women who are transgender. I like the intent but this strikes my ear as an overextension of person-first language. Anyone remember the "people with Frenchness" debacle? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 16:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

(sorry for the late comment! i've jsut been a bit busy :<)@user:some1 @user:SreySros @user:WhatamIdoing @user:CaptainEek @user:Crossrpads @user:RoxySaunders It appears we have a consesnus against the current wording, so should we change it? WP:CON states taht consensus involves an efofrt to address editors legitimate concerns, and I think that has been done?

I don't want to use the language from Trans woman in the lead, but perhaps somewhere in the body. I prefer "a transgender woman is an adult who was assigned male at birth but whose gender identity is female", as in Dictionary.com. @user:Crossroads may not agree with the proposed change either. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut, do you think the purpose here is to provide a definition of trans woman, or to provide information about how certain parts of this subject relate to the whole?
To use a different subject matter as an example, are we trying to say:
  • Cats are animals. Domestic cats can live with people, and big cats are wild animals.
  • Cats are animals. Some cats are domestic cats, and other cats are big cats.
  • Cats are animals. Big cats are cats that are defined by the structure of their vocal cords.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Please share your answer to your question if you would like a response. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
My inclination, as I have said several times above, is to not provide a definition. I would rank these 'cats' options 2-1-3 myself, but I think that either of the first two are preferable to the third option. And you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
It's probably better to not provide a definition of trans woman, especially since the definition at Trans woman doesn't have much consensus. I guess I agree with your first comment in this talk page section. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
I would be fine with "Some women are transgender..."; it's a slight improvement over the current wording considering the paragraph starts off with "Most women are cisgender". I went ahead and made the edit. Some1 (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
@Some1 Honestly, I completely agree with this.
It 1. Clearly establishes relation to the topic
2. It has good readability
3. I believe it effectively addresses the concerns of editors, as is needed for consensus.
I'd like to see what @WhatamIdoing and @Kolya Butternut think of this proposal, and hopefully we can form a consensus. A Socialist Trans Girl 06:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
I tweaked the sentences a bit to reduce redundancy. Feel free to revert if those edits I've made (e.g., Some women are transgender, meaning they were assigned male at birth) are not improvements over the prior version (Transgender women were assigned male at birth and have a female gender identity). Some1 (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut wait whats your reasoning for not wanting to use the current definition, or MW's definition of "a woman who was identified (assigned) as male at birth"? :3 A Socialist Trans Girl 06:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Because the phrase "trans women are women" is redundant, and because it is highly controversial it would require a strong consensus finding it meets NPOV. What's your reasoning for wanting to use this language? Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
We've gone through this before, and whatever else it may be, the phrase "trans women are women" is not redundant. Mathglot (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Tautological then? Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut a tautology is definitionally redundant. Which we just established it isn't. The phrasing of " is a ..." is commonly used on wikipedia.
For an example to make this more clear, the article moon rock says that moon rock is rock originating from earths moon. And while it could be changed to say 'Moon rock originates from earth's moon' in order to account for the POV of people who think the moon is made of cheese or something, there's no need to do that because 1. it's not supported by any RS, and 2. even if some obscure or some old RS says that, it doesn't matter.
Not saying you want to account for the view of moon-cheeseists in the article for moon rock or anything, rather the opposite; it's using the fact that you (presumably and hopefully at least) don't think we should do so to demonstrate how it's the same for this article.
i probably couldve written the last too paragraphs in less words, sorry A Socialist Trans Girl 12:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
I can see how it's redundant:
> Trans women are women who were assigned male at birth and have a female gender identity.
> Trans women are adult female humans who were assigned male at birth and have a female gender identity.
> Female: "In humans, the word female can also be used to refer to gender in the social sense of gender role or gender identity."
> Trans women are adult humans with a female gender identity who were assigned male at birth and have a female gender identity.
Some1 (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut well it's not really controversial at all, as Misplaced Pages only considers RS.
Personally I merely prefer that phrasing to must saying 'Trans woman were...' as that just seems like it's listing a random fact without establishing the relation to the article. I quite like the phrasing of "Some women are transgender, meaning they...", what do you think it?
Additionally, for it to be found to violate NPOV, first there actually has to be RS cited which opposes it. A Socialist Trans Girl 12:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
The RFC at Trans woman over this language was indeed controversial. It is a tautology, because "woman" has two different meanings. If we just look at Merriam-Webster, we can interpret the word to be defined as an adult ... person ... of ... the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs and an adult ... person ... having a gender identity that is the opposite of male. If we say "trans women are women", it is not clear whether we are saying that trans women are both women and men, or trans women are just adults with a female gender identity, so we should not say that unless the sources clarify that for us. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps "circular" is a more accurate descriptor than tautological. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
If you put a period after it: "Trans women are women ." and that's the end of the sentence, then yes. But I don't believe that anyone is calling for that. If you have a predicate clause after: ("Trans women are women who + <descriptive clause>") then it is not circular or tautological, for the same reasons as redudant. Clearly you have some kind of objection to having the word women in the sentence twice, but other than subscribing to the debunked journalistic trope of elegant variation, I don't see what it is. That said, I lost track of who first suggested no definition is needed here because it is given at the linked article, but I agree. That also solves the issue about whether or not the two articles need to use the same wording (they don't, but why use any wording at all here? This article's topic is not trans women, and no definition is needed, as long as it is linked). Mathglot (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
@Mathglot well trans women isn't the focus of the article, but is within the scope. And if we weren't to have a definition, wouldn't it just be "Trans women exist.", or just omitting it infavour of just mentioning them in a see also? Because in the first case, I don't think that's very helpful to the reader, and additionally, in the first and second case, I don't think that WP:DUE weight is being given. A Socialist Trans Girl 05:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Just because a concept is within scope of the artcle is no reason to define it; that's why we have wikilinks, where a definition can be found for those interested. The lead of this article has 277 words and 44 links; if we defined all of them (or even a small percentage of them) the lead would become cluttered and unwieldy. Some of the linked words if the lead lacking any definition include: female, human, sex, gender, fertile, puberty, sex differentiation, male, man, sex assignment, and intersex, and I fail to see any convincing reason why trans woman requires a definition, when these words (and the other 30 linked words) in the lead do not. Mathglot (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
@Mathglot That makes sense. Could you please clarify what you would like to replace the existing sentence(s) with? Perhaps just 'Some women are trans women.'? Or something else A Socialist Trans Girl 00:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut That's not a tautology, nor is it circular. I think that trying to determine based on the definition of woman is WP:SYNTH; MW's definition for trans woman is clear.
Sorry what? If we say "trans women are women who..." then it's completely clear what we're saying, that being saying that 'trans women are a category of women, who....'. I don't understand your point with that.
The sources DO clarify that, MW's definition of trans woman says that they're 'women who...'. I don't understand how those two implications could be derived from 'trans women are women who...' A Socialist Trans Girl 05:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Replying to you and Mathglot, saying Trans women are women who... is unclear because the meaning of women is difficult and unclear. A moon rock is a rock, and the other examples in Mathglot's list are not analogous because it is obvious what rock, etc., mean. Trans women are women who... just leads to the question of what is a woman, so we should get as clear as we can. But of course there's still the question of this language being DUE and NPOV. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
This is a variation of the oft argued issue. Everyone agrees that a woman is a woman. Some people think that biological sex is the defining factor in deciding which people are women and which aren't. Some don't. So soon we will (hopefully) have a definitive legal view and can put this one to bed.
Judges at the Supreme Court are considering how exactly women are defined in law Lukewarmbeer (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Last I checked, the UK who has a history of 21st-century anti-trans movement in the United Kingdom does not define this for the world. Raladic (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
All kinds of despicable and wrong things have been enshrined as law at one time or another. UK courts are reliable sources for laws in the UK. Even without the context of the incredible and pervasive transphobia in Anglo/Scottish culture, I don't see why their opinion would be "definitive" for the text of this or any article. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 22:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
@Lukewarmbeer 1. Law doesn't matter for this, as it's a social construct, not a legal concept.
2. other countries exist! A Socialist Trans Girl 00:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut so then you can start a new talk page section about the article answering that question. However RS says that trans women are indeed women (duh), so for the paragraph in question I think it's irrelevant. Plus, determining if they are based on what the article defines women as would be WP:SYNTH, it just matters what RS says. A Socialist Trans Girl 00:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
You're not responding to something I said. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut I am! You said "saying Trans women are women who... is unclear because the meaning of women is difficult and unclear" and ""Trans women are women who..". just leads to the question of what is a woman, so we should get as clear as we can.". Or am I misreading? A Socialist Trans Girl 01:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
As I attempted to say, your response was not responding to a correct interpretation of my words. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut Apologies, could you rephrase what you said so I can understand the intended meaning? A Socialist Trans Girl 02:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Writing in this article that Trans women are women who... is confusing for our readers because the meaning of women is not simple for them to understand. Trans women are women who... just leads them to ask the question of what is a woman, so we should be as clear as we can. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut so.. are you saying the article should further answer that question? If so, then thats a different discussion.
Plus, that's kinda how people get to know what words mean. One can point to different types of chairs and go "chair", and then someone who doesn't speak the language can get more of an understanding of what a chair is.
Regardless, RS says it, and I think you're probably underestimating readers. If they're confused, they can just click the blue link and then understand what trans woman means, and there's no confusion. A Socialist Trans Girl 00:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Unless someone actively objects to the current version, I don't think that it's necessary to continue debating/explaining/talking past each other. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing I think thats for the best to be honest. I don't think any progress towards consensus is being made in this line of discussion with kolya A Socialist Trans Girl 00:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
This is the current version:
"Some women are transgender, meaning they were assigned male at birth, while some women are intersex, meaning they have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology."
Does anyone really hate this version? Or is this something we can all live with for the next few months/years? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing I don't hate it, I actually like it. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
it seems like a good compromise, for consensus. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
As I noted earlier I don't like piping from transgender to Trans woman (MOS:EASTEREGG) but this isn't an enormous problem. I'm fine with this. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 18:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Transphobic initial sentence

The first sentence, "A woman is an adult female human." is inherently transphobic and feeds the transphobic rhetoric that only females can be women. It should be more inclusive from the get go and less bigoted. TheZelos (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The footnote shows that "female" can refer to gender as well, and in any case, this definition is what is used in reliable sources. Crossroads 23:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
While this very succinct sentence was not necessarily historically intended as transphobic, it has indeed become very problematic today, and is now used as a political slogan, for example by the Trump administration and in anti-trans campaigns. If you google "adult human female," most results are related to anti-trans activism. While it is correct that "female" includes trans women in modern definitions, I don't believe mentioning this in a footnote is sufficient in a situation where, for example, the Trump-led White House now uses the term specifically to exclude trans women.
Another problem is that the definition is overly simplistic, regardless of its anti-trans connotations today, and relies too much on somewhat narrow and outdated sources. For example, it cited two rather random and somewhat outdated sources, including a nearly two-decades-old Pocket Dictionary of Medicine. In medicine, up-to-date sources are considered very important and a Pocket Dictionary from the early 2000s is not considered a good source today, and medicine is not the only perspective that we need to take into account. The social and cultural dimensions are equally important. I understand the desire to have a succinct definition, but it should not be at the expense of accuracy and sensitivity. I therefore propose a slightly amended version that takes into account both the above concerns and how "female" is now defined, as explained by the footnote, as well as the coverage in the body of the article. I believe this version is more informative for readers, in addition to addressing the potential insensitivity of the current version:
"A woman is an adult human who identifies as female, encompassing a range of gender identities, cultural roles, and biological experiences."
--Tataral (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
We've had this debate about a bazillion times. Just because Trump uses it as the definition doesn't mean ours suddenly has to change; that'd be awful reactionary of us. I am not opposed to dropping the footnote content out of the footnote though. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
That may very well be, but the usage and implied meaning of this term has evolved significantly in recent years, making it much more problematic than it once was, and old discussions from half a decade ago carry less weight today. And even if we ignore the insensitivity of the definition today, it lacks nuance and is somewhat outdated and simplistic. --Tataral (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I've tried my hand at a version that just drops the footnote content into the lead. I think some more brainstorming may be necessary on the whole though, and we should be conscientious that the first para of Man and Woman should mirror each other. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Moving it out of the footnote was an improvement compared to the older version, at least. --Tataral (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
While upmerging the footnote is still better than this version, I also agree that changing this now is far too reactive; plus, changing something due to Trump isn't in line with Misplaced Pages policy and is awfully Americentric. I don't see any evidence that the existing definition's meaning is any different than it was the last time this was discussed. Crossroads 22:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
The version by CaptainEek should be reinstated. There is absolutely no reason to relegate the sentence about gender that is already in the article to a footnote. Apart from that, we need to continue the discussion on how the sentence can become more sensitive and accurate, and avoid any implicit trans-exclusionary bias. It is well known that "adult human female" (and similar terms) has been utilized as an anti-trans slogan for years, since 2018, long before "woman means adult human female" was adopted by Trump as one of his core policies announced on the day of his inauguration, along with a host of discriminatory policies. If you google the term, you get only results about anti-trans discourse, including an anti-trans film . This has nothing to do with being "Americentric." The term is well known globally as an anti-trans slogan, notably from the United Kingdom. --Tataral (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Woman: Difference between revisions Add topic